# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  I don't believe in Jesus Christ

## Schifference

This is for all the people that don't believe in God. God is business. People choose to sell god to people for profit & personal gain. Wars are fought for god. Thank god for the rain when there is a drought and thank him for the sun when there is a flood. What about the countless hours mumbling words in ones head pretending to be talking to the almighty? What about all the cash? I believe in humanity & treating everyone with respect and dignity. I don't need god to be honest or righteous. I don't need god to be a good parent or to know what is right or wrong. My conscience is fine without god. I am at peace with myself & my loved ones and will accept my destiny at the time of my demise. I am happy to be honest to myself for not being a hypocrite and pretending to believe in something that I don't believe in. I wonder how many - reps I get from being honest. I accept every one of them. I wonder how a christian would feel if I - rep them for believing in god.

----------


## eduardo89

> I don't need god to be honest or righteous. I don't need god to be a good parent or to know what is right or wrong.


An atheist may be capable of acting morally, but they will never know why they are acting morally or why that action is moral.

----------


## fisharmor

Yes you do... you just don't like him.

----------


## torchbearer

> Yes you do... you just don't like him.


Maybe he believe in jesus, but not the christ.
he didn't fit the prophecy of daniel.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Welcome to the thread on RonPaulForums in which Ron Paul is not welcome

----------


## presence

I take a more pragmatic view on religion:

Saying you don't believe in JC is like saying,

 "I don't believe in Humpty Dumpty."


Its just a lesson; a way of tuning yourself.  




...all of the kings horses and all of the kings men...

----------


## willwash

> This is for all the people that don't believe in God. God is business. People choose to sell god to people for profit & personal gain. Wars are fought for god. Thank god for the rain when there is a drought and thank him for the sun when there is a flood. What about the countless hours mumbling words in ones head pretending to be talking to the almighty? What about all the cash? I believe in humanity & treating everyone with respect and dignity. I don't need god to be honest or righteous. I don't need god to be a good parent or to know what is right or wrong. My conscience is fine without god. I am at peace with myself & my loved ones and will accept my destiny at the time of my demise. I am happy to be honest to myself for not being a hypocrite and pretending to believe in something that I don't believe in. I wonder how many - reps I get from being honest. I accept every one of them. I wonder how a christian would feel if I - rep them for believing in god.


I'd like to direct you to the thinking of Thomas Jefferson.  He identified many of the corruptions of organized religion that you've identified and repudiated them all.  His thinking led him down a purely rational path, and indeed he ended up rejecting much of Christian dogma on the basis of his rational thinking...he even parsed the bible to remove what he saw as irrational dogma.  This being said, he still believed in the moral teachings of Jesus and believed this to be the only true basis of what is Christian.  Thus he still considered himself a Christian.
I agree with my man TJ.
What say you.

----------


## Schifference

I believe in righteousness. I believe in honesty. I willfully admit that I do not believe in god. I believe that a man named Jesus was born & lived on earth some 2k years ago but was no god. I believe that one day I will die and my life will end. No afterlife. No miracles. No divine interventions. Here today gone tomorrow. I believe there is spirituality without god. Meditation is good. I have faith in myself and people I trust.

----------


## green73

> An atheist may be capable of acting morally, but they will never know why they are acting morally or why that action is moral.


With all due respect, I disagree. l think we are born knowing right from wrong: it is inherent in all of us--save the socio/psychopaths. That is not to say a spiritual IQ doesn’t play a factor. It most certainly does, and atheists are typically rudderless in this respect and join on to any number of hideous beliefs.

----------


## Schifference

I am the furthest thing from rudderless. I know my course and am in control of my life. I take and accept responsibility for all my actions. I have 4 children and am honored to have an honest open relationship with my children. They can discuss anything with me or my wife. They are responsible for their behavior and I do not care what they have done but only care that they are honest with me. My oldest daughter graduated high school with a 5.35GPA and was fluent in Spanish, French, & German. My 16 year old son is #1 in his school. My 14 year old daughter tests off the charts. My totally gifted 24 year old son chose to be a class clown and is maturing. But all of them can talk to me any time about anything. When the chips are down and they want a taste of reality they always come to Dad.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I am the furthest thing from rudderless. I know my course and am in control of my life. I take and accept responsibility for all my actions. I have 4 children and am honored to have an honest open relationship with my children. They can discuss anything with me or my wife. They are responsible for their behavior and I do not care what they have done but only care that they are honest with me. My oldest daughter graduated high school with a 5.35GPA and was fluent in Spanish, French, & German. My 16 year old son is #1 in his school. My 14 year old daughter tests off the charts. My totally gifted 24 year old son chose to be a class clown and is maturing. But all of them can talk to me any time about anything. When the chips are down and they want a taste of reality they always come to Dad.


Okay, what is your secret?  A happy marriage and four successful kids.  That is just fantastic.

----------


## Schifference

> Okay, what is your secret?  A happy marriage and four successful kids.  That is just fantastic.


Honesty & ownership of responsibility. Raising kids is easy! Teach them when they are young because once they begin to mature they will know more than me. Teach children math ASAP. Math is Logic. Chores are responsibility. No such thing as allowance. They already get all their needs met. Telling my 16 year old son that he needs to contact MIT and get a full scholarship. He can go to UCONN for free but why settle for less. He gets 101 in advanced Pre Cal. 99 in advanced Bio..... I cannot afford tuition. If he wants to be the best he needs to go to the best school for free. I teach my kids that they need to floss their teeth because they are their teeth. I don't care if they do or not but if they don't they will become adults and have gum disease and problems that could be avoided it is their choice. Honestly I don't care it is their choice. I have the best marriage ever! No control issues. People in this house make decisions but have to accept responsibility for those decisions.

----------


## Matt Collins

I cannot believe that I am about to engage in this sort of thread... political nonsense is bad enough, and now we are going to debate faith... yeah.



Anyway...




> God is business. People choose to sell god to people for profit & personal gain. Wars are fought for god. Thank god for the rain when there is a drought and thank him for the sun when there is a flood.


What do people's actions have to do with whether or not a deity exists? One is not dependent upon the other.




> pretending to believe in something that I don't believe in.


If you're talking about Jesus, it is pretty much accepted as historical fact that Jesus of Nazareth did in fact exist. Whether he was the Son of God as is claimed, well, is a matter of faith.

----------


## Schifference

Please refer to post 8

If you're talking about Jesus, it is pretty much accepted as historical fact that Jesus of Nazareth did in fact exist. Whether he was the Son of God as is claimed, well, is a matter of faith.[/QUOTE]

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Please refer to post 8
> 
> If you're talking about Jesus, it is pretty much accepted as historical fact that Jesus of Nazareth did in fact exist. Whether he was the Son of God as is claimed, well, is a matter of faith.


His name was Yeshua Ben Yosef. One of the problems I have with "organized" (for lack of a better word) religion. (mistranslations and misinterpretations)

I like this saying, "The Qu'ran and the Bible and the Torah, were all wrote with ink."

I am as righteous as I can be and live morally. Should there be an all knowing being, It will understand. It will understand my reservations through the life I've been born to as well as any sin I may have partaken in as I am only human and make mistakes. These people who say babies go to hell or damnation are absurd. God wouldn't be God if that were the case. He'd be another demon snake oil salesman trying to contract you for malevolent reasons. 

They preach God is some iron fist to smote you to fire for the slightest or trivialities. Not my God.

I am not a particularly religious man but I do accept the apparent fact that we didn't simply come into being. Something had a hand in our design. Why monkeys are monkeys and we are as we are. Who or for why I do not know or claim to know. How I look at it anyways. 

The good parts of any religion I can adhere to. (Thou shalt not murder) I just read the chapter in Liberty Defined titled Religion and Liberty. I can agree with Dr. Paul. (not that he espoused any of my views above, of course) He had a couple sections in that chapter that had the different religions and relevant quotations regarding different good morals; say, The Golden Rule, for example, or their version of the Ten Commandments. I can get behind a lot of it.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Please refer to post 8
> 
> If you're talking about Jesus, it is pretty much accepted as historical fact that Jesus of Nazareth did in fact exist. Whether he was the Son of God as is claimed, well, is a matter of faith.


[/QUOTE]

A lot of Jesus' existed during that time. A lot of Jesus' exist today, and a lot of them can be found a few miles from our border.

----------


## Schifference

LOL!
A lot of Jesus' existed during that time. A lot of Jesus' exist today, and a lot of them can be found a few miles from our border.[/QUOTE]

----------


## fr33

I don't believe the stories about Jesus anymore than I believe those about Paul Bunyan. Between the two I find Paul Bunyan's story to be more inspiring.

An omnipresent and omnipotent being that creates some sort of sick game in which most of his creations will never be informed about him during their life, is an $#@!. If the fables were true, then he created his own sick game in which we are the pawns. Then a man appears and says he has the ability to absolve wrong-doing regardless of whether the victims of crime receives justice.

----------


## robert9712000

Have you even once ever lusted at another woman in your heart since you've been married? If you have then your not righteous.Have you ever left work early but still put down a full days work,then your not righteous.Have you ever told a lie? if so ,then your not righteous.

 The point is,if your determining whats righteous based on your own opinion than naturally you'll think your a great guy,but to others based on the questions above they might consider you a adulterer,thief and a liar if you did any of those.If a person is left up to themselves to be there own judge of course there going to think they are a righteous person,because its easier than dealing with the never ending things in life that may seem little but are still sin. 

  Most good people without God just lack opportunity to be corrupt.If put in the right situation they may even surprise themselves how evil they can be when it comes to protecting there lifestyle they've grown accustom too or themselves if they feel threatened.

 People don't realize just how much a hand God has in life that protects you from going completely depraved.Your pride will tell you its because your a good man,but in your private times too yourself, of which you know no one can see ,you know how dark and twisted your thoughts can go if you allow them to have there place.

----------


## fr33

> Have you even once ever lusted at another woman in your heart since you've been married? If you have then your not righteous.Have you ever left work early but still put down a full days work,then your not righteous.Have you ever told a lie? if so ,then your not righteous.
> 
>  The point is,if your determining whats righteous based on your own opinion than naturally you'll think your a great guy,but to others based on the questions above they might consider you a adulterer,thief and a liar if you did any of those.If a person is left up to themselves to be there own judge of course there going to think they are a righteous person,because its easier than dealing with the never ending things in life that may seem little but are still sin. 
> 
>   Most good people without God just lack opportunity to be corrupt.If put in the right situation they may even surprise themselves how evil they can be when it comes to protecting there lifestyle they've grown accustom too or themselves if they feel threatened.
> 
>  People don't realize just how much a hand God has in life that protects you from going completely depraved.Your pride will tell you its because your a good man,but in your private times too yourself, of which you know no one can see ,you know how dark and twisted your thoughts can go if you allow them to have there place.


To be honest I think you are projecting your own weaknesses onto the rest of us.

----------


## DamianTV

> An atheist may be capable of acting morally, but they will never know why they are acting morally or why that action is moral.


Bull$#@!.

Concluding why behaving morally is simple: would I want the same thing to happen to me.

Would I want someone else to sell their God to me for their own profit or so they can feel good about themselves?  No.  Then why would I feel the need to do this to someone else?

The reason I behave morally is because I want to encourage others to behave morally.  Not because someone or something (God or Govt) will hold them accountable for their actions, but because it is wrong to cause another person to suffer unjustly.

----------


## bwlibertyman

Yeah it is interesting.  We do always look better when we judge ourselves by our own standards.  Anyone who knows God and has read his word knows that the standard is set so so high that we could never really ever be good enough.  I think that's what so cool about Jesus.  He took the place for our sins knowing that we'd never be able to do it ourselves.  Think of that love.  Think of sacrificing yourself or something for someone that just plain didn't deserve it.  That's what it's about.  It's about love.  I really think we're just blessed.  We don't deserve his grace but he gives it to us anyway.  All we have to do is believe.  

To Schiff, you don't have to believe man.  That's kind of alright but come on it's not like we can't all get along.  We're all different.  It's alright man I'll still show you some love.




> Have you even once ever lusted at another woman in your heart since you've been married? If you have then your not righteous.Have you ever left work early but still put down a full days work,then your not righteous.Have you ever told a lie? if so ,then your not righteous.
> 
>  The point is,if your determining whats righteous based on your own opinion than naturally you'll think your a great guy,but to others based on the questions above they might consider you a adulterer,thief and a liar if you did any of those.If a person is left up to themselves to be there own judge of course there going to think they are a righteous person,because its easier than dealing with the never ending things in life that may seem little but are still sin. 
> 
>   Most good people without God just lack opportunity to be corrupt.If put in the right situation they may even surprise themselves how evil they can be when it comes to protecting there lifestyle they've grown accustom too or themselves if they feel threatened.
> 
>  People don't realize just how much a hand God has in life that protects you from going completely depraved.Your pride will tell you its because your a good man,but in your private times too yourself, of which you know no one can see ,you know how dark and twisted your thoughts can go if you allow them to have there place.

----------


## bwlibertyman

I'll admit it.  I'm weak.  there's no way I could go without wanting or lusting after a cute girl or never being angry with my brother or some guy at work.  There's no way I could show love to everyone.  The bar is super high.  There's no way I'll reach it.  I am weak.




> To be honest I think you are projecting your own weaknesses onto the rest of us.

----------


## erowe1

> Bull$#@!.
> 
> Concluding why behaving morally is simple: would I want the same thing to happen to me.
> 
> Would I want someone else to sell their God to me for their own profit or so they can feel good about themselves?  No.  Then why would I feel the need to do this to someone else?
> 
> The reason I behave morally is because I want to encourage others to behave morally.  Not because someone or something (God or Govt) will hold them accountable for their actions, but because it is wrong to cause another person to suffer unjustly.


If there is no God then there cannot exist such a thing as morality.

I'm glad your recognize morality. But understand that when you do, you're disclaiming atheism.

----------


## DamianTV

> ...
> 
> I wonder how a christian would feel if I - rep them for believing in god.


They'd cry out that they were being persecuted, but genuinely believe it is not only acceptable but expected from them to -Rep anyone who doesnt have the exact same faith.  Religion is an excuse by people who claim to be moral to behave immorally because God is always on THEIR side.  Now, figure out which side I am talking about...

----------


## DamianTV

> If there is no God then there cannot exist such a thing as morality.
> 
> I'm glad your recognize morality. But understand that when you do, you're disclaiming atheism.


No offense but again, bull$#@!.

I do NOT need the existence of a God to be a good person.  Nor does believing that I am a good person somehow imply that I believe in god.  I dont, and I dont need people to shove words in my mouth.  God doesnt exist, and I am still a good person.

----------


## MRoCkEd

> I'll admit it.  I'm weak.  there's no way I could go without wanting or lusting after a cute girl or never being angry with my brother or some guy at work.  There's no way I could show love to everyone.  The bar is super high.  There's no way I'll reach it.  I am weak.


We all are. Thank God for Christ's sacrifice.

----------


## matt0611

> Bull$#@!.
> 
> Concluding why behaving morally is simple: would I want the same thing to happen to me.
> 
> Would I want someone else to sell their God to me for their own profit or so they can feel good about themselves?  No.  Then why would I feel the need to do this to someone else?
> 
> The reason I behave morally is because I want to encourage others to behave morally.  Not because someone or something (God or Govt) will hold them accountable for their actions, but because it is wrong to cause another person to suffer unjustly.


What if I don't care what you think?

What if I said I disagreed and wanted to kill you and all people like you because it pleases me and I don't like you. You can go ahead and tell me that I'm wrong and that you disagree with me but if I have the power and the means and the will and that's what I want then I really don't see how you can claim its objectively wrong for me to go ahead and do what I want. You say its wrong but I say its good and right. Its just my opinion vs yours and since I have the power I win.

And no theist I know of says you can't do good things without believing in God. I believe you can and can recognize good and evil.

----------


## erowe1

> I do NOT need the existence of a God to be a good person.  Nor does believing that I am a good person somehow imply that I believe in god.  I dont, and I dont need people to shove words in my mouth.  God doesnt exist, and I am still a good person.


If there is no God, then there's no such thing as a "good person" or even goodness. Edward Snowden's whistle blowing is no more morally good than wind hitting a rock, unless there's a God.

Of course this doesn't mean that atheists can never recognize moral goodness. Atheists, after all, are created in God's image.

----------


## fisharmor

> Bull$#@!.
> 
> Concluding why behaving morally is simple: would I want the same thing to happen to me.


You do realize you're paraphrasing Jesus, right?

----------


## eduardo89

> No offense but again, bull$#@!.
> 
> I do NOT need the existence of a God to be a good person.  Nor does believing that I am a good person somehow imply that I believe in god.  I dont, and I dont need people to shove words in my mouth.  God doesnt exist, and *I am still a good person*.


By what standard are you good?

----------


## DamianTV

> If there is no God, then there's no such thing as a "good person" or even goodness. Edward Snowden's whistle blowing is no more morally good than wind hitting a rock, unless there's a God.
> 
> Of course this doesn't mean that atheists can never recognize moral goodness. Atheists, after all, are created in God's image.


Twisting facts to support a desired conclusion is just as frequenty enacted by Politicians, Pollsters, and Marketers.  Thus, when asked do you believe in God and a person says "No but I still believe I am a good person", the interpreter will interpret this as the person believing in god.  Big problem is that it will go on record as such, and purposefully misrepresents the person who flat out said they do not believe in god.

I do believe that Speed Cams are also immoral.  A pollster like Frank Lutz will come along and purposefully misinterpret ANY statement I make to support the conclusion he wants to show.  "I do not support Speed Cameras of any kind" will be interpreted by Frank Lutz with his twisting of facts and interpretation of my statement to go on record as "I fully support Speed Cameras of Every Kind".

Wanna know why I am an Atheist?  Try going to a Catholic School when you are five years old having the same name as the Son of Satan.  

Thats all it took for me to recognize that the "Love" that is purportedly demanded by practically every religion is nothing but an excuse to Hate.  At the time, I wasnt catholic.  I was five.  And I was still able to recognize even at that age that Religion is validation for Hate hiding behind the guise of Love.  As I grew older, I started to see deeper into this pattern of Hate from Religions.  It has nothing to do with God.  It has everything to do with providing many people (not singling anyone out here) an excuse to commit the most heinous and immoral acts one can imagine and use Frank Lutz fact twisting logic to turn those immoral actions into falsely validated and falsely moral conclusions.  With less verbal diahhrea, religion is abused by many people to hide their own guilt from themselves and others of same / simliar faiths.  Conclusion at the time was "although Jesus loves me, Im going to Hell because everyone else told me I am going to Hell because of my name, and it doesnt matter if I do good or not because I was unfortunate enough to have the same name as the Son of Satan."  It doesnt matter if that is even where my name came from.  It came from a Preist, but that still wasnt good enough to satisfy the intense desire of people to hate me.  I didnt push religion away at first, it pushed me away.  That lead me to start thinking if they hate me although not having a valid reason to hate me, what other things are they telling me that are also complete bull$#@!?  I concluded they did not really expect me to submit to God, but to submit to their Church.  They did not want me to learn, they wanted me to submit to someone else always having more intellectual authority over me than even I have over myself.  This helped me to recognize the practice of Religion as a form of Control where men controlled other men, and I refused to submit to anyone ever since.  To this day, my Name continues to be a black stain on every first impression I make, and people still wonder why I introduce myself as Bob to anyone I dont know or care to know.  My final conclusions about religion is that I am better off completely avoiding every single one of them at all costs out of the knowledge that Religion will only teach me to hide my own immoral behavior from myself teaching me that the word Love only carries the definition of Hate.  All of this has forced me to reject the stupidity of those that profess Hate as Love and forced me to decide for myself what is Right and Wrong.  And I think I do a much better job of deciding my own morality than even dare to allow it to be influenced by God or Religions.

----------


## DamianTV

> By what standard are you good?


By what standards are you but your own?

Oh, guess what.  Govt will consider neither one of us to ever be "good" because we are both nothing more than Mundanes in their eyes.  Good and Bad depends greatly on who you ask.

----------


## erowe1

> Twisting facts to support a desired conclusion is just as frequenty enacted by Politicians, Pollsters, and Marketers.  Thus, when asked do you believe in God and a person says "No but I still believe I am a good person", the interpreter will interpret this as the person believing in god.  Big problem is that it will go on record as such, and purposefully misrepresents the person who flat out said they do not believe in god.
> 
> I do believe that Speed Cams are also immoral.  A pollster like Frank Lutz will come along and purposefully misinterpret ANY statement I make to support the conclusion he wants to show.  "I do not support Speed Cameras of any kind" will be interpreted by Frank Lutz with his twisting of facts and interpretation of my statement to go on record as "I fully support Speed Cameras of Every Kind".
> 
> Wanna know why I am an Atheist?  Try going to a Catholic School when you are five years old having the same name as the Son of Satan.  
> 
> Thats all it took for me to recognize that the "Love" that is purportedly demanded by practically every religion is nothing but an excuse to Hate.  At the time, I wasnt catholic.  I was five.  And I was still able to recognize even at that age that Religion is validation for Hate hiding behind the guise of Love.  As I grew older, I started to see deeper into this pattern of Hate from Religions.  It has nothing to do with God.  It has everything to do with providing many people (not singling anyone out here) an excuse to commit the most heinous and immoral acts one can imagine and use Frank Lutz fact twisting logic to turn those immoral actions into falsely validated and falsely moral conclusions.  With less verbal diahhrea, religion is abused by many people to hide their own guilt from themselves and others of same / simliar faiths.  Conclusion at the time was "although Jesus loves me, Im going to Hell because everyone else told me I am going to Hell because of my name, and it doesnt matter if I do good or not because I was unfortunate enough to have the same name as the Son of Satan."  It doesnt matter if that is even where my name came from.  It came from a Preist, but that still wasnt good enough to satisfy the intense desire of people to hate me.  I didnt push religion away at first, it pushed me away.  That lead me to start thinking if they hate me although not having a valid reason to hate me, what other things are they telling me that are also complete bull$#@!?  I concluded they did not really expect me to submit to God, but to submit to their Church.  They did not want me to learn, they wanted me to submit to someone else always having more intellectual authority over me than even I have over myself.  This helped me to recognize the practice of Religion as a form of Control where men controlled other men, and I refused to submit to anyone ever since.  To this day, my Name continues to be a black stain on every first impression I make, and people still wonder why I introduce myself as Bob to anyone I dont know or care to know.  My final conclusions about religion is that I am better off completely avoiding every single one of them at all costs out of the knowledge that Religion will only teach me to hide my own immoral behavior from myself teaching me that the word Love only carries the definition of Hate.  All of this has forced me to reject the stupidity of those that profess Hate as Love and forced me to decide for myself what is Right and Wrong.  And I think I do a much better job of deciding my own morality than even dare to allow it to be influenced by God or Religions.


I don't get what any of that has to do with what I said.

But for moral right and wrong actually to be right and wrong, they can't be things one just makes up. There must be a moral law that transcends us. If not, then there's no such thing as moral right and wrong.

----------


## eduardo89

> By what standards are you but your own?


I don't claim to be good. I can never measure up to the one man who was truly good.

But if good is purely subjective, and there is no objective morality, then morality does not exist at all. There is not good or bad, there is no right or wrong.

----------


## robert9712000

> Twisting facts to support a desired conclusion is just as frequenty enacted by Politicians, Pollsters, and Marketers.  Thus, when asked do you believe in God and a person says "No but I still believe I am a good person", the interpreter will interpret this as the person believing in god.  Big problem is that it will go on record as such, and purposefully misrepresents the person who flat out said they do not believe in god.
> 
> I do believe that Speed Cams are also immoral.  A pollster like Frank Lutz will come along and purposefully misinterpret ANY statement I make to support the conclusion he wants to show.  "I do not support Speed Cameras of any kind" will be interpreted by Frank Lutz with his twisting of facts and interpretation of my statement to go on record as "I fully support Speed Cameras of Every Kind".
> 
> Wanna know why I am an Atheist?  Try going to a Catholic School when you are five years old having the same name as the Son of Satan.  
> 
> Thats all it took for me to recognize that the "Love" that is purportedly demanded by practically every religion is nothing but an excuse to Hate.  At the time, I wasnt catholic.  I was five.  And I was still able to recognize even at that age that Religion is validation for Hate hiding behind the guise of Love.  As I grew older, I started to see deeper into this pattern of Hate from Religions.  It has nothing to do with God.  It has everything to do with providing many people (not singling anyone out here) an excuse to commit the most heinous and immoral acts one can imagine and use Frank Lutz fact twisting logic to turn those immoral actions into falsely validated and falsely moral conclusions.  With less verbal diahhrea, religion is abused by many people to hide their own guilt from themselves and others of same / simliar faiths.  Conclusion at the time was "although Jesus loves me, Im going to Hell because everyone else told me I am going to Hell because of my name, and it doesnt matter if I do good or not because I was unfortunate enough to have the same name as the Son of Satan."  It doesnt matter if that is even where my name came from.  It came from a Preist, but that still wasnt good enough to satisfy the intense desire of people to hate me.  I didnt push religion away at first, it pushed me away.  That lead me to start thinking if they hate me although not having a valid reason to hate me, what other things are they telling me that are also complete bull$#@!?  I concluded they did not really expect me to submit to God, but to submit to their Church.  They did not want me to learn, they wanted me to submit to someone else always having more intellectual authority over me than even I have over myself.  This helped me to recognize the practice of Religion as a form of Control where men controlled other men, and I refused to submit to anyone ever since.  To this day, my Name continues to be a black stain on every first impression I make, and people still wonder why I introduce myself as Bob to anyone I dont know or care to know.  My final conclusions about religion is that I am better off completely avoiding every single one of them at all costs out of the knowledge that Religion will only teach me to hide my own immoral behavior from myself teaching me that the word Love only carries the definition of Hate.  All of this has forced me to reject the stupidity of those that profess Hate as Love and forced me to decide for myself what is Right and Wrong.  And I think I do a much better job of deciding my own morality than even dare to allow it to be influenced by God or Religions.



 Im sorry you allowed the cruelty and unfair perception by others to destroy your zeal to know God.Trust me though ,they will be judged harshly by God for there injustice.

Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

 This is why your faith can not be based on the example of men but on the words in the Bible.Reject those if you will but don't hold a fallen man as completely responsible for your lost faith.Many in the Church are just as lost as a depraved man,maybe even more so,because atleast the depraved man openly displays his darkness when the light is shined on it but many of the fallen in the church will hide behind the illusion that attendance at church and being a decent person will get them too heaven and therefor they will never seek to change.

Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> *I don't believe in Jesus Christ*


I really don't want to engage in this topic but I just stopped by to say

*JESUS BELIEVES IN YOU.  
and HE LOVES YOU.*

That is all.

----------


## DamianTV

> I really don't want to engage in this topic but I just stopped by to say
> 
> *JESUS BELIEVES IN YOU.  
> and HE LOVES YOU.*
> 
> That is all.


Saying that to an Atheist doesnt help them feel any less hated.

----------


## eduardo89

> Saying that to an Atheist doesnt help them feel any less hated.


Why would you think He (Jesus) or Christians hate you? I certainly don't and Jesus most certainly doesn't.

----------


## fr33

> Why would you think He (Jesus) or Christians hate you? I certainly don't and Jesus most certainly doesn't.


Oh come on now. Many (if not most) Christians do hate atheists. It's a risk to be one living in the bible belt. Blasphemy and heresy are concepts many of the faithful cling to so much that they have never questioned their faith at all and anyone that does risks being disassociated with. It's a real thing.

Several christian sects routinely knock on my door to spread the "good news" yearly. If I were to try such a tactic with my beliefs, I'd be risking physical harm to myself.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Saying that to an Atheist doesnt help them feel any less hated.


"I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are nothing like your Christ." ~_Gandhi_ 

If a self-identified "Christian" made you feel hated, you were dealing with someone who simply attends a church of some sort-not a Christian.  The Christian endeavors to be Christ-like, which requires empathy and love for his fellow men.

ETA: take note of Yeshua's two-fold commandment on love-love God with all your heart, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. (See Matthew 22)

----------


## Tod

> I believe in righteousness. I believe in honesty. I willfully admit that I do not believe in god. I believe that a man named Jesus was born & lived on earth some 2k years ago but was no god. I believe that one day I will die and my life will end. No afterlife. No miracles. No divine interventions. Here today gone tomorrow. I believe there is spirituality without god. Meditation is good. I have faith in myself and people I trust.


How is the belief that there is no God any different than belief that there is a God?  Both beliefs require faith because nobody is able to *prove* them.  Wouldn't it be more honest to say that you don't know whether there is a God, afterlife, etc?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Maybe he believe in jesus, but not the christ.
> he didn't fit the prophecy of daniel.


This is the argument accepted by many first century Jews who rejected Yeshua.  It's not an entirely unreasonable view.  But it is important to consider the context-the "prophets" in the OT were not reading the future ala Edgar Cacey.  They were observing trends and making predictions based upon observations-basically the Gerald Celentes of the day. They were expecting the Messiah to be a mighty figure who would overcome Israel's enemies and so on-not someone who would be tried and crucified.  So Isiah was wrong.  All we can do is /shrug.

----------


## oyarde

> An atheist may be capable of acting morally, but they will never know why they are acting morally or why that action is moral.


Two of the most moral guys I have ever known are not believers, they did both though grow up in homes where an outstanding example of hard work , honesty prevailed, so , I dunno .

----------


## oyarde

> Oh come on now. Many (if not most) Christians do hate atheists. It's a risk to be one living in the bible belt. Blasphemy and heresy are concepts many of the faithful cling to so much that they have never questioned their faith at all and anyone that does risks being disassociated with. It's a real thing.
> 
> Several christian sects routinely knock on my door to spread the "good news" yearly. If I were to try such a tactic with my beliefs, I'd be risking physical harm to myself.


Well , hell ,nobody lives next to me, or on Sun afternoon I would knock, see if they have any beer ,no need to discuss beliefs

----------


## oyarde

I believe in Christ, I know Fr & Damian do not , I am fine with that , they are welcome at my place ,  I am not the thought police  and at least I know they are not commies , lol

----------


## AFPVet

> I believe in Christ, I know Fr & Damian do not , I am fine with that , they are welcome at my place ,  I am not the thought police  and at least I know they are not commies , lol


This is what a true Christian does... we are spiritual... we accept others as others accept us

----------


## DamianTV

> How is the belief that there is no God any different than belief that there is a God?  Both beliefs require faith because nobody is able to *prove* them.  Wouldn't it be more honest to say that you don't know whether there is a God, afterlife, etc?


(general very long winded reply not directed at anyone specificaly, but replying to the question)

I find that Science provides clear theories based on reasonble evidence for conclusions.  I'll avoid Evolution as it will stir up too much contraversy.  So I'll run with something that both sides will (well, should) agree on.  Flat Earth.  Galileo was labeled a Heretic by the Church for claiming otherwise.  At the time, neither had the ability to prove the Earth was either flat or round one way or the other.  Galileo concluded it was round by Mathematics and understanding the world around him.  However, some of the ways we think have changed.  I know the whole Galileo thing is in dispute, but its not the point.  Point is there WAS a time when people genuinely believed the world was flat and rejected any claims of evidence to the contrary.  Do anything against the Church, regardless if it was correct or not could easily get one sentenced to death.  Murder wasnt the only way to achieve ending someones life, often all it took was to ostracize the individual.  So to ostracize someone (depending on the time frame and conditions) could be just as much of a death sentence as beheading or other forms of execution.  But this is all semi off topic.  Point is that both sides now understand the world to be round by understanding the nature of what exists around us, and these conclusions are supported by the math and what ever other evidence we need to see that the world is round.

However, "Flat Earthers" still exist, and refute any and all evidence to the contrary.  They dismiss any sort of logic or proof that is in contradiction with their system of beliefs.  The result is that the only facts that they acknowledge are the facts that they pick and choose that support their conclusion.  This is what I call "Twisting The Facts To Support A Predetermined Conclusion".  This is absolutely no different than the Govt running studies that all Freedom leads to Terrorism.  This is the belief of the Govt.  And our Govt fails to recognize itself as its own worst enemy.  Govt will call for an ever increasing Inquisition on Freedom because it sees what it wants to see and fails time and again to recognize that Govt itself is the greatest threat to Freedom.  We could talk about specifics, but damn near every thread on this entire forum is based on how Govt has corrupted its purpose and devolved into something absolutely horrifying.  I dont think that any of us will disagree too much on that.

We all should be able to recognize the abuses of our Govt as we see obvious evidence every single day.  And there are still so many people out there who are what we both will still agree on "asleep".  Those people choose to not see that a Cop shooting a 95 year old WWII Vet in a Hospital Bed for refusing a treatment that would have left the Vet on life support for the rest of his life.  They choose to believe "Dancin with the Stars", "Big Brother", and "Jersey Shore" are an accurate representation of real life.  They can even be arrested, charged, convicted, and will STILL refuse to see the evidence that their Govt is not there to protect them.  The truth that Govt is there to Enslave them will continue to not be acknowledged because they simply refuse to see it.  They do not understand that they can not be held by prison bars once the prison system is recognized for what it truly is.  They will continue to believe the Federal Reserve Bank is a part of the US Govt.  They will refuse to acknowledge that the OWNERS of the Federal Reserve Bank are in fact the six biggest banks despite it being printed on paper.  They will refuse to think that the Federal Reserve Bank is nothing more than what the US Treasury is supposed to be, although the Federal Reserve Bank has it own $#@!ing president: Ben Bernanke.  They think that School Boards have Presidents too.  Oh, and the Education System is just fine.  There is no Enstupidation of people although they themselves are stupid.  They can not look in the mirror and see that it is not that they do not understand the question as the cause for their stupidity, but the fact that they do not even bother to ask to question.  Real quick, that statement isnt calling anyone religious an idiot.  Im calling people that genuinely support the actions of our Govt idiots.

We question the world around us.  This is human nature.  When we observe something, the way our minds work need to find a Cause and Effect for that observation.  If we are unable to find an actual cause for something, we turn to superstition.  It is human nature to find cause and effect in places where there is no corrolation.  Black Cats do not cause bad luck.  Neither does Friday the 13th, walking under ladders, knocking on wood, breaking a mirror, and stepping on a crack will not break your mothers back.  Most of us dont believe in these superstitions any longer, although some of them have found to have come to the right conclusion but based on the wrong logic.  Chicken soup for a cold is a good example.  It started as a superstition, but there is science to support it.

And this for me is where religion fails completely.  The lack of proof of God is not evidence of a gods existence.  That to me is the worst possible science that one can possibly practice.  If one does believe the lack of proof of got not existing to be proof of Gods existence, it is a conclusion that I think leads to a long chain of bad data.  This way of thinking, for me, is that whole foot in the door process.  Same thing as a Cop demanding to be let into your home.  Once he is in, he can arrest you for what ever he finds or considers to be criminal.  The way of thinking isnt much different.  Once one idea has been planted, it is difficult to get out of your head.  Pretty standard psychology.  There are people who are such good manipulators that they could probably get you damn near butt naked in public.  They wouldnt accomlish this by just walking up to you and asking you to get naked, they give you some sort of reasoning, then get you to take off your clothes little by little and each step of the way revalidating the reason for you to do so.  Sales is heavily based on the "Foot in the door" methodology.  But getting back on point, the way of thinking about no proof of god not existing I think is the foot in the door which is followed by circular logic, where a desired outcome being achieved by dismissing any proof, theories, evidence or anything that is not supporting of the desired outcome.  God exists because it says so in the bible, again, to me, is circular thinking.  It is also self serving and falsely self validating.  To me, a non believer, this would be no different than a child telling me that Santa Claus is real because it says so in this book about Santa Claus.  It still doesnt make Santa Claus  any more real to me than god.  A child could also argue to me to prove that Santa Claus doesnt exist.  As adults and parents we understand that we choose to create false evidence of Santa Claus by putting presents under a tree labeled "From Santa".  I could continue to argue with the same child that Santa does not exist but I will always lose in the mind of the child because my inability to provide proof that Santa does not exist is more than enough proof to the child that Santa does exist.  It isnt an argument I actually want to win but eventually, kids figure it out for themselves.  Not because we tell them that Santa doesnt exist, but because they accept the logic that we were the ones that put their presents under the tree, we were the ones that drank the cookies an milk.  Well, pour it down the drain or give it to the cat, Im lactose intolerant.

Both sides here could easily go back and forth on the entire point of god exists because there is no proof that he doesnt (to me, again this is my personal belief, bad science) and god doesnt exist because there is no evidence to support that he does that science can not explain.  And others will go back and forth on this for who knows how long.  Hey maybe not even too much longer until the elephant in the room decides that we have both outlived our usefulness and presses "the button".  But either way, try debating with a Flat Earther and get them to accept evidence that is contrary to their system of beliefs.  Try arguing with a Cop that he does not have power granted to him to do what ever the $#@! he wants when he wants because he is a Cop.  Try arguing with a child that Santa doesnt exist.  On these particular points, both sides should be able to agree that the evidence is so overwhelming that the same objective conclusion should pretty much be drawn univerally.  But again, we should all be able to agree that until the Evidence is accepted, that the other party will not draw the same conclusion.  I will not accept that no proof that god does not exist as scientific evidence that god does exist.  Nothing personal against anyone, but like I said originally, this is where the logic of religion completely fails, for me.  

I know I am not going to change your way of thinking either.  It isnt my intent.  I have no desire to make anyone here change their faith or lack thereof.  What I did want to express is our similarities.  Our ways of thinking are not that different.  We both do the "foot in the door" way of thinking, and reject ideas that do not support our beliefs.  Our minds work similarly.  We can both understand how someone can draw a false conclusion and understand how to not fall into the same trap.  When we are cut, we both will bleed.  But that being a physical trait and I have made an effort to focus on the mental similarities.  Sure we have our differences too.  Most of which we dont dispute.  I cant choose to not be lactose intolerant.  I cant choose to not be allergic to grass.  I cant choose to be something physically different than what I am.  Neither can you.  But we dont ostracize each other for gluten or shellfish allergies or for being lactose intolerant.  On topics like those, we both just acknowledge those differences and keep going.  I'll make sure not to give so and so any sugar because they are type 1 diabetic, just as the rest of us will too.

Then we finally get to Religion and how it has failed me on every level.  As I stated in an earlier post, I was ostracized in a Catholic School because my name is immediately associated with the Son of Satan.  I appreciate the sympathy for that, but as I stated in that post, I believe the problem is much much worse and started with Love following the definition and application of Hate.  Go read that post if you'd like but no point in repeating it.  What I didnt explain in that post was how things only get progressively worse because of a Label.  Once I started being ostracized, I was ostracized from EVERYTHING.  This wasnt just "dont come to church with us because God hates you", this was "get the $#@! out of MY town before we burn your house down and murder your family".  I'll admit that if I did not have this horrid name, I probably would be Catholic today.  But based on the behavior of the people, I concluded that what Religion taught was self validating hatred for any who are not just like them.  Religion rejected me, and I started to believe then and there that Religion is a completely failed way of thinking.  Hypocritical.  Circular.  But mostly, a Power Structure of MAN.  A tool of man to exert his will over other men in what ever way those at the top see fit.  I believe religion to be a tool of enslavement because of that "foot in the door" way of thinking where the individual is always expected to completely to surrender.  I believe that once the idea of total surrender to a specific authority is accepted, other forms of total surrender to the false authority can take place.  I believe that if one submits to a god, it isnt much further to get many (not all, hence why you are here on this forum) to submit to the idea and logic of total surrender to the Banks, the Corporations, the Cops, the Corrupt, anyone with a Costume or ANY assumed authority, anyone wearing a Business Suit, flaunting a PhD in Underwater Basket Weaving, or anyone that claims in any way shape or form to be superior to you, total surrender is desired and coerced until many times it happens.  This is what I observed and why I reject the logic of Religion.  

But that is not where I feel Religion has completely failed me.  Where I feel it has failed me the most is the Refusal of Support.  Wanna know why I am such an advocate for Privacy?  Being an Atheist is not illegal.  It is not immoral.  It is not unlawful.  Im not a closet Atheist.  I dont bother to hide it when asked.  But guaranteed that there are some out there who DO wish me as much harm as they can possibly inflict because my belief does not support their self validating way of thinking.  I dont do anything wrong, and there are people out there that will intend to do me harm.  However, I do not expect that any of them #1 will ever read this, and #2 will ever actually be able to find out who I am.  If they do, I am willing to fight to the death to protect myself, having come from an enviornment where getting your ass beaten bloody because of your name I can handle myself.  I know I can handle myself in a fight with more than one person at a time.  But there will be a point where I know I will be overwhelmed.  I know that at that point I will go down, but I will also know that I gave everything I have to continue to stand.  So what the $#@! does Privacy and Refusal of Support have to do with ANY of what I just said?  I dont go looking for enemies to piss off.  I also have enough undamaged prefrontal cortex left to know that sticking my dick in a hornets nest with honey on my balls is a bad idea.  People come after me because of something they knew about me.  My name.  And they drew conclusions about be based on my name.  Many still do.  And they ostracized me for it.  And what if they discovered something else about me that they could also use as a self validating reason to hate me even more than they already do?  Things just continue to go downhill from there.  Next they will claim that I should not have any Right to Privacy and base their conclusions off of their original false conclusion.  The bad chain of logic.  All because there was a movie where the Son of Satan had my name.  Well, thats Privacy.  Then we get Refusal of Support.  I stood up for myself.  And NOBODY liked that.  In fact, they hated it to the point where I was the troublemaker when others would seek me out to give me a daily ration of $#@!.  They saw that other students ostracized me and blamed me for giving them a reason to ostracize them because I stood up to them even though their original misconception is what started everything.  Not a single one of those mother $#@!ers lifted a finger to help me in that situation.  No, I dont want any sympathy for that level of hatred, hell I am completely used to being hated now.  And I quit giving a $#@! a long time ago.  

The REAL problems started because so many refused to have anything to do with me for ANY reason.  Not just getting stuffed in trashcans on a daily basis, but when I'd ask for help with MATH.  When I'd ask for help with a Flat Tire.  When I'd need help with a Twisted Ankle.  That is what hurts the most.  So every time I hear "Jesus loves you", what kind of memories do you think that statement stirs in me?  Do you believe that I think that Jesus loves me, or do you think I hear "$#@! you son of satan".  You tell me god exists because there is no proof that he doesnt and I hear "I am morally superior to you and $#@! you son of Satan, Jesus doesnt love you, now get out of my town!".  When you say "not all Christians follow the path of Christ", what do you think I hear?  Do you think I would hear "yeah jesus really loves me!  I can feel that love every time Im shoved in a locker"?  Or maybe I'd hear "You can solve all your problems with Christians by becoming a devout Catholic, and just giving up and realizing we are always right about everything because we are Christians!"  Even when I tried that, it didnt work out so well.

No.  My real beef is that when I hear a Christian coming under attack for being a Christian (usually the Govt in some form) I'll speak out.  Most of the people here on this Forum have demonstrated that they hold themselves to a higher set of standards than most people I've met in real life.  Im not stuipid either.  I know when people just tell me what I know to be what they think I want to hear (that wasnt confusing!) so I know when someone is going to turn right the $#@! around and talk $#@! about my being an Ateheist behind my back.  Im pretty confident that most of you wont.  Not because I could (if I wanted to) to hold you to talking trash but because you've concluded for yourselves that you need to lead by example.  You've accepted the conclusion that you dont like being a douchebag because of how it makes you feel.  You hold yourselves accountable for your own actions.  So the people on this Forum I hold to a much higher caliber and are not the ones I'd call out for behaving in a manner that was not fair to everyone.  I dont believe that all Christians are douchebags, but neither do I believe that being a Christian (or an Atheist for that matter) entitles a person to be a douchebag.  So most of the people here on this Forum are excluded from my rant.  Most of you have earned my respect.  The rest Im not singling out.

When I come under attack for being an Atheist, my only friends are the Crickets chirping at my back.  My experience has taught me quite well that most Christians will turn their back on me in a flat second if they know I am an Atheist because I am an Atheist regardless if Religion has any relevance in a situation or not.  I get it.  Im less trustworthy than a Muslim.  Im less trustworthy than a Politician, and thats pretty $#@!ing low.  Im also less trustworthy than a Rapist or a Murderer.  I get that so many christians think that I am not even worth saving.  That is what hurts more than anything else.  That is why I am so defensive.  That is why not only do I not believe in Religion, but see it as nothing but hatred followed by excuses of how it is moral for them to harm other human beings supported only by a set of false conclusions.  That is why I will not allow anyone to claim ANY form of superiority to me.  Most people have more money than me.  They are NOT financially superior.  Some people will have more information on a specific topic than I do.  They are NOT intellectually superior.  Some people find that Religion helps them feel good.  They are not Spiritually superior (since you are probably Christian, it might be easier for you to think of this as me vs a Buddhist or something other than Christian, not trying to start fights).  Why?  Because the second that I give in to that Authority is the second that I lose what it means to be me.  That is why I will not allow ANYONE including God or Jesus if they even exist to Judge me.  I am my own judge.  I decide for myself what is Right and Wrong.  I can be forced.  But it will not be by my will that I submit.  To me, submission is slavery.  And Slavery is so much more than just the ownership of another human being.  We are all debt slaves.  We are military slaves.  We are work slaves.  We are intellectual slaves as well (save that for another topic but the premise is Information is held hostage and you have to pay for it).  We can be Sex slaves (yeah, sometimes that can be fun, but there are people out there who really do suffer this form of slavery).  And for me to submit to a Pastor or a Preist is nothing short of Spiritual Slavery.  Easy one for me.  No god so any words from a Pastor or Preist holds no weight with me.  Neither do threats that I'll burn in hell unless I do as such and such a Preist / Pastor / whatever demands.  $#@! em.  I dont answer to them.  If there is a God, I'll take it up with him when / if I meet him.  And no, that statement does not make me not an atheist.  Blah, off topic again.  You also have Emotional Slaves.  This is what school teaches in combination with many of the other forms of slavery.  Intellectual Slaves who become emotionally dependant on the System for their rewards is a good way of describing Public Education.  I could go off on this all day, but to sum it up, I recognize submission and slavery for what it is: a method of Control.

No, Im not trying to start a fight here.  Just how I feel about religion.  I $#@!ing hate it and reject it.  I see nothing but problems result from Religion.  Again, this is what I feel, and not trying to start any fights.  Why?  Because I believe you are not morally superior to me.  Guess what else.  I dont believe I am morally superior to you as this is not a competition.  It is a difference.  Hence the whole Lactose Intolerant bit.  Religion has done nothing but caused me pain in my life.  If you feel like it does some good for you, then go for it.  $#@!.  I'll even man-up and defend your right to choose for yourself and allow you to make decisions that only you can decide yourself for yourself.  Will you man-up and defend my right to be an Atheist when I come under attack?  We should both be able to agree on a great many things.  There are also many things we wont agree on, so I wont bother trying to change your mind, so please dont try to change mine by telling me that Jesus loves me or any of that which Ive already covered.  Is this difference in religion going to divide us, or are we going to use those differences as our strength?  Are you going to waste your time arguing with Atheists (I dont know how many times I misspell that :P), or are you going to realize that while you are arguing with Athiests that we are BOTH under attack?  We have much bigger problems than our differences that we can pretty much agree to disagree on.

Imagine for a second that the Govt gets everything that it wants.  Do you think for a split second that you will be allowed to practice your faith in a Govt of your Worst Nightmare?  Do you think that maybe my beliefs (well, lack there of) will also be under attack?  Damned if you do, damned if you dont.  Guess what.  Its coming.  Whether either of us likes it or not.  For the most part, it is already here.  And do you have enough strength to let an Atheist stand at your side when push comes to shove, or do you think you will be better going it alone?  Our Govt is so $#@!ing bat$#@! crazy that if there is a Heaven or Hell, they'd do everything in their power to wreck both by regulating them too!  We know Govt is just a tool of the Banksters and Corporations and Cops are Armed Tax Collectors.  We know who runs the show on this planet.  Do you think these criminally insane in a genius kind of way sociopaths would attempt to do anything short of declaring a War on Heaven?  Still think you are safe in Heaven?  Allow just one Bankster or Politician in there and they will find a way to $#@! it up for everyone.  Still want to tell that Atheist that was willing to stand by your side in defense of Liberty and Freedom FOR ALL to go piss up a rope?  Did anyone but the NSA / TSA / DARPA bother to read all this?

I dont normally come to the Religion Forum, and this will probably be my last post here in the Religion Forum for a while so go ahead and get it out of your system and bag on be for beign an Atheist since I wont read it and just be over in General Politics anyway.

----------


## DamianTV

> I don't get what any of that has to do with what I said.
> 
> But for moral right and wrong actually to be right and wrong, they can't be things one just makes up. There must be a moral law that transcends us. If not, then there's no such thing as moral right and wrong.


Morality is Subjective because there is an opinion of Right and Wrong.  An example of Objectivity would be a Glass on a Table.  Nothing good or bad either way about it, it just is what it is.  The reason that we have Courts is because people have a very wide range of opinions on what is Right and Wrong.

So what does what I said have to do with what you said?  In short, everyone is going to claim my opinion to be Wrong.  So I quit letting other people decide what is Right and Wrong for me and decide for myself.  Guess what.  Im much better off for it, excluding the rest of the bull$#@! ways people get back at me.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> An atheist may be capable of acting morally, but they will never know why they are acting morally or why that action is moral.


No they can't.  The natural man cannot in any way submit to the law of God.  Roman Catholic theology is not Biblical.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Many questions atheists are asking about morality in this thread are answered in this one:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...rmine-Morality

----------


## erowe1

> Saying that to an Atheist doesnt help them feel any less hated.


A lot of people feel hated by someone. Every kid got made fun of in school. These aren't the kinds of things you can avoid by not being an atheist or not being named Damian.

----------


## erowe1

> Morality is Subjective because there is an opinion of Right and Wrong.


If that's true, then it's not morality at all.

Everything we innately understand about morality disagrees with that. Whenever we accuse anyone of anything and expect the accusation to mean anything, whenever we apologize for something we did, whenever we give excuses that we expect to mitigate some wrong we appeared to do, whenever we suppose that there is even a theoretical possibility for a just outcome in response to anything wrong, we show that what we mean by morality is something objective, something we can't just avoid by choosing to believe otherwise.

Either we are deceived, and this moral law that we take for granted as something as foundational to our minds as the laws of logic doesn't really exist, in which case none of us could ever really be moral or immoral, or else it does exist and is independent of our opinions.

----------


## Schifference

> I don't get what any of that has to do with what I said.
> 
> But for moral right and wrong actually to be right and wrong, they can't be things one just makes up. There must be a moral law that transcends us. If not, then there's no such thing as moral right and wrong.


"There are life defining preconceptions we bring to our relationships with the world. We could listen to our inner voice to guide us toward true moral behavior or blindly follow the dictates of dogmatic moralism. The first is a living expression of who we are at a deeper level of our being while the other is merely a set of sterile rules we adhere to for no reason other than not having investigated the matter for ourselves. Mere moralism makes our morality circumstance dependent. It is kind of moral materialism where we attempt to solidify and mentally circumscribe every natural expression of our deeper being. Such defined, stagnant moralism becomes a selective affair where we choose when to use it and to whom it should be directed. 

However if we were to follow our intuitive insight and listen to our inner sense of reasonableness and human - heartedness, the practice of morality becomes consistent and congruent with the true spirit of moral behavior which is more even handed, unforced and natural in response. It is not only unforced but also profoundly un-self-conscious. Ultimately it becomes clear to us that morality is not something about which we have any choice at all.True morality is simply a natural reflection of who we are when we begin to wake into the well of our own intelligent and self-nurturing inner being." Moller de la Rouviere

----------


## Brett85

> I don't believe the stories about Jesus anymore than I believe those about Paul Bunyan. Between the two I find Paul Bunyan's story to be more inspiring.
> 
> An omnipresent and omnipotent being that creates some sort of sick game in which most of his creations will never be informed about him during their life, is an $#@!. If the fables were true, then he created his own sick game in which we are the pawns. Then a man appears and says he has the ability to absolve wrong-doing regardless of whether the victims of crime receives justice.


It's a documented fact that Jesus lived on this earth 2,000 years ago.  It's documented in more than just the Bible.  Now, you can say that you believe that Jesus was just a "teacher" and that he wasn't the son of God and wasn't resurrected, but to say that Jesus never even existed is just factually inaccurate.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's a documented fact that Jesus lived on this earth 2,000 years ago.  It's documented in more than just the Bible.  Now, you can say that you believe that Jesus was just a "teacher" and that he wasn't the son of God and wasn't resurrected, but to say that Jesus never even existed is just factually inaccurate.


If that were so he'd be a liar or a lunatic because Jesus certainly claimed to be God.

----------


## erowe1

> "There are life defining preconceptions we bring to our relationships with the world. We could listen to our inner voice to guide us toward true moral behavior or blindly follow the dictates of dogmatic moralism. The first is a living expression of who we are at a deeper level of our being while the other is merely a set of sterile rules we adhere to for no reason other than not having investigated the matter for ourselves. Mere moralism makes our morality circumstance dependent. It is kind of moral materialism where we attempt to solidify and mentally circumscribe every natural expression of our deeper being. Such defined, stagnant moralism becomes a selective affair where we choose when to use it and to whom it should be directed. 
> 
> However if we were to follow our intuitive insight and listen to our inner sense of reasonableness and human - heartedness, the practice of morality becomes consistent and congruent with the true spirit of moral behavior which is more even handed, unforced and natural in response. It is not only unforced but also profoundly un-self-conscious. Ultimately it becomes clear to us that morality is not something about which we have any choice at all.True morality is simply a natural reflection of who we are when we begin to wake into the well of our own intelligent and self-nurturing inner being." Moller de la Rouviere


The question is, is this inner voice concerning morality telling us the truth? Do these absolute transcendent moral laws to which your inner voice wants to appeal actually exist or not?

If it's wrong, then we're back to morality not really existing. All we would have is the universal false belief in morality.

But if it's right, then morality really does exist, in which case atheism would be false.

Of course you can be an atheist and believe in morality. In fact, I don't think it's possible not to believe in morality even if you are an atheist. But that situation only puts you in a position of having to be wrong about one of those two beliefs. Either God and transcendent absolute moral laws do not exist, in which case you have a false belief in transcendent absolute moral laws. Or else God and transcendent absolute moral laws do exist, in which case your atheism is a false belief.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I really don't want to engage in this topic but I just stopped by to say
> 
> *JESUS BELIEVES IN YOU.  
> and HE LOVES YOU.*
> 
> That is all.





> Saying that to an Atheist doesnt help them feel any less hated.


Allow yourself to believe it.  

It's true.  

That you don't "feel any less hated" doesn't make it so (that you're hated).  

You are not.  

Jesus loves you.

And as a Christian, I love you too.

----------


## Brett85

> If that were so he'd be a liar or a lunatic because Jesus certainly claimed to be God.


Yeah, that's true.  But I'm just saying that it seems to be a documented fact that Jesus lived on the earth 2,000 years ago.

----------


## Todd

> I'd like to direct you to the thinking of Thomas Jefferson.  He identified many of the corruptions of organized religion that you've identified and repudiated them all.  His thinking led him down a purely rational path, and indeed he ended up rejecting much of Christian dogma on the basis of his rational thinking...he even parsed the bible to remove what he saw as irrational dogma.  This being said, he still believed in the moral teachings of Jesus and believed this to be the only true basis of what is Christian.  Thus he still considered himself a Christian.
> I agree with my man TJ.
> What say you.


Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: Im ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I dont accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic  on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg  or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. - CS Lewis

----------


## Terry1

Whenever I hear or see someone say "I don't believe in Jesus", it always leads me to believe there's something about themselves or what and how they've chosen to live that they don't want to change and they know that believing in God and Jesus entails just that.

I don't engage in debate with people who say these things because they want someone to convince them that what they're doing is right, when in their mind and heart they know it's wrong, but ignore it.  They'd rather try to rationalize on a secular level as to why they're a "moral" creature than to believe spiritually as to why they're not.

It's a futile thing IMO to engage these people until God Himself does it in His own way and time with them--if God will ever even bother with them knowing beforehand whether they will come to Him or not.

Pascal's Wager is not without it's merit.

----------


## RJB

> Try going to a Catholic School when you are five years old having the same name as the Son of Satan.


That one stung me.  My dad worked for the Army and I went to 6 or 7 different schools, and dealt with something similar.  Kids and teachers can very be cruel.  After a stint in the Marines, I went to college with an unexplainable knot in my belly.  It dawned on me I was expecting anyone to start a fight with me in the halls, but then I realized I was an adult and those days were gone.  Until I got on the internet 

Our stereotypes tend to be based on the loudest most obnoxious of a group.  I have to remind myself not all atheist are like Shifference, most are nice people like yourself.  Most Calvinists aren't like Sola comes across either.  I also have a feeling if we were to meet face to face over a beer like Oyarde suggests, Sola and Shifference are probably pleasant people.  Sometimes I need a break from the internet for a few months, It brings out the worst in me as well.

I will say when I was an atheist, I realized despite my aversion to Christianity, there were only a handful of Christians I found to be annoying.  Since becoming a Christian, I still find that handful to be annoying.  I find every group has annoying people, including New agey people.  (I live in a very "progressive" area.)  

I guess what I'm trying to say, is don't let frailties of humans shape your opinion of God.  I was an atheist/agnostic for fifteen years.  I understand most of your arguments.  For me it came down to proof.  There is power in prayer if you listen for God.  His love is tangible like nothing else I've experienced.  His love made me a believer.

Not trying to lecture you but your posts hit home due to some similiarities.  And again I'd be glad to share one of my homebrews with any of you.

----------


## Brett85

Jesus Christ doesn't believe in atheists.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Jesus Christ doesn't believe in atheists.


I don't believe that's true, TC.  

I think Jesus believes in everyone, and He holds out  hope that all will come to believe in Him.

----------


## Cabal

> Jesus Christ doesn't believe in atheists.


Then again, atheists aren't threatening Jesus with eternal damnation and suffering if he doesn't.

Wait, this sounds familiar. What else uses threats of violence to coerce obedience? I think it starts with an S.

----------


## Brett85

> Then again, atheists aren't threatening Jesus with eternal damnation and suffering if he doesn't.
> 
> Wait, this sounds familiar. What else uses threats of violence to coerce obedience? I think it starts with an S.


Well, I would say that that doctrine comes more from church tradition than from the Bible, but I don't want to turn this into a thread about annihilationism.  So if you want to discuss that we could discuss it through private messages.

----------


## Terry1

> Then again, atheists aren't threatening Jesus with eternal damnation and suffering if he doesn't.
> 
> Wait, this sounds familiar. What else uses threats of violence to coerce obedience? I think it starts with an S.


What decent parent wouldn't threaten their child with punishment for playing with fire?

What other promises eternal life in paradise for those He loves if they're true, loving and obedient children.

What other still performs miracles of healing, and abundance and delivers faithfully.  An atheist wouldn't know now would they.  Too bad for you.

----------


## VIDEODROME

WTF thread bump

----------


## Cabal

> What decent parent wouldn't threaten their child with punishment for playing with fire?
> 
> What other promises eternal life in paradise for those He loves if they're true, loving and obedient children.
> 
> What other still performs miracles of healing, and abundance and delivers faithfully.  An atheist wouldn't know now would they.  Too bad for you.


If one requires threats of abuse to persuade a child not to burn themselves with fire, I'd have to raise objection to the claim of "decent parent". Children are highly underestimated by adults. The ability to reason is adopted quite early in a human life--age 3 or 4 tends to be typical I believe. In any case, what are you going to do? Beat the child if they end up burning themselves? Frontal lobe development is the result of risk taking. In other words, children learn from experience. I'm not suggesting a child should be allowed to press their face into a hot stove, obviously, but neither do I think fearmongering is a admirable or healthy parental strategy. 

But if you apply this sort of protective logic consistently, then it follows you should probably be advocating a larger, more 'protective' (read: oppressive) State, lest us witless fools go around getting hurt, and making mistakes.

Moreover, the analogy you're using here is ultimately rather inapplicable, as you're comparing the objective fact that high temperatures of fire can cause severe injury to human flesh with _religious beliefs_.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't believe that's true, TC.  
> 
> I think Jesus believes in everyone, and He holds out  hope that all will come to believe in Him.


Romans 1 teaches that atheists don't actually exist.  Everyone knows deep down that there is a being greater than themselves that created them.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Romans 1 teaches that atheists don't actually exist.  Everyone knows deep down that there is a being greater than themselves that created them.


Actually, not only do they know that a God exists, but they know that THE God exists.  Every person knows that Christianity is true.  God has revealed just enough of Himself to them that they are now without excuse, and He gave His law to man to further bring out their sinfulness.

----------


## Terry1

> If one requires threats of abuse to persuade a child not to burn themselves with fire, I'd have to raise objection to the claim of "decent parent". Children are highly underestimated by adults. The ability to reason is adopted quite early in a human life--age 3 or 4 tends to be typical I believe. In any case, what are you going to do? Beat the child if they end up burning themselves? Frontal lobe development is the result of risk taking. In other words, children learn from experience. I'm not suggesting a child should be allowed to press their face into a hot stove, obviously, but neither do I think fearmongering is a admirable or healthy parental strategy. 
> 
> But if you apply this sort of protective logic consistently, then it follows you should probably be advocating a larger, more 'protective' (read: oppressive) State, lest us witless fools go around getting hurt, and making mistakes.
> 
> Moreover, the analogy you're using here is ultimately rather inapplicable, as you're comparing the objective fact that high temperatures of fire can cause severe injury to human flesh with _religious beliefs_.


You can't see because you're blind right now by your own choice as to just how stupid, ignorant and dumb mankind is and that is because of what sin did to mankind, making them totally ignorant of the real dangers that exist in this world.  So then as we become adults, we become more aware of what the physical dangers are in this world and people try to teach their children what to beware of by their own knowledge and experience.

Mankind, whether children or adult only understand something is wrong because they're taught and they learn.  Some are smarter than others and simply obey while most have to be deprived of something they want in order to understand what they did was wrong.  That deprivation can include a multitude of things regarding what children or adults value most in life.  For children, it can be their toys and privileges, for adults it can pretty much be the same.  If you never discipline your children, you're only hurting them more in the long run.  Depriving them of things in order to show them that what they're doing was wrong is not "abuse", but rather love for them.

God works in that same way, only He does it His way knowing what will lead mankind to repentance or changing their minds about the way they're living and what they're doing that's harmful to their very souls and eternal destiny.  Atheists can not understand how this works because they admittedly refuse to believe in God for their own reason which always vary according to what they value most in their lives.

----------


## Cabal

> You can't see because you're blind right now by your own choice as to just how stupid, ignorant and dumb mankind is


Of course, now you have fallen into a paradoxical quagmire... You view mankind as some kind of collective [un]intelligence, and then go on to claim mankind is blind, stupid, ignorant, and dumb whilst both being a member of mankind, and whilst advocating a religious belief of mankind in the same breath. Thus, it would seem that if mankind is as blind, ignorant, stupid, and dumb as you claim, adhering to a widely held belief of this same mankind may, perhaps be just as blind, ignorant, stupid, and dumb.

----------


## Terry1

> Of course, now you have fallen into a paradoxical quagmire... You view mankind as some kind of collective [un]intelligence, and then go on to claim mankind is blind, stupid, ignorant, and dumb whilst both being a member of mankind, and whilst advocating a religious belief of mankind in the same breath. Thus, it would seem that if mankind is as blind, ignorant, stupid, and dumb as you claim, adhering to a widely held belief of this same mankind may, perhaps be just as blind, ignorant, stupid, and dumb.


without the spiritual wisdom of God---yes---even rocks are smarter than mankind.  Many people are positive proof and evidence of that fact.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You can't see because you're blind right now by your own choice as to just how stupid, ignorant and dumb mankind is and that is because of what sin did to mankind, making them totally ignorant of the real dangers that exist in this world.  So then as we become adults, we become more aware of what the physical dangers are in this world and people try to teach their children what to beware of by their own knowledge and experience.
> 
> Mankind, whether children or adult only understand something is wrong because they're taught and they learn.  Some are smarter than others and simply obey while most have to be deprived of something they want in order to understand what they did was wrong.  That deprivation can include a multitude of things regarding what children or adults value most in life.  For children, it can be their toys and privileges, for adults it can pretty much be the same.  If you never discipline your children, you're only hurting them more in the long run.  Depriving them of things in order to show them that what they're doing was wrong is not "abuse", but rather love for them.
> 
> God works in that same way, only He does it His way knowing what will lead mankind to repentance or changing their minds about the way they're living and what they're doing that's harmful to their very souls and eternal destiny.  Atheists can not understand how this works because they admittedly refuse to believe in God for their own reason which always vary according to what they value most in their lives.


Terry1, 

What makes one man choose God and another person not choose Him?

----------


## Cabal

> without the spiritual wisdom of God---yes---even rocks are smarter than mankind.  Many people are positive proof and evidence of that fact.


Given that mankind are the so-called children of God, and among His greatest, most cherished creations, it is interesting how one who considers themselves devout, such as yourself, would look down upon mankind with such disdain, especially given that you are included in this mankind you speak down of.

But I suppose you believe yourself apart from these so-called blind, stupid, dumb, ignorant masses, yes? Because in your great wisdom, you've come to adhere to some belief system that makes you somehow superior to the rest. These delusions of grandeur are seen throughout human history, of course, and often lead to some of the worst atrocities the world has ever seen. Not surprisingly, it is those who believe themselves superior to the rest that turn out to be among the most vile and villainous, and as such, capable of more wretchedness than any other.

----------


## Miss Annie

When I went to church and got saved, I did NOT go because I was looking to get saved.... or looking for God or Jesus.   I went because I wanted to drive my father in law crazy enough to move out of my house!!  My ex husband had left several months prior and his father had been living in our house for five years.  He was starting to get the idea that since his son had flown the coop that I needed a "man around the house".   Which I most certainly did NOT! LOL.   My father in law was anti Christian.  I don't say he was an athiest because my step father is an athiest and Christian symbols do not bother him.  They mean no more to him than the golden arches of McDonalds.   But my father in law was definitely anti Christian.  Anything Christian just chapped his arse.  So I was going to go to church and come home singing hymns and praying at dinner.  I knew it would make him mad enough to move out!   
Not exactly what one would call honorable intentions..... LOL. 

When I went to that church, I was a beer drinking, dope smoking, f bomb dropping, sexually "free" woman who was just coming out of a semi "open" marriage!  Oh what a hot mess!   And I certainly did not want to give all that up, because I thought I would never be able to live up to God's standards anyway..... even if I did give up the most obvious things. 
My only exposure to the gospel were the children's stories from Sunday School when my great grandparents used to take me.  
I went to that church and heard a sermon like I had never heard before.  The pastor said that we do not have to clean ourselves up before we come to God.  He said, in fact, it is impossible for us to do that.  He said that we bring ourselves to God, and God cleans us up in HIS POWER and in HIS TIME.   

I think that so much of the gospel is missed though, by focusing on our "behaviors".   It is really about a relationship.  God wants us to interact with him.  He wants us to be real with him.  He knows whats in our hearts and minds anyway.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry1, 
> 
> What makes one man choose God and another person not choose Him?


You just said it yourself---it's their choice once they've heard the "good news".  We sow the seeds, then it's up them if they will or they won't.  God tells us there's enough His evidence of creation all around us to provoke mankind to belief, it's up to them.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You just said it yourself---it their choice once they've heard the "good news".  We sow the seeds, then it's up them if they will or they won't.  God tell us there's enough His evidence of creation all around us to provoke mankind to belief, it's up to them.


No, I didn't say that.  Romans 1 says God reveals Himself enough so that everyone is WITHOUT EXCUSE,  meaning they are all condemned.  

But according to you,  what makes a man choose and another reject?  Are they smarter?  More spiritually sensitive? What is it in a man that causes him to respond?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> We sow the seeds, then it's up them


By the way,  your seed analogy is wrong.  Here is the correct version:




> 1 Corinthians 3:6 NIV
> 
> I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, *but God has been making it grow.*

----------


## pcosmar

> Then again, atheists aren't threatening Jesus with eternal damnation and suffering if he doesn't.


Neither is Jesus,,
He is offering Salvation,, (an escape from damnation)

Which you are free to reject,, and enjoy your separation from all that is good.

I believe you have the choice. Spend eternity with the Creator,, or reject the offer and spend eternity separated from the creator.

Simple enough when you peel back all the FUD.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Given that mankind are the so-called children of God, and among His greatest, most cherished creations, it is interesting how one who considers themselves devout, such as yourself, would look down upon mankind with such disdain, especially given that you are included in this mankind you speak down of.
> 
> But I suppose you believe yourself apart from these so-called blind, stupid, dumb, ignorant masses, yes? Because in your great wisdom, you've come to adhere to some belief system that makes you somehow superior to the rest. These delusions of grandeur are seen throughout human history, of course, and often lead to some of the worst atrocities the world has ever seen. Not surprisingly, it is those who believe themselves superior to the rest that turn out to be among the most vile and villainous, and as such, capable of more wretchedness than any other.


You confuse humility with disdain, and the rest of your post goes downhill from there.

----------


## Terry1

> No, I didn't say that.  Romans 1 says God reveals Himself enough so that everyone is WITHOUT EXCUSE,  meaning they are all condemned


The evidence isn't there to condemn, the evidence is there to provoke mankind to belief and those that don't believe are then without excuse.




> But according to you,  what makes a man choose and another reject?  Are they smarter?  More spiritually sensitive? What is it in a man that causes him to respond?


Once they hear the good news, it either provokes them to belief or they choose to go their own way.  Read the parable of the sower. It's all a matter of choice on the part of that person regarding what they value most in their life.

----------


## moostraks

> No, I didn't say that.  Romans 1 says God reveals Himself enough so that everyone is WITHOUT EXCUSE,  meaning they are all condemned.  
> 
> But according to you,  what makes a man choose and another reject?  Are they smarter?  More spiritually sensitive? What is it in a man that causes him to respond?


I know you weren't asking me but fwiw to those who might be curious for an alternative to your beliefs, some people are more invested in their sinful nature than others. You stand in front of a road and it splits in two paths. One path is self involved and self serving, the other path is selfless. 

Matthew 7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

The few that find it have found the Creator despite the terminology they use to describe their path. They are the selfless ones. 

Romans 1: 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [n]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 

They (we) were (are) condemned because of selfishness and lack of love, a failure of seeing and respecting that which is perfect and without blemish, Love. They speculated about the matter in foolish manner so they could excuse their selfish behavior and became cut off from a true relationship with Love.

----------


## Cabal

> You confuse humility with disdain, and the rest of your post goes downhill from there.


I scarcely see how applying labels of "stupid", "blind", "ignorant", and "dumb" to the masses while excluding one's self, and their ilk, from these same critiques qualifies as humility. Perhaps you meant to say hubris? And the rest of my post is merely a cursory observation of human history--many groups who have believed themselves superior, and thus others as inferior, particularly in matters of religion, have committed all manners of atrocities, such as genocide, in the name of their superiority complex, or delusion of grandeur.

----------


## Terry1

> I scarcely see how applying labels of "stupid", "blind", "ignorant", and "dumb" to the masses while excluding one's self, and their ilk, from these same critiques qualifies as humility. Perhaps you meant to say hubris? And the rest of my post is merely a cursory observation of human history--many groups who have believed themselves superior, and thus others as inferior, particularly in matters of religion, have committed all manners of atrocities, such as genocide, in the name of their superiority complex, or delusion of grandeur.


You assume too much.  I said mankind absent the wisdom of God are dumber than rocks---I stand by that comment too. LOL

Because of the fall of mankind the very rocks cry out and creation moans for them.  That's how stupid mankind is without retaining the wisdom and knowledge of God.

----------


## Terry1

Fact is that I don't care if anyone's an atheist, but some of these atheist's are as bad as some of the religious people they hate too.  Believe as you wish, live as you please, but allow me to do the very same thing.  

If people are too dumb to come to God, then let God sort them out and use them as He sees fit.  All we are to do as Christians is sow seeds.  If all atheists want to do is eat them and then flush them, it's their choice which has it's own reward just the same.  I respect their choice, although IMO, it's a really ignorant one---still it's your life---it's your eternal destiny involved here and not mine.  I've done what God wanted me to do and that's where my work begins and ends.  It's not my job or calling to convince anyone that God exists.  God is very capable of that all by Himself.

----------


## Terry1

Look at it from the perspective of God if you can.  So mankind can build things from the elements of the earth that allow him to search for deeper hidden things within things.  Mankind can build their little telescopes and space ships that can fly to a nearby planet and they think that by using all of these elements created by God Himself that they've really accomplished something great and wonderful.  (I'm laughing here as I'm typing this).  This is how stupid mankind is absent the wisdom and knowledge of God.  What mankind has managed to do with Gods creation couldn't fill a thimble compared to what God has already done, created and will continue to do.

Yes---mankind is beyond stupid without the wisdom of God---read the Book of Solomon---there's nothing new under the sun and everything is vanity and pride absent God.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Actually, not only do they know that a God exists, but they know that THE God exists. * Every person knows that Christianity is true.*  God has revealed just enough of Himself to them that they are now without excuse, and He gave His law to man to further bring out their sinfulness.


I would dispute the bolded point.  If I see an unlabeled painting, I know that there was a painter, but I don't necessarily know who it is.  Do you have any scriptural proof that everyone knows Christianity is true?
I don't remember a time when I ever disbelieved in God, but since you don't believe Arminianism is Christianity I can use myself as an example.  When I first "prayed to accept Jesus" at seven years old, I had no idea that Christ died only for the elect or that I was chosen.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I would dispute the bolded point.  If I see an unlabeled painting, I know that there was a painter, but I don't necessarily know who it is.  Do you have any scriptural proof that everyone knows Christianity is true?
> I don't remember a time when I ever disbelieved in God, but since you don't believe Arminianism is Christianity I can use myself as an example.  When I first "prayed to accept Jesus" at seven years old, I had no idea that Christ died only for the elect or that I was chosen.


I'm not saying that everyone is a believer in Jesus or anything like that.  I'm saying that every man knows in his heart that Jesus is the God of this universe. They supress this truth in every way they can.




> Romans 1:18-21 NIV
> 
> The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.   For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not saying that everyone is a believer in Jesus or anything like that.  I'm saying that every man knows in his heart that Jesus is the God of this universe. They supress this truth in every way they can.


Yeah, that only says that they know a God of eternal power and divine nature created the universe.  It doesn't say anything about everyone knowing Jesus is the God of the universe.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yeah, that only says that they know a God of eternal power and divine nature created the universe.  It doesn't say anything about everyone knowing Jesus is the God of the universe.


What God is there other than Jesus?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Look at it from the perspective of God if you can.  So mankind can build things from the elements of the earth that allow him to search for deeper hidden things within things.  Mankind can build their little telescopes and space ships that can fly to a nearby planet and they think that by using all of these elements created by God Himself that they've really accomplished something great and wonderful.  (I'm laughing here as I'm typing this).  This is how stupid mankind is absent the wisdom and knowledge of God.  What mankind has managed to do with Gods creation couldn't fill a thimble compared to what God has already done, created and will continue to do.
> 
> Yes---mankind is beyond stupid without the wisdom of God---read the Book of Solomon---there's nothing new under the sun and everything is vanity and pride absent God.


Some statements like this make it sound like God is just a prankster God.  He likes us only as much as a human likes their cat when's it's chasing after their laser pointer.  Or even a person who shakes an Ant Farm. "Uh Oh! Lookout earthquake!"

----------


## VIDEODROME

> What God is there other than Jesus?


Ask a Hindu I guess.

----------


## Terry1

> Ask a Hindu I guess.


I know some wonderful Hindu's.  Very peaceful, loving people.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What God is there other than Jesus?


All 3 persons of the Holy Trinity are equally God.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What God is there other than Jesus?





> All 3 persons of the Holy Trinity are equally God.


Well, there's that, but I don't think that's SF's point.  I think that creation itself shows us that God exists.  But you can't know the gospel without the Bible.  We don't know the gospel from nature.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Ask a Hindu I guess.


Those are idols that cannot save.  Jesus saves His people.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> All 3 persons of the Holy Trinity are equally God.


Yes.  It's better technically to say that all 3 Persons share equally in the divine nature.  If you say it like that, you avoid the charge of tri-theism.

----------


## VIDEODROME

orly?  

How about Unitarianism?

----------


## erowe1

> Then again, atheists aren't threatening Jesus with eternal damnation and suffering if he doesn't.
> 
> Wait, this sounds familiar. What else uses threats of violence to coerce obedience? I think it starts with an S.


Eternal damnation isn't a threat of violence. It's a threat of allowing people to be in the state of sin apart from God's grace that they are naturally in and wish to stay in.

I have an easier time seeing salvation as an act of violence, where God moves someone from the place their heart naturally inclines to something else. But the result of this act of violence is eternal blessedness with Him.

----------


## erowe1

> I don't believe that's true, TC.  
> 
> I think Jesus believes in everyone, and He holds out  hope that all will come to believe in Him.


Pardon me for speaking for TC, but I think what he meant was that Jesus doesn't believe that any atheists actually exist.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Eternal damnation isn't a threat of violence. It's a threat of allowing people to be in the state of sin apart from God's grace that they are naturally in and wish to stay in.
> 
> I have an easier time seeing salvation as an act of violence, where God moves someone from the place their heart naturally inclines to something else. But the result of this act of violence is eternal blessedness with Him.


Will the people who are in Hell be happy to be there?  In what sense?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes.  It's better technically to say that all 3 Persons share equally in the divine nature.  If you say it like that, you avoid the charge of tri-theism.


Good point.  Thanks.  ~hugs~

----------


## Sola_Fide

> orly?  
> 
> How about Unitarianism?


What about it?   It's so plainly contradicted by the Bible it didn't need to be brought up.

----------


## erowe1

> Will the people who are in Hell be happy to be there?  In what sense?


I don't think so. But people who willfully choose sin, even in this life, often experience displeasure with their own choice. People in Hell will be unrepentant and willful in their continuance in sin. Their lot will only be the natural and neutral one of anyone who is merely left to be among that mass of humanity that is what it is.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Eternal damnation isn't a threat of violence. It's a threat of allowing people to be in the state of sin apart from God's grace that they are naturally in and wish to stay in.
> 
> I have an easier time seeing salvation as an act of violence, where God moves someone from the place their heart naturally inclines to something else. But the result of this act of violence is eternal blessedness with Him.


I agree with that.  Salvation is an act of force on man's will.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Okay so any random person dies that doesn't believe, or believes wrongly like the Hindus do(according to some people).  

Hindu dies and is surprised to see Jesus.  Is offered the choice of Heaven or Hell.  Picks Heaven..... duh.  Happy ending.  

Is this about right?  

If it's this simple, maybe we don't even have to worry so much about this stuff.  Just live our lives and enjoy time on Earth.  Then we die and just pick heaven.  Hell just doesn't have a good reputation.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Okay so any random person dies that doesn't believe, or believes wrongly like the Hindus do(according to some people).  
> 
> Hindu dies and is surprised to see Jesus.  Is offered the choice of Heaven or Hell.  Picks Heaven..... duh.  Happy ending.  
> 
> Is this about right?  
> 
> If it's this simple, maybe we don't even have to worry so much about this stuff.  Just live our lives and enjoy time on Earth.  Then we die and just pick heaven.  Hell just doesn't have a good reputation.


That is NOT how it works.

----------


## erowe1

> Okay so any random person dies that doesn't believe, or believes wrongly like the Hindus do(according to some people).  
> 
> Hindu dies and is surprised to see Jesus.  Is offered the choice of Heaven or Hell.  Picks Heaven..... duh.  Happy ending.  
> 
> Is this about right?  
> 
> If it's this simple, maybe we don't even have to worry so much about this stuff.  Just live our lives and enjoy time on Earth.  Then we die and just pick heaven.  Hell just doesn't have a good reputation.


The biggest problem I see with this is when you say "picks Heaven."

Hell may have a bad reputation. But the human race, save for Jesus Christ, has unanimously agreed that it is the destiny of their choosing.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Okay so any random person dies that doesn't believe, or believes wrongly like the Hindus do(according to some people).  
> 
> Hindu dies and is surprised to see Jesus.  Is offered the choice of Heaven or Hell.  Picks Heaven..... duh.  Happy ending.  
> 
> Is this about right?  
> 
> If it's this simple, maybe we don't even have to worry so much about this stuff.  Just live our lives and enjoy time on Earth.  Then we die and just pick heaven.  Hell just doesn't have a good reputation.


No.  Salvation isn't about what man picks.  Salvation is about how God will save His people.  Even in this life, when man "picks" or "chooses", he only does that because God has first made His choice for that person.  Salvation is all of God and none of man.

----------


## VIDEODROME

So God made me an Atheist?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So God made me an Atheist?


Haha... SF is going to have fun with this one

(For the record, the answer I would give is that God created you as you are, but that this fact does not negate your responsibility to repent and believe.)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So God made me an Atheist?


God has commanded all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel, including you.  But your atheism is no surprise to God.  God is completely sovereign over your unbelief right now.  I pray He opens your eyes and gives you a heart of flesh, but if He never does that, He is just to condemn you for your sin against Him and other people.

----------


## erowe1

> So God made me an Atheist?


Whatever it is that you are, would you like God to change that? He can.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Whatever it is that you are, would you like God to change that? He can.


I like this answer.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Some money in the bank would help me out.

----------


## Terry1

> Some money in the bank would help me out.


God said you have not because you've not asked.  It would be amusing to see an atheist come to the Lord because He answered your prayer for a lot of money. ROFL.

Then you'd have to give some to me because I gave you a heads up on that.

----------


## Brett85

> God has commanded all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel, including you.


But according to you, God intentionally blinds the vast majority of people and never even allows them to see the truth and have the chance to be saved.

----------


## VIDEODROME

What if it's God's plan for me to be an Atheist?   If I started to be Christian would that mean Satan was pushing me against God's plan?

----------


## Miss Annie

> What if it's God's plan for me to be an Atheist?   If I started to be Christian would that mean Satan was pushing me against God's plan?


No!  Jesus died so that we may all have the opportunity to go to heaven.

----------


## Miss Annie

John 3
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

----------


## Brett85

> What if it's God's plan for me to be an Atheist?   If I started to be Christian would that mean Satan was pushing me against God's plan?


That's the argument that Sola Fide makes practically every day on this forum.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> John 3
> 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
> 
> 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.


If this is true, than what do we have to worry about?  Can we all relax and just enjoy life without worrying about Hell?

----------


## Terry1

> If this is true, than what do we have to worry about?  Can we all relax and just enjoy life without worrying about Hell?


ROFL!

----------


## Brett85

> If this is true, than what do we have to worry about?  Can we all relax and just enjoy life without worrying about Hell?


I think the more accurate way to say it is that Jesus died for everyone who believes, but he wants everyone to believe.  But Jesus dying on the cross doesn't mean that you'll automatically go to heaven.  You have to accept the gift and believe.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Well what...  Jesus saved us right?  

It almost seems to me people like wanting to be saved or rescued.  Already being saved is boring in comparison.  What that Hell thing? Original Sin?  Jesus took care of it.  

Some people run with this and try to start Universalism and people get all mad at that message which is to bad.  People would rather feel like they're in peril in need of salvation instead of already having it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If this is true, than what do we have to worry about?  Can we all relax and just enjoy life without worrying about Hell?


No.  Salvation is a lifelong process.  It is unfortunate that the false doctrine of certain heretics and modern "fundamentalists" WRT being "born again" and therefore never having to be considerate of anything has been popular for so long that it's just passed into "common knowlege". :/

----------


## Brett85

> No.  Salvation is a lifelong process.  It is unfortunate that the false doctrine of certain heretics and modern "fundamentalists" WRT being "born again" and therefore never having to be considerate of anything has been popular for so long that it's just passed into "common knowlege". :/


Justification is a one time event; sanctification is a lifelong process.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Jesus was a fictional character who was symbolically attached to the change of seasons as observed by the Ancients. And there have been many "Jesus" figures throughout the ages that serve to remind civilization of the solar phenomenon. Bada bing. It's just that simple.

People are certainly free to accept and believe what they wish but the facts is the facts is the facts. and the same phenomenon that these ancients observed then still happen today.  

Anyone here ever been to a sunrise service during "Easter"? In the spring when the sun officially "comes back to life"?

Here you go. It's the quickest I could do on the fly. A great once over though.






And still today....

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Jeseus was a fictional character who was attached to the change of seasons as observed by the Ancients. And there have been many "Jesus" figures throughout the ages that serve to remind civilization of the solar phenomenon. Bada bing.


Like Zoroaster?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Like Zoroaster?


I don't know, V. I don't even keep track of them any more. Cripes, every other week there are a few more isms added toeveryone's lists.

----------


## erowe1

> What if it's God's plan for me to be an Atheist?   If I started to be Christian would that mean Satan was pushing me against God's plan?


No. Nothing ever has happened or ever will happen that differs from God's plan in even the slightest way.

----------


## MelissaWV

Do a whitepages.com search for Jesus Christ.  He does exist.

----------


## erowe1

> Jesus was a fictional character who was symbolically attached to the change of seasons as observed by the Ancients


Here's 1 Corinthians 15:1-11.




> Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
> 
> 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
> 
> 9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.


Note that this was written while the eyewitnesses of Jesus still lived, as it says, around AD 50.

This is 1 Corinthians 9:5 from the same book.



> Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?


And Galatians 1:19 from a book that is very possible from the early 40's, and if not that, then at least not much later than 1 Corinthians.



> But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.


Note that fictional characters don't have brothers who are real live people.

----------


## Terry1

> Do a whitepages.com search for Jesus Christ.  He does exist.


I just did that search and you're right--- check this out. ROFL

http://www.whitepages.com/name/Jesus-Christ

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Justification is a one time event; sanctification is a lifelong process.


This is more accurate, thanks.  ~hugs~

----------


## erowe1

> Justification is a one time event; sanctification is a lifelong process.


What HB was giving in that quote was the EO view, which does not accept that justification is a one-time event, but rather a life-long process. See, for example, Decree 9 here. See also, here. Note especially the description of it as imparted, rather than imputed, righteousness.

You're right, though, that the apostles taught that it was a one-time event in the New Testament. The EO view is a later innovation. I'm not sure when it was first devised.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Jesus was a fictional character who was symbolically attached to the change of seasons as observed by the Ancients. And there have been many "Jesus" figures throughout the ages that serve to remind civilization of the solar phenomenon. Bada bing. It's just that simple.
> 
> People are certainly free to accept and believe what they wish but the facts is the facts is the facts. and the same phenomenon that these ancients observed then still happen today.  
> 
> Anyone here ever been to a sunrise service during "Easter"? In the spring when the sun officially "comes back to life"?
> 
> Here you go. It's the quickest I could do on the fly. A great once over though.
> d still today....


Zeitgeist is one of the least credible sources you could possibly cite.  Look at the source material the producers used-weak, at best.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/Zeitge...uide%20PDF.pdf

Notice he doesn't even bother to consider evidence to the contrary of his claims, such as contemporary historians like Tacitus.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Zeitgeist is one of the least credible sources you could possibly cite.  Look at the source material the producers used-weak, at best.
> http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/Zeitge...uide%20PDF.pdf
> 
> Notice he doesn't even bother to consider evidence to the contrary of his claims, such as contemporary historians like Tacitus.


Well. As I said, it was the quickest thing I could find on the fly. And that particular segment of it is spot on. 

If you would like, I suppose that I could gather the data itself. It is, after all, my field.

The cosmos are not "history".

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Here's some more on the EO view of Justification (generally distinguished from salvation, in my experience).  I don't have time to type it, so I'm going to copypasta.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Justification



> *Definition*The word justification is used three times in the Romans. The word group is defined in the following manner: _dike_ (root word of the group, meaning right or just), _dikaios_ (meaning righteously or justly), _dikaiosune_ (meaning righteousness or justice),_dikaiosis_ (meaning “the act of pronouncing righteous” or acquittal), _dikaioma_ (meaning an ordinance, a sentence of acquittal or condemnation, a righteous deed), _dikaio_ (meaning “to show to be righteous” or “to declare righteous”), and _dikastase_ (meaning “to judge” or “a judge”). It appears that the word group, when taken as a whole, can convey both a sense of righteousness and justice (as a legal declaration).
> This legal framework for understanding justification all hinges on the concept of justice as understood in the pagan Greek culture of the time - _dikaiosis_. The ancient, pagan Greeks, Thucydides for one, adhered to a juridical understanding of this concept as punishment. It is valid to assume that St. Paul was familiar with these pagan concepts, since this Greek culture was his immediate cultural context. The question arises: What do we do with St. Paul’s Jewish heritage and culture that was no less familiar to St. Paul, but was surely of more importance to him? Dr. Alexandre Kalomiros in _The River of Fire_ proposes that the traditional Eastern Christian and patristic view of justification is more compatible with the nature of the Christian God. He says:
> "The word dikaiosune, 'justice,' is a translation of the Hebraic word _tsedaka_. This word :means 'the divine energy which accomplishes man’s salvation.' It is parallel and almost :synonymous to the other Hebraic word, _hesed_, which means 'mercy,' 'compassion,' 'love,' :and to the word _emeth_ which means 'fidelity,' 'truth.' This gives a completely other :dimension to what we usually conceive as justice. This is how the Church understood God’s :justice. This is what the Fathers of the Church taught of it - God is not :just, with the human meaning of this word, but we see that His justice means His goodness and :love, which are given in an unjust manner, that is, God always gives without taking anything :in return, and He gives to persons like us who are not worthy of receiving."Kalomiros sees justification primarily in an eschatological manner. For Kalomiros, justification is both present and future, eliciting submission in loving response to the unmerited love of God by those who would respond in faith. So, for the Eastern Christian, it is this imparted “righteousness,” _dikaiosune_, (instead of a juridical justification) that is culminated eschatologically in the fullness of time through the mercy of God by our loving response, in faith to Him.
> *Basis*So, in Romans 5:16, when St. Paul says, “And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto [dikaioma] justification,” the Eastern Christian and patristic scholar would be completely comfortable with justification defined as a “righteousness mercifully imparted by God that restores man to a state that was originally intended.” As the fall of Adam condemned the cosmos, and therefore mankind, to a world of sin and corruption, the death and resurrection of Christ is able to “make righteous” that creation which previously existed in a fallen state subjected to death.
> While Eastern Christian theology does not embrace a juridical framework, the work of Christ is the sole basis for our imparted righteousness and “justification” in the eyes of God. It is only the work of Christ on the Cross, the “tree that saves,” which can counter the condemnation and corruption introduced to the world through the Edenic tree.
> *Means*Viewing the word group holistically, we can turn to the rest of scripture for a more complete understanding of the _dike_ word group and its implications on St. Paul’s use of _dikaiosune_ et. al.
> In Matthew 5:17-20, Christ says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."
> Here we see a hint about the depth of the righteousness imparted to us by God in his mercy. The _dikaiosune tos anthropos_ that is unattainable by man (as indicated in the passage above) is to be replaced by the _dikaiosune tou theou_ – the righteousness of God in Christ, which is imparted to man in God’s mercy. There is no necessity for a juridical pronouncement of innocence, but rather Christ’s righteousness is imparted to man in a transformative manner through Christ and his death on the Cross.
> In the Eastern Church, this justification (impartation of righteousness) is associated with entrance into the Church. This is an ancient practice preserved from the earliest times. The liturgical texts indicate a process of conversion that culminates in baptismand the joining of oneself to the Church. The baptismal service text clearly defines this belief when the convert or newly baptized infant [after the baptism] is told, “You are justified; you are illumined!” (GOAA – _The Service of Holy Baptism_) Justification, the impartation of righteousness, begins at conversion through the mercy of God, and it continues throughout the life of the Christian as one is conformed, in righteousness, to the image and likeness of God through the power of the Holy Spirit.
> ...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well. As I said, it was the quickest thing I could find on the fly. And that particular segment of it is spot on. 
> 
> If you would like, I suppose that I could gather the data itself. It is, after all, my field.


Please do.  That segment is not spot on at all, if you're interested in solid evidence from any perspective.  The authors of Zeitgeist demonstrate no knowlege of Koine Greek, and their wordplay "sun/son" and so on doesn't work if you use the original text.  It's total nonsense that Joseph made up to dupe his audience.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No!  Jesus died so that we may all have the opportunity to go to heaven.


That is a popular false gospel today, but that is not the truth.  The good news is that Jesus actually saved His people at the cross.  He died for the sins of the elect and secured their salvation.  There is no conditionality in this sacrifice.   It fully and completely saves real people.

The popular false gospel today actually today says that Jesus died for all people, yet did not secure anyone's salvation.  This is the same as saying He didn't die for anyone.

----------


## TER

> What HB was giving in that quote was the EO view, which does not accept that justification is a one-time event, but rather a life-long process. See, for example, Decree 9 here. See also, here. Note especially the description of it as imparted, rather than imputed, righteousness.
> 
> You're right, though, that the apostles taught that it was a one-time event in the New Testament. The EO view is a later innovation. I'm not sure when it was first devised.


 What the Orthodox believe is also what the Scriptures say (not one verse here or there, but the entire Scriptures) and what the Fathers of the Church have taught.  And then you claim that the Orthodox view is the 'later innovation'!  

  I do appreciate the link to the Confession of Dositheus.  Good read indeed!

The concept of justification in Orthodox theology differs from that of evangelical Protestantism and is the consistent witness from the earliest saints recorded in the history of the Church. Instead of justification being simply a judicial declaration of the right status of the person on the basis of Christ's imputed righteousness, Orthodox theology holds that justification includes also the actual making of the person righteous. It involves the partaking of a "real righteousness" whereby the individual is in fact being made righteous by being "in Christ," that is, by becoming a partaker of the Divine nature and, thus, entering the path of theosis or deification, all biblical concepts which the West has lessened or ignored. Orthodox theology thus includes what evangelical Protestantism understands as regeneration and sanctification in the meaning of justification.  It defines justification as including the concept of being transformed into the likeness of God. Justification is included in the process of "salvation" or "deification" (being transformed into the likeness of God through union with Christ). Thus the place of works in relation to "salvation" or "deification" is also the place of works in relation to justification.

1.  "Justification is not merely a once-for-all event, but a dynamic, ongoing process. Three conditions are given here: God accepts whoever (1) fears Him (2) follows His commandments and (3) works righteousness made possible by the grace of God.  This in no way denies justification by faith; but it is not by faith alone. And God supplies the grace necessary for us to fear Him and work righteousness."

2.  Orthodox teaching implicitly denies justification by faith alone by asserting the necessity of following the Lord's commandments as well the sacramental rites for justification, regeneration, or salvation which Christ established, namely Holy Baptism, Holy Confession, and above all the Holy Eucharist.  Evangelical Protestantism denies that baptism or any other sacramental rite is essential for justification or regeneration.  This is actually the innovation.

Our justification and salvation are linked with our growth in Christ through theosis, thus is not a one time event but a lifelong process.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Please do.  That segment is not spot on at all, if you're interested in solid evidence from any perspective.  The authors of Zeitgeist demonstrate no knowlege of Koine Greek, and their wordplay "sun/son" and so on doesn't work if you use the original text.  It's total nonsense that Joseph made up to dupe his audience.


Listen. I don't care about Zeitgeist. But I know how the cosmos work. All of your history has been bastardized. It's irrelevant. Koine Greek or wordplay or any of that is irrelevant. Don't care if it "works".

And this Joseph character. Joseph who?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> saves That is a popular false gospel today, but that is not the truth.  The good news is that Jesus actually saved His people at the cross.  He died for the sins of the elect and secured their salvation.  There is no conditionality in this sacrifice.   It fully and completely saves real people.
> 
> The popular false gospel today actually today says that Jesus died for all people, yet did not secure anyone's salvation.  This is the same as saying He didn't die for anyone.


So, what do you make of the Sermon on the Mount?  These people he talked about certainly do not obtain any of it in this realm.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Please do.  That segment is not spot on at all, if you're interested in solid evidence from any perspective.  The authors of Zeitgeist demonstrate no knowlege of Koine Greek, and their wordplay "sun/son" and so on doesn't work if you use the original text.  It's total nonsense that Joseph made up to dupe his audience.


Since you don't want to actually refute it piece by piece, I guess @Natural Citizen will have to do the work.  I know, it's easier to just say "that's full of crap".  Did you watch the video @NC posted?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Since you don't want to actually refute it piece by piece, I guess @Natural Citizen will have to do the work."


He can't.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> He can't.


I know, because I had a friend that designed and built the controls for automating one the Utah Telescopes so that it could automatically locate and track stars, nebulas, etc. (he had a great database of all the named stars, galaxies, etc..).  He watched that video and said it was spot on, in fact, he got kind of got mad at me for not telling him about it sooner.  I wish he were still in this realm so that he could come here and discuss it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You're right, though, that the apostles taught that it was a one-time event in the New Testament. The EO view is a later innovation. I'm not sure when it was first devised.


Yes.  The departure from imputed righteousness was a later innovation.  This is why the EO church does not have apostolic authority.   It doesn't teach what the apostles taught.  Here is a description of what I'm talking about**:



> Kenneth Escott Kirk writes: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				“St. Paul's indignant wonder was evoked by the reversion of a small province of the Christian Church [Galatia] to the legalistic spirit of the Jewish religion. Had he lived half a century or a century later, his cause for amazement would have been increased a hundredfold. The example of the Galatians might be thought to have infected the entire Christian Church; writer after writer seems to have little other interest than to express the genius of Christianity wholly in terms of law and obedience, reward and punishment.”
> 			
> 		
> ...

----------


## Miss Annie

> If this is true, than what do we have to worry about?  Can we all relax and just enjoy life without worrying about Hell?


It is my belief that belief is all it takes.  I don't believe in a mixture of works salvation.  I believe in "blessed assurance".  I am simply one of those people that believes if I am saved by grace, I ain't kept by works.   I do not believe that this condones sin though.   Before I did the focused study, I was unsure, and found the more "sin conscious" I was, the more I sinned.  The more insecure I felt, the more anxious and unloving I was.   
It is common knowledge that "performance based love" is bad for our children, ....  God is not going to do it to his.

----------


## lilymc

> No.  Salvation is a lifelong process.  It is unfortunate that the false doctrine of certain heretics and modern "fundamentalists" WRT being "born again" and therefore never having to be considerate of anything has been popular for so long that it's just passed into "common knowlege". :/


Why do you talk about being born again as if it's a false idea, when Jesus Himself taught about the necessity of being born again.   I don't think you can get much more clear than:

*Do not be amazed that I said to you, You must be born again.*

John 3

----------


## Miss Annie

> That is a popular false gospel today, but that is not the truth.  The good news is that Jesus actually saved His people at the cross.  He died for the sins of the elect and secured their salvation.  There is no conditionality in this sacrifice.   It fully and completely saves real people.
> 
> The popular false gospel today actually today says that Jesus died for all people, yet did not secure anyone's salvation.  This is the same as saying He didn't die for anyone.


Mt 23:13 ¶ But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! *for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men*: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I know, because I had a friend that designed and built the controls for automating one the Utah Telescopes so that it could automatically locate and track stars, nebulas, etc. (he had a great database of all the named stars, galaxies, etc..).  He watched that video and said it was spot on, in fact, he got kind of got mad at me for not telling him about it sooner.  I wish he were still in this realm so that he could come here and discuss it.


The ancients were a part of the natural landscape. They understood it. And that landscape wasn't limited to Earth itself. The cosmos was their guide, so to speak. It was their way of life. A synergy. And we have devolved to the extent that there is a little man in the sky watching everything we do and we couldn't tell you if the Sun orbits the Earth or the Earth orbits the Sun to save our necks. It's that bad. That's "organization" for you.

I don't know, Clyde. I'm probably going to just bow out of this thread. I don't feel like herding cats today. And I really don't want to pee on people's faith.

----------


## TER

> Yes.  The departure from imputed righteousness was a later innovation.  This is why the EO church does not have apostolic authority.   It doesn't teach what the apostles taught.  Here is a description of what I'm talking about**:


Actually Sola, what you believe is the modern understanding.  The juridical view of Christ's work is but one aspect in His ministry and the West has adopted it as the prime and even sole view of our soteriology.  This was propagated in earnest by Anselm of Canterbury which he developed from Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine.  It became the main view of the Reformers but was never the complete picture with regards to how we are justified through Christ and find salvation.  The Scriptures themselves clearly speak about our growth in Christ and partaking in the divine nature through what would later be termed theosis.  Indeed, our justification and sanctification is through our theosis and growth into the likeness of God through Christ by the Holy Spirit.  This was the very reason Christ came into the world, so that we might be transfigured into His image and likeness by grace, not at one moment in time, but continuously and eternally.

----------


## TER

> Why do you talk about being born again as if it's a false idea, when Jesus Himself taught about the necessity of being born again.   I don't think you can get much more clear than:
> 
> *Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’*
> 
> John 3


We are born again through baptism.

----------


## TER

BTW Sola, the entire post you posted above just proves my point that the Orthodox belief is the belief of the early Church.  But to deny these proofs, you have to then take the leap that the Church fell into apostasy and create this untruth so that your interpretation of the Scriptures can be correct.  I simply am not buying it.

----------


## Brett85

> That is a popular false gospel today, but that is not the truth.  The good news is that Jesus actually saved His people at the cross.  He died for the sins of the elect and secured their salvation.  There is no conditionality in this sacrifice.   It fully and completely saves real people.
> 
> The popular false gospel today actually today says that Jesus died for all people, yet did not secure anyone's salvation.  This is the same as saying He didn't die for anyone.


He died for his people, but his people are those who choose to believe with their own free will.

----------


## lilymc

> We are born again through baptism.


Water baptism?  I respectfully disagree.

Baptism is just the outward sign of an inner change that has already taken place.  If that inner change never took place, the baptism in and of itself is basically meaningless.

----------


## erowe1

> He died for his people, but his people are those who choose to believe with their own free will.


But those who choose of their own free will are only those whom God first changes so that they are no longer inclined to choose not to believe in him, which is how all of us are by nature.

----------


## TER

> Water baptism?  I respectfully disagree.
> 
> Baptism is just the outward sign of an inner change that has already taken place.  If that inner change never took place, the baptism in and of itself is basically meaningless.


That is what you were taught, but that is not what Jesus, the Apostles, or the Church has taught either in the Scriptures or the writings of the saints going back to the beginning.  The idea that it is merely an 'outward sign' did not even come into existence until the 1600's and later.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> He died for his people, but his people are those who choose to believe with their own free will.


Let's see if that stands up to Scripture:




> 2 Timothy 1:9 NIV
> 
> He has saved us and called us to a holy lifenot because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,


Nope.  It doesn't stand up.  It is "not because of anything we've done.  This grace was given to the elect before the beginning of time.  THAT is why they believe.  Not their free will.

----------


## RJB

The thread is called "I don't believe in Jesus Christ."

A few post above someone posts a video with a bunch of astrological mumbo jumbo, even bringing up the debunked 16 crucified saviors and no historical documentation to "prove" Jesus was an invention.  

What do Christians do?  Attack each other.

----------


## Brett85

> But the only way anybody can choose of their own free will is if God first changes them so that they are no longer inclined to choose not to believe in him, which is how all of us are by nature.


God can work in our lives and try to change our hearts, but ultimately we still have the free will to choose to reject him.  The Bible says that God draws us to him, but he doesn't force us to go to him.  (And I know you didn't use the word "forced," but I'm just making the case that believers still ultimately choose to accept Christ)

----------


## lilymc

> That is what you were taught, but that is not what Jesus, the Apostles, or the Church has taught either in the Scriptures or the writings of the saints back to the beginning.  The idea that it is an 'outward sign' did not even come into existence until the 1600's and later.


What kind of baptism are you talking about?  Infant baptism?  Or water baptism that happens later in life?

I grew up Catholic, so I was taught that infant baptism and all that stuff is necessary.   

But infant baptism is not even biblical.  

And iyam it's a dangerous doctrine, because it gives some people a false sense of security.

If you are talking about water baptism later in life, that also is not what being born again is all about.

----------


## Brett85

> Let's see if that stands up to Scripture:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  It doesn't stand up.  The grace was given to the elect before the beginning of time.  THAT is why they believe.  Not their free will.


Yeah, you'll constantly quote the scriptures that seem to provide evidence for your view, while simply ignoring all of the verses that go against your view, or coming up with ridiculous interpretations of verses, parsing words, and making certain words mean the exact opposite of what they actually mean.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> God can work in our lives and try to change our hearts, but ultimately we still have the free will to choose to reject him. * The Bible says that God draws us to him, but he doesn't force us to go to him.*  (And I know you didn't use the word "forced," but I'm just making the case that believers still ultimately choose to accept Christ)


The word "draw" in Greek means to drag by force.  _Helkuo_.

When a person draws up water from a well, do they yell down in to the well and plead for the water to come up?  Or do they drop a bucket down and drag the water out by force?

----------


## Brett85

> The thread is called "I don't believe in Jesus Christ."
> 
> A few post above someone posts a video with a bunch of astrological mumbo jumbo, even bringing up the debunked 16 crucified saviors and no historical documentation to "prove" Jesus was an invention.  
> 
> What do Christians do?  Attack each other.


I don't think that was serious enough to even deserve a response.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The thread is called "I don't believe in Jesus Christ."
> 
> A few post above someone posts a video with a bunch of astrological mumbo jumbo, even bringing up the debunked 16 crucified saviors and no historical documentation to "prove" Jesus was an invention.  
> 
> What do Christians do?  Attack each other.


Romanism and Arminianism are not Christian theologies.  Christians aren't attacking each other.

----------


## erowe1

> God can work in our lives and try to change our hearts, but ultimately we still have the free will to choose to reject him.  The Bible says that God draws us to him, but he doesn't force us to go to him.  (And I know you didn't use the word "forced," but I'm just making the case that believers still ultimately choose to accept Christ)


I never deny that they choose to accept Christ. But when they do, that choosing is the result of a work God did within them, without which they wouldn't have chosen to accept Christ, and with which they are certain to choose to accept him. It ultimately goes back 100% to God's grace. Even if we call this choosing "free will," the Bible still makes no allowance for its not having been the result of an effectual work of God.

----------


## Brett85

> The word "draw" in Greek means to drag by force.  _Helkuo_.
> 
> When a person draws up water from a well, do they yell down in to the well and plead for the water to come up?  Or do they drop a bucket down and drag the water out by force?


It doesn't always mean that, and all of the English translators disagree with you.  Every single translation says "draw," not "drag."

http://biblehub.com/john/6-44.htm

----------


## erowe1

> The thread is called "I don't believe in Jesus Christ."
> 
> A few post above someone posts a video with a bunch of astrological mumbo jumbo, even bringing up the debunked 16 crucified saviors and no historical documentation to "prove" Jesus was an invention.  
> 
> What do Christians do?  Attack each other.


Right after that post I disproved it. I don't think the supporters of that mumbo jumbo have made any attempt to respond to that disproof.

----------


## Brett85

> Romanism and Arminianism are not Christian theologies.  Christians aren't attacking each other.


Do you go to a church that is made up of all Calvinist/limited atonement believers?  If not, do you go up to all of the members of your church who disagree with you and tell them that they aren't really Christians and are going to hell?

And you really are an extremely arrogant, prideful person.  Your attitude and the way you present yourself to other people is the exact opposite of the way that Christ acted and presented himself here on earth.

----------


## erowe1

> It doesn't always mean that, and all of the English translators disagree with you.  Every single translation says "draw," not "drag."
> 
> http://biblehub.com/john/6-44.htm


In English, "draw" means "drag."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/draw



> draw  [draw]  Show IPA
> verb (used with object), drew, drawn, draw·ing.
> 1. to cause to move in a particular direction by or as if by a pulling force; pull; drag (often followed by along, away, in, out,  or off  ).

----------


## RJB

> Romanism and Arminianism are not Christian theologies.  Christians aren't attacking each other.


Come on brother.  A good portion of what you post about the beliefs of others is false.  You should ask yourself why your leaders must lie to you about others.

----------


## TER

> What kind of baptism are you talking about?  Infant baptism?  Or water baptism that happens later in life?
> 
> I grew up Catholic, so I was taught that infant baptism and all that stuff is necessary.   
> 
> But infant baptism is not even biblical.  
> 
> And iyam it's a dangerous doctrine, because it gives some people a false sense of security.
> 
> If you are talking about water baptism later in life, that also is not what being born again is all about.


Infant baptism is indeed biblical although unfortunately is not clearly stated (for example, we hear about households being baptized in Acts, but it does not give the specific details).  Nevertheless, this is where the Church comes in to fill in such gaps as the guardians and interpreters of Scripture, for from the very beginning the practice was to baptize children and babies.  In fact, it wasn't until the 3rd century when this started to be challenged by I believe Tertullian.  It was the practice EVERYWHERE up until then and considered apostolic.

As for being born again in the sense you are describing (the modern verbiage), it may indeed be powerful and Spirit illuminating and real, but that does not either negate or replace the mystery of regeneration and rebirth of water baptism which was the explicit teachings of Christ to His Apostles and practiced since then.  When Christ said we are reborn through water and Spirit, He was talking about water baptism and explaining the real mystical change which happens in the sacrament.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It doesn't always mean that, and all of the English translators disagree with you.  Every single translation says "draw," not "drag."
> 
> http://biblehub.com/john/6-44.htm



Let's see where else _helkuo_ is used in the New Testament:




> John 21:11 
> 
> Simon Peter went up and dragged the net onto the land, full of big fish, a hundred and fifty three. And [though] being so many, the net was not torn.


Was Peter PLEADING with the fish net to come ashore?





> Acts 16:19
> 
> And seeing that the hope of their gain went out, having seized Paul and Silas, her lords dragged them to the market before the rulers.


Did they PLEAD with Paul and Silas to come to the market?





> Acts 21:30 
> 
> And the whole city was moved, and there was a running together of people. And laying hands on Paul, they drew him outside of the temple, and at once the doors were shut.


Did they PLEAD with Paul to come out of the Temple?





> James 2:6 
> 
> But you dishonored the poor one. Do not the rich ones oppress you, and they drag you to judgment seats?


Did the rich ones PLEAD with them to come to the judgment seats?




As you can see, this word doesn’t have anything to do with "wooing" or with "enticing" or even with ASKING. It is a FORCEFUL DRAGGING. 

A better translation of John 6:44 would be, “No one is able to come to Me unless the Father who sent Me DRAGS him.”

What is the point of all this?  Salvation is ALL of God, and NONE of man.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Good point.  Even after all the posts of Sola Fide attacking Arminians and Romans, I'm not sure what the church is he finds acceptable.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Right after that post I disproved it. I don't think the supporters of that mumbo jumbo have made any attempt to respond to that disproof.



Uh-uh. You didn't disprove anything. Maybe in your world. Not in the _real_ world, e. So there is your answer.

There is just nothing to be had by going back and forth. You do your thing and I'll do mine.

----------


## Brett85

Like I said, every single English translator disagrees with you, and for good reason.

----------


## erowe1

> Like I said, every single English translator disagrees with you, and for good reason.


How do they disagree? They say "draw."

----------


## RJB

> Good point.  Even after all the posts of Sola Fide attacking Arminians and Romans, I'm not sure what the church is he finds acceptable.


I think he's a Universalist.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Like I said, every single English translator disagrees with you, and for good reason.


What are you talking about?  The word means DRAG.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I think he's a Universalist.


lmao

----------


## Brett85

> What are you talking about?  The word means DRAG.


The word means a lot of different things.  It also means this.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/draw

"to bring by inducement or allure :  attract <honey draws flies"

----------


## erowe1

> Uh-uh. You didn't disprove anything. Maybe in your world. Not in the real world, e.


What are your answers? According to the earliest records we have of any beliefs about Jesus, these beliefs come from people who knew him personally, as a flesh and blood human being on this earth. Some of these people were brothers of Jesus. His mom was their mom. We have written sources from when these people were living within 20 years of the time that Jesus was alive on this earth, some of which are by these very same people, and others of which are by people who knew them. Where did all these people come from if Jesus didn't exist?

Tacitus wrote that the label "Christian" came from someone he called "Christus" who was crucified by Pontius Pilate (see here). Who was this person who was crucified by Pontius Pilate that Tacitus was talking about?

----------


## Brett85

> Good point.  Even after all the posts of Sola Fide attacking Arminians and Romans, I'm not sure what the church is he finds acceptable.


I don't think Sola Fide even goes to church.  He probably thinks he's too good for that.

----------


## erowe1

> The word means a lot of different things.  It also means this.
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/draw
> 
> "to bring by inducement or allure :  attract

If you admit that the English translations use a word that means exactly what he's saying, even if it can mean other things, then how can you say that they prove him wrong? Even in your source, the first definition is just what SF said.

----------


## Brett85

> If you admit that the English translations use a word that means exactly what he's saying, even if it can mean other things, then how can you say that they prove him wrong?


I don't think I said that.  I just said that he can't prove that he's right.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Why go to church if you're Elect?  I mean right there you're all set.

----------


## lilymc

> Infant baptism is indeed biblical although unfortunately is not clearly stated (for example, we hear about households being baptized in acts, but it does not give the specific details).  Nevertheless, this is where the Church comes in to fill in such gaps as the guardians and interpreters of Scripture, for from the very beginning the practice was to baptize children and babies.  In fact, it wasn't until the 3rd century when this started to be challenged by I believe Tertullian.  The practice EVERYWHERE up until then considered apostolic.
> 
> As for being born again in the sense you are describing (the modern verbiage), it is indeed powerful and Spirit illuminating and real, but that does not either negate or replace the mystery of regeneration and rebirth of water baptism which was the explicit teachings of Christ to His Apostles and practiced since then.


Jesus gave us an example of water baptism.  He was a full-grown adult when he was baptized, not a baby. 

I can't think of any examples of infant baptism in the bible.  If you know of any, please post them.

Churches are not always right about everything.  I trust the bible, not any particular church.

A person needs to have a true change of heart/mind.  That's one of the problems I have with the Catholic church...  When there's too much "religion" people often go through the motions without truly surrendering to God and making a conscious choice to commit to Jesus.    Take my mom, for example.  She believes in God, and she usually goes to church every Sunday.  But the rest of the week she's just like everyone else.  She never reads the bible, she would much rather watch TV, she still has a very worldly mindset, she worries about money and is very tight-fisted with it..... but most of all, she rejects the idea that she has to change, or the idea of being born again.      

That's a very dangerous place to be.... thinking that going through the sacraments and going to church makes one saved, when their life does not show any significant difference than what it always was, and a person is more comfortable with the world than belonging to God and growing spiritually. 

  (I'm not talking about anyone here, I'm just speaking in general)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The word means a lot of different things.  It also means this.
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/draw


Look at where else helkuo is used in the New Testament.   Where does this word mean "enticing"???




> John 21:11 
> 
> Simon Peter went up and *dragged* the net onto the land, full of big fish, a hundred and fifty three. And [though] being so many, the net was not torn.





> Acts 16:19
> 
> And seeing that the hope of their gain went out, having seized Paul and Silas, her lords *dragged* them to the market before the rulers.





> Acts 21:30 
> 
> And the whole city was moved, and there was a running together of people. And laying hands on Paul, they *drew* him outside of the temple, and at once the doors were shut.





> James 2:6 
> 
> But you dishonored the poor one. Do not the rich ones oppress you, and they *drag* you to judgment seats?


Do any of these mean "enticing"?

----------


## Brett85

> Why go to church if you're Elect?  I mean right there you're all set.


Right.  Why even try to live a good life if you're elect?  If you're assured salvation no matter what, it seems as though you might as well just live life without boundaries and do what you want to do.

----------


## erowe1

> Right.  Why even try to live a good life if you're elect?  If you're assured salvation no matter what, it seems as though you might as well just live life without boundaries and do what you want to do.


Also, since it's already determined how long you're going to live, why eat?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Right.  Why even try to live a good life if you're elect?  If you're assured salvation no matter what, it seems as though you might as well just live life without boundaries and do what you want to do.


A Christian lives a holy life out of gratitude to the favor that God has so graciously shown to him.  And a Christian's works are part of the sanctification of the Spirit, which all comes from God anyway.

You think that a Christian does good works to maintain his salvation.   This is the Galatian heresy that Paul condemns in Galatians 3.

----------


## Brett85

> Look at where else helkuo is used in the New Testament.   Where does this word mean "enticing"???
> 
> Do any of these mean "enticing"?


You didn't cite this verse.

"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

----------


## TER

> Jesus gave us an example of water baptism.  He was a full-grown adult when he was baptized, not a baby. 
> 
> I can't think of any examples of infant baptism in the bible.  If you know of any, please post them.
> 
> Churches are not always right about everything.  I trust the bible, not any particular church.
> 
> A person needs to have a true change of heart/mind.  That's one of the problems I have with the Catholic church...  When there's too much "religion" people often go through the motions without truly surrendering to God and making a conscious choice to commit to Jesus.    Take my mom, for example.  She believes in God, and she usually goes to church every Sunday.  But the rest of the week she's just like everyone else.  She never reads the bible, she would much rather watch TV, she still has a very worldly mindset, she worries about money and is very tight-fisted with it..... but most of all, she rejects the idea that she has to change, or the idea of being born again.      
> 
> That's a very dangerous place to be.... thinking that going through the sacraments and going to church makes one saved, when their life does not show any significant difference than what it always was, and a person is more comfortable with the world than belonging to God and growing spiritually. 
> ...


Very well lily, we can then agree to disagree.    it's too late at night right now (and frankly I like you too much ) to debate this.  I am happy to know you have Christ in your heart.  That is the most important thing.  I wish you a lovely evening.  Now, off to bed for me!  Goodnight all!  I hope you guys get the Greek figured out before dawn!

----------


## MelissaWV

Threads like this actually bring me closer to God.  I'd imagine He has a good laugh at the back and forth as long as no one's harmed and someone learns something.

----------


## Brett85

> You think that a Christian does good works to maintain his salvation.   This is the Galatian heresy that Paul condemns in Galatians 3.


No, that's not what I believe.  I never said anything of the sort.

----------


## lilymc

> Very well lily, we can then agree to disagree.    it's too late at night right now (and frankly I like you too much ) to debate this.  I am happy to know you have Christ in your heart.  That is the most important thing.  I wish you a lovely evening.  Now, off to bed for me!  Goodnight all!  I hope you guys get the Greek figured out before dawn!


Thank you for being so kind and civil.   Good night!

----------


## Brett85

> Threads like this actually bring me closer to God.  I'd imagine He has a good laugh at the back and forth as long as no one's harmed and someone learns something.


Sola Fide will turn every thread into a debate about limited atonement.  He posts here for the sole reason of debating that issue and that issue alone.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You didn't cite this verse.
> 
> "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."


Yes TC,  Jesus will draw ALL men to Himself, not just Jews, but Gentiles as well.  ALL men.

In the Bible, ALL does not mean "every single one without exception".

----------


## Brett85

> Yes TC,  Jesus will draw ALL men to Himself, not just Jews, but Gentiles as well.  ALL men.
> 
> In the Bible, ALL does not mean "every single one without exception".


It does mean every single person in the entire world when there's no context which indicates otherwise, and there certainly isn't in that verse.  It means that God will draw all men to him, and some will still choose to reject him and reject Christ's free gift on the cross.

----------


## erowe1

> I don't think I said that.  I just said that he can't prove that he's right.


I think he's right about the meaning of _helko_. I just checked the Liddell-Scott-Jones and the Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich lexicons. It doesn't look like "allure" or anything like that is within the range of meanings of that word. "Drag" is the normal meaning.

I don't see "draw" as a mistranslation, since "draw" means "drag." I notice that in the Oxford English Dictionary, it doesn't even mention a use of "draw" for "induce to come" until you get down to the 26th definition, and there it calls that usage figurative.

Also, what tends to happen in English translation is that certain ways of putting things that became established by the KJV just get kept by others. And since the KJV uses "draw" in John 6:44, it's not surprising that so many others do. In the OED's references for historic usage of the word, I do see that there are some instances of that figurative usage that you seem to be preferring that go back to before the time of the KJV, but in comparison to other uses of the word in older English, that one seems especially rare.

----------


## erowe1

> It does mean every single person in the entire world when there's no context which indicates otherwise


What's your basis for saying this?

----------


## Brett85

> What's your basis for saying this?


Because the verse is clear and explicit and says that he will draw all men to himself.  It gives no exceptions.  All men means exactly what it says, all men.  There's no need to parse words.

----------


## Miss Annie

> Thank you for being so kind and civil.   Good night!


TER is such a beautiful soul!  We don't always agree on everything,...... but he is civil and kind always!

----------


## Brett85

> TER is such a beautiful soul!  We don't always agree on everything,...... but he is civil and kind always!


Yeah, he's a great example of what a Christian should actually act like.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Because the verse is clear and explicit and says that he will draw all men to himself.  It gives no exceptions.  All men means exactly what it says, all men.  There's no need to parse words.


Are you KIDDING me??? John 12 is one of the most explicitly predestinarian chapters in the Bible.




> John 12:37-40 NIV
> 
> Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet: 
> 
> Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?    
> 
> *For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:   
> 
> He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turnand I would heal them.*

----------


## erowe1

> Because the verse is clear and explicit and says that he will draw all men to himself.  It gives no exceptions.  All men means exactly what it says, all men.  There's no need to parse words.


First of all, the verse doesn't need to give exceptions. You're trying to give the word "all" some absolute sense that I don't see any basis for giving it. You demand that there be a specific contextual reason to limit it, but you don't think you need a specific contextual reason to make it unlimited. I don't agree with your aversion to parsing words. If you want to understand a passage and study it in detail, that's what you have to do.

Second, the passage does not say "all men." It just says "all." So if you're going to use your rule, then you can't just limit it to people, it has to mean every single thing in existence.

Third, even if it did say "all men," in what possible way could it be absolutely all people? Not everybody knows about Jesus or his crucifixion. How do you understand that by being crucified he draws absolutely all people to himself? Do you apply that to the final judgment when all people will stand before him or something?

----------


## Brett85

I thought that you believed that people can't believe because they're totally depraved since birth and aren't capable of exercising free will to accept Christ?  If that's the case, why would God have to "harden the hearts" of the Pharisees to keep them from believing?

----------


## Jamesiv1

> You do realize you're paraphrasing Jesus, right?


And Buddha, and Krishna, and Mohammed, and Zarathustra, and Confucius, and....

----------


## Sola_Fide

> First of all, the verse doesn't need to give exceptions. You're trying to give the word "all" some absolute sense that I don't see any basis for giving it. You demand that there be a specific contextual reason to limit it, but you don't think you need a specific contextual reason to make it unlimited. I don't agree with your aversion to parsing words. If you want to understand a passage and study it in detail, that's what you have to do.
> 
> Second, the passage does not say "all men." It just says "all." So if you're going to use your rule, then you can't just limit it to people, it has to mean every single thing in existence.
> 
> Third, even if it did say "all men," in what possible way could it be absolutely all people? Not everybody knows about Jesus or his crucifixion. How do you understand that by being crucified he draws absolutely all people to himself? Do you apply that to the final judgment when all people will stand before him or something?


TC, I think this post demands some answers from you.  Why do you inject your atextual meaning into that verse.

----------


## Brett85

> Second, the passage does not say "all men." It just says "all." So if you're going to use your rule, then you can't just limit it to people, it has to mean every single thing in existence.


Uh, no, the verse clearly says all men.

"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." 

The verse means what it says, all men.  God's commandments are written in the hearts of all men everywhere, even if they've never specifically heard the name "Jesus."  There have been examples of people in remote parts of the world who have come to believe in Jesus, even though they didn't know his name and had a different name for him.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> There must be a moral law that transcends us.


Why must it transcend us?  Why can't it simply dwell within us?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I thought that you believed that people can't believe because they're totally depraved since birth and aren't capable of exercising free will to accept Christ?  If that's the case, why would God have to "harden the hearts" of the Pharisees to keep them from believing?





> John 12:37-40 NIV
> 
> Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet: 
> 
> Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?    
> 
> For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:   
> 
> He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turnand I would heal them.


"For this reason they could not believe", "to fulfill the word of Isaiah".  

The hardening of the heart is according to the eternal plan and predestination of God.  God has a _ good_  reason for predestinating hard hearts.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why must it transcend us?  Why can't it simply dwell within us?


Because what is in my brain is different than what is in your brain, so what is in your brain can't be a "law".

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Uh, no, the verse clearly says all men.
> 
> "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." 
> 
> The verse means what it says, all men.  God's commandments are written in the hearts of all men everywhere, even if they've never specifically heard the name "Jesus."  There have been examples of people in remote parts of the world who have come to believe in Jesus, even though they didn't know his name and had a different name for him.


What are you talking about?   The law written on the heart in Romans 1 and 2 CONDEMNS man and renders him without excuse!  That revelation doesn't drag men to Himself!   It condemns them all.

----------


## Brett85

> "For this reason they could not believe", "to fulfill the word of Isaiah".  
> 
> The hardening of the heart is according to the eternal plan and predestination of God.  God has a _ good_  reason for predestinating hard hearts.


But the verse says that he only blinded these specific people, in order to fulfill what had to come to pass, Christ's death and resurrection.  The verse doesn't say that God blinds the eyes of all unbelievers, and it doesn't say that he permanently blinded these specific people.  He blinded them long enough to make his death and resurrection come to pass.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But the verse says that he only blinded these specific people, in order to fulfill what had to come to pass, Christ's death and resurrection.  The verse doesn't say that God blinds the eyes of all unbelievers, and it doesn't say that he permanently blinded them.  He blinded them long enough to make his death and resurrection come to pass.


Even if it was just a blinding that only happened to them (it's not), it would completely contradict Arminianism.

----------


## Brett85

> Even if it was just a blinding that only happened to them (it's not), it would completely contradict Arminianism.


There are verses in the Bible that contradict Arminianism.  There are verses in the Bible that contradict limited atonement/unconditional election.  In the end neither philosophy is likely to be 100% correct.  I've never called myself an Arminian anyway.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There are verses in the Bible that contradict Arminianism.  There are verses in the Bible that contradict limited atonement/unconditional election.  In the end neither philosophy is likely to be 100% correct.  I've never called myself an Arminian anyway.


There is not one verse, not one syllable, in the Bible that contradicts limited atonement.

----------


## Brett85

> There is not one verse, not one syllable, in the Bible that contradicts limited atonement.


Right, since "all" doesn't mean "all," "is" doesn't mean "is," up means down.  Lol.

----------


## Miss Annie

> There are verses in the Bible that contradict Arminianism.  There are verses in the Bible that contradict limited atonement/unconditional election.  In the end neither philosophy is likely to be 100% correct.  I've never called myself an Arminian anyway.


I agree!!  I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist.   I don't believe that either doctrine is correct, although they both have SOME truths.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Because what is in my brain is different than what is in your brain, so what is in your brain can't be a "law".


sure - if you and i were the only two humans on the planet.  But a gathering of reasonable humans would easily agree that you cannot punch me in the nose and take my stuff.

you guys think it's all brainy and such, when it's really all heart-y and such.

that's why actions speak so much louder than words. and why a picture is worth a thousand words.

"watch my feet, not my mouth"

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I agree!!  I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist.   I don't believe that either doctrine is correct, although they both have SOME truths.


It's confusing to get into the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate.   Here is a very easy way to tell the difference:

People are either _synergists_ or _monergists_.  People either believe that salvation is all of God (monergism), or they believe salvation is a mixture of God's efforts and man's efforts (synergism).

If you believe in synergism, you are not saved.

----------


## lilymc

> sure - if you and i were the only two humans on the planet.  But a gathering of reasonable humans would easily agree that you cannot punch me in the nose and take my stuff.
> 
> you guys think it's all brainy and such, when it's really all heart-y and such.
> 
> that's why actions speak so much louder than words. and why a picture is worth a thousand words.
> 
> "watch my feet, not my mouth"


I hope you don't mind if I jump in here.

One of the problems with that is, who decides?  Do you think morality is something one can vote on and the majority wins?  If the majority decided that abortion was moral, does that truly make it moral?  What if that changed from one day to the next, and people decided abortion was immoral...  Do you honestly think that it went from being moral to immoral in one day?      That is counter-intuitive, and I think most people realize morality is not based on a majority vote.

If it comes from the mind of man, it is subjective.   And if it's subjective then there really is no such thing as true morality.  Because no one opinion can be truly better than any other, unless there is something objective and absolute that transcends the mind of man, that everything else is measured against.

----------


## Miss Annie

> It's confusing to get into the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate.   Here is a very easy way to tell the difference:
> 
> People are either _synergists_ or _monergists_.  People either believe that salvation is all of God (monergism), or they believe salvation is a mixture of God's efforts and man's efforts (synergism).
> 
> If you believe in synergism, you are not saved.


I am saved because I believe that Jesus Christ, the son of God, died on the cross and was raised from the dead to save the world from sin.

Ro 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Ro 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Ro 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever  believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I am saved because I believe that Jesus Christ, the son of God, died on the cross and was raised from the dead to save the world from sin.
> 
> Ro 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
> Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
> Ro 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
> Ro 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever  believeth on him shall not be ashamed.


If you believe in a Jesus that died for every single person (and therefore saved no one at all), then you believe in an idol who cannot save.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Well.... I still play violent video games.  I played Grand Theft Auto 5.  Some would label those games as "immoral" or even label me immoral for playing them.  That seems kind of subjective to me.  

The Prohibitionists were like that about alcohol.  I mean c'mon can't I have a drink people?

----------


## Jamesiv1

> One of the problems with that is, who decides?


well, now that's a very good question. if me, or you, or the majority vote, or the Bible, or the Qur'an, or whatever says that abortion is immoral, that isn't going to stop it from happening.  Are you going to throw her in jail? stone her?

but whether they are believers or not, I think any group of reasonable people would say it's wrong for you to punch me in the nose and take my stuff.  Or bomb my country and steal my oil.

me, I would like to see someone grow up living a good life, being good to others, grow in stature and wisdom, and he and a handful just like him could decide justice within my community.

I'm a believer, don't get me wrong. but I don't think believing has to predicate being good and just.

----------


## Terry1

> What kind of baptism are you talking about?  Infant baptism?  Or water baptism that happens later in life?
> 
> I grew up Catholic, so I was taught that infant baptism and all that stuff is necessary.   
> 
> But infant baptism is not even biblical.  
> 
> And iyam it's a dangerous doctrine, because it gives some people a false sense of security.
> 
> If you are talking about water baptism later in life, that also is not what being born again is all about.


*
Bingo!*  The water baptism is nothing more than an outward expression of our faith, just the same as doing anything in the flesh is.  There's nothing wrong with doing it, but if one understood what the true meaning of "being born again" spiritually and the spiritual baptism, there would be no need for water baptism at all.  

Water baptism is not a requirement for our salvation. 

born of water  =  that which is born of flesh is flesh  =  (first) time in mother's womb

born of the Spirit  =  that which is born of the Spirit is spirit  =  born again

We are washed clean through the blood of Christ and not water.

Acts 22:16
 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Sins are washed away calling on the name of the Lord and not by water baptism.

Acts 2:38
 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

We repent "for the remission of sins" to receive the forgiveness of sins. The blood of Jesus was shed for the forgiveness of sins to pay the price for our forgiveness.

----------


## Miss Annie

> If you believe in a Jesus that died for every single person (and therefore saved no one at all), then you believe in an idol who cannot save.


I am simply going to have to politely disagree with you.

----------


## VIDEODROME



----------


## Sola_Fide

> I am simply going to have to politely disagree with you.


I'm not going to watch that. Could you tell me what it says so I can go ahead and tell you why it's wrong?  Thanks.  I promise I will respond to whatever you post.

----------


## lilymc

> well, now that's a very good question. if me, or you, or the majority vote, or the Bible, or the Qur'an, or whatever says that abortion is immoral, that isn't going to stop it from happening.  Are you going to throw her in jail? stone her?
> 
> but whether they are believers or not, I think any group of reasonable people would say it's wrong for you to punch me in the nose and take my stuff.  Or bomb my country and steal my oil.
> 
> me, I would like to see someone grow up living a good life, being good to others, grow in stature and wisdom, and he and a handful just like him could decide justice within my community.
> 
> I'm a believer, don't get me wrong. but I don't think believing has to predicate being good and just.


Well, I agree that one can be good and just and at the same time, a nonbeliever.   But I think that is where the misunderstanding is.  What believers are saying is not that it is impossible to be a good, just person unless one believes.      The point is that the atheistic worldview cannot ground objective morality... there is no objective basis for it, and that's why most atheists believe morality is subjective.    

As for your example about punching people in the nose and taking their stuff.  Well, you're right that most reasonable people understand that is wrong.  But not everyone is reasonable, and there are many people who DON'T see that as wrong.

I remember one time when I was in Tijuana at night (I was there with a group of people who were giving food to the homeless and praying for the prostitutes) and I made the mistake of taking out my brand new pocket video camera.  Out of nowhere, a guy on the street ran up to me and pried it out of my hands and took off running.   Most likely, in HIS mind, what he did was justified.   He probably rationalized that stealing is OK.    If morality is truly subjective, then he did nothing wrong.... because that is HIS morality, and how can my idea on morality be better than his, unless there is an objective standard that transcends the minds of man?

I also think that believing morality is subjective is dangerous, because when you take that to its logical extreme, a person can rationalize anything.  I'm sure Stalin and Mao probably thought what they did was right.... and they didn't think there was anyone above them, to hold them accountable.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's confusing to get into the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate.   Here is a very easy way to tell the difference:
> 
> People are either _synergists_ or _monergists_.  People either believe that salvation is all of God (monergism), or they believe salvation is a mixture of God's efforts and man's efforts (synergism).
> 
> If you believe in synergism, you are not saved.


I think there are a lot of people who are too logically inconsistent to fit into either of these two categories, people who are actually monergists but have certain beliefs that logically lead to synergism.  



> I am simply going to have to politely disagree with you.


Yeah, I also disagree that everyone who believes that Christ died for everyone without exception is unsaved.  I don't think its impossible to be a monergist who believes that either.  But I agree with Sola that unlimited atonement is heretical, and that a Christian cannot CONSISTENTLY advocate for this viewpoint.

----------


## Miss Annie

> I'm not going to watch that. Could you tell me what it says so I can go ahead and tell you why it's wrong?  Thanks.  I promise I will respond to whatever you post.


Sola, with all due respect.......  I investigated Calvinism thoroughly.   Why?  Because I wondered if I was one!   I have a sister in law that is a Calvinist.  Her and I would talk and she would use the term,..... and I honestly did not know what it meant.   There were a few posts here from 2011 with me trying to understand what it meant.   I learned.   I looked it up..... and with an open mind also.  I was not for or against it when I was researching.  But,...... after my research,  I am fully in disagreement with the doctrine.  Although I do believe we agree on a couple of points.  No works and Eternal security.

----------


## Miss Annie

> I think there are a lot of people who are too logically inconsistent to fit into either of these two categories, people who are actually monergists but have certain beliefs that logically lead to synergism.  
> 
> 
> Yeah, I also disagree that everyone who believes that Christ died for everyone without exception is unsaved.  I don't think its impossible to be a monergist who believes that either.  But I agree with Sola that unlimited atonement is heretical, and that a Christian cannot CONSISTENTLY advocate for this viewpoint.


Logically inconsistent????   LOL!!   I am so glad that your opinion of my salvation is really not what's important to me.  LOL

----------


## Brett85

> If you believe in a Jesus that died for every single person (and therefore saved no one at all), then you believe in an idol who cannot save.


You're insane.  Why do you bother to post here for the sole purpose of agitating people and condemning them?  You really make the theology you promote a complete caricature.

----------


## Brett85

> I am simply going to have to politely disagree with you.


That's more than I can do with him.  Lol.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Sola, with all due respect.......  I investigated Calvinism thoroughly.   Why?  Because I wondered if I was one!   I have a sister in law that is a Calvinist.  Her and I would talk and she would use the term,..... and I honestly did not know what it meant.   There were a few posts here from 2011 with me trying to understand what it meant.   I learned.   I looked it up..... and with an open mind also.  I was not for or against it when I was researching.  But,...... after my research,  I am fully in disagreement with the doctrine.  Although I do believe we agree on a couple of points.  No works and Eternal security.


Quite honestly, and I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I do not believe you in what you say here.  There's no way you looked at this issue with an open mind, looked at Romans 8, Romans 9, John 6, John 10, Isaiah 10, 1 Corinthians 1, and Ephesians 1, and somehow came away with the idea that the Bible taught Arminianism.  There was a time when I tried to argue Arminianism from scripture and it was an absolute failure every time, because the Bible doesn't teach it.  And... if the only Calvinistic doctrine you agree with is eternal security (Which is itself really an Arminian version of the Calvinistic Perseverance of the Saints) than you are definitely an Arminian.  I don't really care about the labels so much, I'd say that Sola definitely holds to Calvinistic theology regardless of the fact that he doesn't care for the term.  Its not an insult either, its just an easy term to use to determine whether one believes in the five-points or not.

----------


## lilymc

> *
> Bingo!*  The water baptism is nothing more than an outward expression of our faith, just the same as doing anything in the flesh is.  There's nothing wrong with doing it, but if one understood what the true meaning of "being born again" spiritually and the spiritual baptism, there would be no need for water baptism at all.  
> 
> Water baptism is not a requirement for our salvation. 
> 
> born of water  =  that which is born of flesh is flesh  =  (first) time in mother's womb
> 
> born of the Spirit  =  that which is born of the Spirit is spirit  =  born again
> 
> ...


Thanks, I'm glad I'm not alone on this!     Titus 3:5 also comes to mind, which says that we are washed by the regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

God willing, I want to do a video on this topic.   I think there are too many people who don't realize the necessity of being born again.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Logically inconsistent????   LOL!!   I am so glad that your opinion of my salvation is really not what's important to me.  LOL


I offered no judgment on your salvation.  But, there is no way to consistently argue that Christ died for everyone without exception, and yet that Christ alone saved you.  If Christ did the exact same thing for you as he did for someone who is roasting in Hell, why are you saved?  What is the difference between you and that person?  At best, its a logical inconsistency.  But, I didn't say you weren't saved.




> You're insane.  Why do you bother to post here for the sole purpose of agitating people and condemning them?  You really make the theology you promote a complete caricature.


Maybe because he believes the things he's posting and is concerned for your salvation?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, with all due respect.......  I investigated Calvinism thoroughly.   Why?  Because I wondered if I was one!   I have a sister in law that is a Calvinist.  Her and I would talk and she would use the term,..... and I honestly did not know what it meant.   There were a few posts here from 2011 with me trying to understand what it meant.   I learned.   I looked it up..... and with an open mind also.  I was not for or against it when I was researching.  But,...... after my research,  I am fully in disagreement with the doctrine.  Although I do believe we agree on a couple of points.  No works and Eternal security.


Annie,

With all due respect, I know Arminianism better than you do.  I was asking for you to post his thesis so I could show you why it was wrong.   I wanted to perhaps help you.

----------


## Brett85

> Maybe because he believes the things he's posting and is concerned for your salvation?


You're never going to convert a single person by insulting them, condemning them, and having the kind of attitude that he has.  He just comes here to agitate people, and it's starting to work.  Maybe I should just ignore him from now on.

----------


## VIDEODROME

I'm wondering what good a law does if it's supposedly transcendant and he still steals your camera.  


I guess I feel that it's wrong to steal my camera just because it's my property.  But that is just a beginning idea that can be built upon.  I can then say it would also be wrong for me to steal your camera.  

I think you can build on this even further and say society would be better without camera theft.

----------


## Miss Annie

> Quite honestly, and I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I do not believe you in what you say here.  There's no way you looked at this issue with an open mind, looked at Romans 8, Romans 9, John 6, John 10, Isaiah 10, 1 Corinthians 1, and Ephesians 1, and somehow came away with the idea that the Bible taught Arminianism.  There was a time when I tried to argue Arminianism from scripture and it was an absolute failure every time, because the Bible doesn't teach it.  And... if the only Calvinistic doctrine you agree with is eternal security (Which is itself really an Arminian version of the Calvinistic Perseverance of the Saints) than you are definitely an Arminian.  I don't really care about the labels so much, I'd say that Sola definitely holds to Calvinistic theology regardless of the fact that he doesn't care for the term.  Its not an insult either, its just an easy term to use to determine whether one believes in the five-points or not.


Just because I disagree with you means I didn't do my research?  I am really sorry that you feel that way.  I am NOT into labels...... or denominations either.   All they do is cause division.  I am not an Arminian,  I am not a Calvinist, I am not a synergist or a mongerist.  I am not a baptist, methodist, mormon, catholic, SDA, or anything else for that matter.  I am a Christian!  
This is where I bow out of these debates, when they turn into just veiled insults ( and the in your face ones.. LOL).   Please understand that is not a good testimony for the love of Jesus.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Are you KIDDING me??? John 12 is one of the most explicitly predestinarian chapters in the Bible.


It's not as simple as you make it out to be.



> According to St John Chrysostom, Isaiah's prophecy does not mean God causes spiritual blindness in people who would otherwise have been faithful.  This is a figure of speech common to Scripturerevealing God as giving people up to their own devces (as in Rom 1:24,26).  What is meantby* He has blinded* is that God has permitted their self-chosen blindess (compare Ex 8:15,32 with Ex 10:20, 27).  They did not become blind because God spoke through Isaiah, but rather Isaiah spoke because he foresaw their blindness.


This sort of thing is why you can't rely on yourself to interpret scripture properly (though reading scripture is important).  Tradition is one way God keeps us from falling into error.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> You're never going to convert a single person by insulting them, condemning them, and having the kind of attitude that he has.  He just comes here to agitate people, and it's starting to work.  Maybe I should just ignore him from now on.


I'm converting.  I'm one of the elect now damnit.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You're never going to convert a single person by insulting them, condemning them, and having the kind of attitude that he has.  He just comes here to agitate people, and it's starting to work.  Maybe I should just ignore him from now on.


Well, I believe that God can use even a poorly shared proclamation of the gospel to convert people.  At any rate, I'm not really sure what was so bad about what he said beyond the fact that I don't necessarily agree with it.  I get why "You aren't a Christian" was taken as offensive because you saw it as a lie rather than a doctrinal statement, but I see no other way to take "synergists are not saved" except as a doctrinal statement.  It may be harsh, but I don't think it was straight up mean.  Then again, I'm usually not very sensetive so there's that.  I'm also nowhere near a synergist so there's that.




> Just because I disagree with you means I didn't do my research?  I am really sorry that you feel that way.  I am NOT into labels...... or denominations either.   All they do is cause division.  I am not an Arminian,  I am not a Calvinist, I am not a synergist or a mongerist.  I am not a baptist, methodist, mormon, catholic, SDA, or anything else for that matter.  I am a Christian!  
> This is where I bow out of these debates, when they turn into just veiled insults ( and the in your face ones.. LOL).   Please understand that is not a good testimony for the love of Jesus.


I'm not trying to insult you  I just honestly don't understand how anyone could read the Bible and believe in free will or unlimited atonement.  It just doesn't make any sense to me.

----------


## lilymc

> I'm wondering what good a law does if it's supposedly transcendant and he still steals your camera.


If a person gets away with it in the short term, that doesn't mean they get away with it.   He will still be held accountable to God for his actions... so he needs forgiveness just like everyone does.   




> I guess I feel that it's wrong to steal my camera just because it's my property.  But that is just a beginning idea that can be built upon.  I can then say it would also be wrong for me to steal your camera.  
> 
> I think you can build on this even further and say society would be better without camera theft.


Right, but not everyone sees it that way.  If morality is subjective, then your thought (which is reasonable) is no better than the opinion of the guy who says stealing is OK.  Unless there is an objective moral standard that transcends the fallible minds of man, then no one opinion can be  better than any other.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm not trying to insult you*  I just honestly don't understand how anyone could read the Bible and believe in free will or unlimited atonement.  It just doesn't make any sense to me*.


Most of the bible doesn't make sense without historical and traditional perspective, which is why the Reformers and those like them are so consistently incorrect.

----------


## Miss Annie

> Well, I believe that God can use even a poorly shared proclamation of the gospel to convert people.  At any rate, I'm not really sure what was so bad about what he said beyond the fact that I don't necessarily agree with it.  I get why "You aren't a Christian" was taken as offensive because you saw it as a lie rather than a doctrinal statement, but I see no other way to take "synergists are not saved" except as a doctrinal statement.  It may be harsh, but I don't think it was straight up mean.  Then again, I'm usually not very sensetive so there's that.  I'm also nowhere near a synergist so there's that.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to insult you  I just honestly don't understand how anyone could read the Bible and believe in free will or unlimited atonement.  It just doesn't make any sense to me.


Listen honey, I know that you didn't MEAN to be insulting.  I know that was not really your intention.  Honestly, we should be able to discuss scripture without questioning anyone's salvation.  
When we are dealing with people in general, there are things that we can say and tones that we can take that just causes our audience to stop listening.  This is a very important concept that I have learned over the years.  "Say what you mean, mean what you say, but don't say it mean".

----------


## VIDEODROME

> If a person gets away with it in the short term, that doesn't mean they get away with it.   He will still be held accountable to God for his actions... so he needs forgiveness just like everyone does.   
> 
> 
> 
> Right, but not everyone sees it that way.  If morality is subjective, then your thought (which is reasonable) is no better than the opinion of the guy who says stealing is OK.  Unless there is an objective moral standard that transcends the fallible minds of man, then no one opinion can be  better than any other.


Well, someday in heaven do you get your camera back?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> "Say what you mean, mean what you say, but don't say it mean".


That's a pretty good way to be. Now I feel bad for yapping at HB and e. It do happen though, I suppose.

----------


## Brett85

> Honestly, we should be able to discuss scripture without questioning anyone's salvation.


Yeah, *should* being the key word.  Claiming that self described Christians aren't actually Christians adds absolutely nothing to the debate.  This is all just getting to be a complete waste of time if we can't discuss these issues in a civil and constructive way.

----------


## lilymc

> Well, someday in heaven do you get your camera back?


heheh!   I don't think I will care about a little kodak video camera at that point.  But I was able to replace it, even though it took several months.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Listen honey, I know that you didn't MEAN to be insulting.  I know that was not really your intention.  Honestly, we should be able to discuss scripture without questioning anyone's salvation.  
> When we are dealing with people in general, there are things that we can say and tones that we can take that just causes our audience to stop listening.  This is a very important concept that I have learned over the years.  "Say what you mean, mean what you say, but don't say it mean".





> Yeah, *should* being the key word.  Claiming that self described Christians aren't actually Christians adds absolutely nothing to the debate.  This is all just getting to be a complete waste of time if we can't discuss these issues in a civil and constructive way.


Continually harping on someone's status before God may be unhelpful, but I don't think you can just say Christians shouldn't judge in the light of Galatians 1:8, or the numerous scriptures where Jesus condemns the Pharisees.  

If I honestly believed someone here was unsaved, I'd consider it unloving of me not to tell them so.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> This is all just getting to be a complete waste of time if we can't discuss these issues in a civil and constructive way.


Well, you know how it is. The second somebody brings up Jesus...




...every single time. It's true.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
> 
> This sort of thing is why you can't rely on yourself to interpret scripture properly (though reading scripture is important).  Tradition is one way God keeps us from falling into error.


(I'm trying to set aside how repugnant I truly feel what you just said is...repugnant to rationality,  freedom, spirituality,  etc.)

*HB, do you interpret church tradition?  If so, how do you know it's accurate?

You see? You have the same issue that the sola scriptura position has.*  The only thing you've changed is instead of the Scriptures being the final authority, the dictates of your church has become the final authority. 

The interpretation of the Scriptures becomes no more simpler because another authority (tradition) interprets it. Tradition itself must be interpreted,  and those interpretations must be interpreted, and therefore you slide down the never ending spiral of your circular argument.

----------


## Schifference

Sola_Fide What percentage of Christians that think they are saved do you think are saved and will actually inherit the kingdom?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You're never going to convert a single person by insulting them, condemning them, and having the kind of attitude that he has.  He just comes here to agitate people, and it's starting to work.  Maybe I should just ignore him from now on.


I was converted when a man showed me how completely unbiblical and illogical my positions and arguments were.  

He made me feel stupid (on purpose), and he made me know how sinful my man-centered reasoning was (on purpose).  It was the best thing that ever happened to me.

----------


## Brett85

> I was converted when a man showed me how completely unbiblical and illogical my positions and arguments were.  
> 
> He made me feel stupid (on purpose), and he made me know how sinful my man-centered reasoning was (on purpose).  It was the best thing that ever happened to me.


So you went from being a Christian with a certain theology to a Christian with a different theology.  That happens all the time.  The important thing is that we're all united in Christ; we all believe that Christ died and rose again and have accepted him as our Lord and Savior.

----------


## Brett85

> Sola_Fide What percentage of Christians that think they are saved do you think are saved and will actually inherit the kingdom?


He seems to think that he's the only person in the entire world who's saved.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola_Fide What percentage of Christians that think they are saved do you think are actually saved and will actually inherit the kingdom?


100% of Christians know they are saved.  

Faith IS assurance:



> Hebrews 11:1 NASB
> 
> Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.


A Christian KNOWS he has eternal life:



> 1 John 5:13 NASB
> 
> These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.


If you have doubts that you are saved, it's probably a good indication that you are not.

----------


## Terry1

> Thanks, I'm glad I'm not alone on this!     Titus 3:5 also comes to mind, which says that we are washed by the regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> God willing, I want to do a video on this topic.   I think there are too many people who don't realize the necessity of being born again.


Like David lilymc---bring you're spiritual rock and sling-shot if you're going to attempt to slay that giant, because you and I know that there's a lot of denominations that believe salvation can't be had without being dunked--LOL

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So you went from being a Christian with a certain theology to a Christian with a different theology.  That happens all the time.  The important thing is that we're all united in Christ; we all believe that Christ died and rose again and have accepted him as our Lord and Savior.


No sir.  I said I was converted.  The Lord opened my eyes.  He showed me my sin.  He showed me what grace was.

I was not a Christian before I was converted. That is impossible.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I was converted when a man showed me how completely unbiblical and illogical my positions and arguments were.  
> 
> He made me feel stupid (on purpose), and he made me know how sinful my man-centered reasoning was (on purpose).  It was the best thing that ever happened to me.


Did this man believe that all Arminians are unsaved?

Did you know you had been unsaved as an Arminian when this event occurred?




> 100% of Christians know they are saved.  
> 
> Faith IS assurance:
> 
> 
> A Christian KNOWS he has eternal life:
> 
> 
> If you have doubts that you are saved, it's probably a good indication that you are not.


I disagree with this, and those verses do not teach that its impossible for a true Christian to doubt.  Doubting can be part of the sin nature.  Of course, I'd agree that it depends on what nature those doubts take.



> No sir.  I said I was converted.  The Lord opened my eyes.  He showed me my sin.  He showed me what grace was.
> 
> I was not a Christian before I was converted. That is impossible.


Were you someone who nobody would consider a Christian before you were 'converted'?  Or were you an Arminian?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He seems to think that he's the only person in the entire world who's saved.


This is honestly getting annoying.  You know he does not believe that.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> The ancients were a part of the natural landscape. They understood it. And that landscape wasn't limited to Earth itself. The cosmos was their guide, so to speak. It was their way of life. A synergy. And we have devolved to the extent that there is a little man in the sky watching everything we do and we couldn't tell you if the Sun orbits the Earth or the Earth orbits the Sun to save our necks. It's that bad. That's "organization" for you.
> 
> I don't know, Clyde. I'm probably going to just bow out of this thread. I don't feel like herding cats today. And I really don't want to pee on people's faith.


I didn't get a reply about my question on the Sermon on the Mount, either. 

I guess I'll exit the thread, because it seems to be just a battle between the faiths.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I didn't get a reply about my question on the Sermon on the Mount, either. 
> 
> I guess I'll exit the thread, because it seems to be just a battle between the faiths.


It's a battle against your faith as well.  What was the question about the Sermon on the mount?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> God can work in our lives and try to change our hearts, but ultimately we still have the free will to choose to reject him.


Take a step back and look at this idol that you've created for yourself.   A God....a God who created the entire universe by speaking a sentence.  A God who created man out of the dust of the ground.  The most powerful being and most powerful force in heaven and earth....This God can only "try to change our hearts, but ultimately we still have the free will to reject him".

What a weak and worthless idol this god of Arminianism is!  This is a faith that gives you hope???  Worshipping a being who can't even change the minds of the creatures he created???

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> (I'm trying to set aside how repugnant I truly feel what you just said is...repugnant to rationality,  freedom, spirituality,  etc.)


This is your subjective opinion and has no root in rationality, freedom, spirituality, etc.  



> HB, do you interpret church tradition?  If so, how do you know it's accurate?


The interpretation of tradition is not left to the laity.  We know it's accurate because it's been handed down without alteration for 2000+ years.




> You see? You have the same issue that the sola scriptura position has.  The only thing you've changed is instead of the Scriptures being the final authority, the dictates of your church has become the final authority.


Except that's not a problem.  The authority to interpret scripture was given to the Church by Christ through his apostles.




> The interpretation of the Scriptures becomes no more simpler because another authority (tradition) interprets it. Tradition itself must be interpreted,  and those interpretations must be interpreted, and therefore you slide down the never ending spiral of your circular argument.


That's just your subjective opinion, based on no understanding of how the Church works. Circular argument?  You either don't know what that means or you're just using it for lolz.  If you believe my argument is incorrect, yours is also.  You make the same claim, except you believe your very fallible and ignorant brain has the authority to interpret scripture. (that is not an insult-I am just as fallible as you are.  Very few people dedicate their lives to become truly authoritative because it is an _extremely_ high and difficult calling)
Why does the Church have Authority, you may ask?  Because it was given by the apostles to the Church.  We laity are not in a position to claim authority as the clergy do (being successors of the apostles via many years of study and laying of hands).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The interpretation of tradition is not left to the laity.  We know it's accurate because it's been handed down without alteration for 2000+ years.


How do you know this?  





> Except that's not a problem.  The authority to interpret scripture was given to the Church by Christ through his apostles.


How do you know this?





> That's just your subjective opinion, based on no understanding of how the Church works. Circular argument?  You either don't know what that means or you're just using it for lolz.  If you believe my argument is incorrect, yours is also.  You make the same claim, except you believe your very fallible and ignorant brain has the authority to interpret scripture. (that is not an insult-I am just as fallible as you are.


My fallible and ignorant brain is not able to interpret scripture?   But several fallible and ignorant brains in some church who says they are the "true" church, are?  

You better examine your foundations man.  They are crumbling under simple questions.   You have NO way to prove anything that you say you know here.





> Very few people dedicate their lives to become truly authoritative because it is an _extremely_ high and difficult calling)


You have to "dedicate your life to truly become authoritative"???  I literally have no idea what you are talking about right now.





> does the Church have Authority, you may ask?  Because it was given by the apostles to the Church.


How do you know this?  Don't you think the people who claim apostolic authority should at least teach what the apostles taught?






> We are laity are not in a position to claim authority as the clergy do (being successors of the apostles via many years of study and laying of hands).


This comment is disgusting, sinful,  repugnant....  It boggles the mind how a person who says he loves freedom would act so much like a slave.  It's sad to see....

----------


## Jamesiv1

> He just comes here to agitate people, and it's starting to work.


nahhhh..... I think its a cry for help ;)

I think we all need to give Sola a great big group hug.

I'm only about half kidding.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Right, but not everyone sees it that way.  If morality is subjective, then your thought (which is reasonable) is no better than the opinion of the guy who says stealing is OK.  Unless there is an objective moral standard that transcends the fallible minds of man, then no one opinion can be  better than any other.


I think the difference is that you're talking about two guys butting heads about their opinion, while VIDEO and i are talking about a social context. In a social context, I don't think it would be difficult at all for a group of people to decide that stealing is *not* Ok.

Buddhism, for example is much more a moral philosophy than a religion - it's non-theistic.  You could say that Buddhism's moral code is transcendent, I guess, but a large school of 'ethical' or 'moral' philosophy would say it's simply a rational way for humans to behave towards each other.

And I don't have a problem with that.  I'm much more concerned with how you behave, than what you believe.

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

"Watch my feet, not my mouth."

----------


## lilymc

> I think the difference is that you're talking about two guys butting heads about their opinion, while VIDEO and i are talking about a social context. In a social context, I don't think it would be difficult at all for a group of people to decide that stealing is *not* Ok.


If we're going by the laws of the land,  that has already happened, people have already decided that stealing is not OK.  Yet people still steal.

I'm not talking about two guys butting heads about their opinion.   I'm talking about the the nature of morality itself. Is it subjective or not?  The only thing that really matters is: what is the truth?   Not just a hypothetical social context.

I think it is kind of naive to think that human beings can decide on something, then everything is going to be fine.  History has shown that since the beginning of time, that is simply not the case.   

I think one of the things that has made matters worse is the teaching that morality is subjective. Because when people truly believe that (I don't that many people actually do), then ultimately, anything goes.  There would be nothing wrong with infanticide, euthanasia, human rights atrocities, and the list goes on.




> Buddhism is much more a moral philosophy than a religion - it's non-theistic.  You could say that Buddhism's moral code is transcendent, I guess, but a large school of 'ethical' or 'moral' philosophy would say it's simply a rational way for humans to behave towards each other.
> 
> And I don't have a problem with that.  I'm much more concerned with how you behave, than what you believe.
> 
> "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
> 
> "Watch my feet, not my mouth."


I understand your standpoint.  But I just want to say that beliefs do matter.  Because our beliefs come before our actions. What we believe has an effect on our actions.

About Buddhism...  If Buddhism is non-theistic, then I don't see how its moral code can be transcendent.   They can borrow from a theistic religion, but a worldview that rejects a Creator/God of the universe has no solid way to account for objective morality.     I can't say much about Buddhism, because I have not studied it, and I don't know what the claims are, but.... if it's an atheistic religion, then they have the same problem that atheism has, when it comes to grounding morality.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> 


Nice one, VIDEO.

The expression on the white-haired dude's face is pretty funny.  he's like, "wuuuut??" lol

I will have to watch more of Bishop Sprong.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> If we're going by the laws of the land,  that has already happened, people have already decided that stealing is not OK.  Yet people still steal.


doesn't matter where the law comes from, whether it's theistic or not, subjective or objective, true or not true - there will always be law-breakers.




> I'm not talking about two guys butting heads about their opinion.   I'm talking about the the nature of morality itself. Is it subjective or not?  The only thing that really matters is: what is the truth?


whoa.... the nature of morality itself?  that's a big 'un. 

Why must 'objective' mean it is transcendent? Can a group of humans not create a code of behavior that says "its wrong to steal" that becomes the objective, impartial, fair and equitable law of the land?

hmmmm.... on second thought.  Can it be transcendent without it being theistic?  If yes, then we're on the same page. Otherwise, I think you're leaving a lot of folks uninvited to the party.




> But I just want to say that beliefs do matter.  Because our beliefs come before our actions. What we believe has an effect on our actions.


I'm not saying beliefs don't matter.  I'm saying we will know your beliefs by your actions, as we will know the tree by its fruits.

----------


## lilymc

> Nice one, VIDEO.
> 
> The expression on the white-haired dude's face is pretty funny.  he's like, "wuuuut??" lol
> 
> I will have to watch more of Bishop Sprong.


Long ago the bible predicted people like him would come around.

"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions," -2 Timothy 4:3 

"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, and will bring swift destruction on themselves.   Many will follow their unrestrained ways, and the way of truth will be blasphemed because of them." - 2 Peter 2:1-2

"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.   This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,  but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God." - 1 John 4:1-3

And the one you posted earlier:

 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." -Matthew 7:15

Just about everything he said was blatantly unbiblical.  Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion.  But to say those things and still claim to be a Christian.... that to me is one of the worst things someone can do, because it misrepresents Jesus and the scriptures, and it totally misleads people.  But like I said, the bible predicted people like that.  And it's going to get a lot worse.

----------


## bubbleboy

> doesn't matter where the law comes from, whether it's theistic or not, subjective or objective, true or not true - there will always be law-breakers.
> 
> 
> whoa.... the nature of morality itself?  that's a big 'un. 
> 
> Why must 'objective' mean it is transcendent? Can a group of humans not create a code of behavior that says "its wrong to steal" that becomes the objective, impartial, fair and equitable law of the land?
> 
> hmmmm.... on second thought.  Can it be transcendent without it being theistic?  If yes, then we're on the same page. Otherwise, I think you're leaving a lot of folks uninvited to the party.
> 
> ...



YOUR Ten Commandments, especially the seventh day which isn't mentioned, is missing more than a jot and tittle.

----------


## lilymc

James, I'm going to have to reply to your last post tomorrow. (later today, I mean).  It's suuuper late here.    In the meantime, maybe someone else will reply, but I'll try to come back. Right now I gotta get some sleep.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

This man could almost, almost, convince me to reconsider, as in reexamine, my non-Christian stance, almost.

----------


## erowe1

> Uh, no, the verse clearly says all men.


No. The word "men" is not in the Greek. Translators provide it because they are convinced that "all" should not be taken in an unlimited sense.

The more literal English translations indicate this by putting "men" in italics. Unfortunately the NIV and some others don't do that. But it definitely says "all," or more literally "everything" or "all things." I don't have a problem with supplying "people" as something that's understood, but I'm not the one who wants to treat the language of the Bible as some unique Holy Ghost language that has different rules than any other human speech, like "all means all and that's all it means."

----------


## erowe1

> The verse means what it says, all men.  God's commandments are written in the hearts of all men everywhere, even if they've never specifically heard the name "Jesus."  There have been examples of people in remote parts of the world who have come to believe in Jesus, even though they didn't know his name and had a different name for him.


Which is it? Is it absolutely all men without exception? Or is it just some examples?

Or are you saying that drawing all men to Jesus is talking about general revelation that all people have always had? If that's the case, then how does that result from his being lifted up on the cross?

I agree that the verse means what it says. I just don't insist on strange rules about the meaning of "all" that none of us would apply to the usage of that same word in ordinary conversations with one another or in any other context other than the Bible.

ETA: This is a side point, but Acts 4:12 says, "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

----------


## erowe1

> You're never going to convert a single person by insulting them, condemning them, and having the kind of attitude that he has.  He just comes here to agitate people, and it's starting to work.  Maybe I should just ignore him from now on.


Fixed.

----------


## RJB

> We laity are not in a position to claim authority as the clergy do (being successors of the apostles via many years of study and laying of hands).


I would argue that in many ways the clergy is in the same position as the laity because they can't come up with new interpretations that contradict sacred tradition.  They only pass it down through the centuries. Local protestant pastors have much more control over the doctrines of their followers than any bishop in the Orthodox Church.  That's why there are 30,000 - 40,000 denominations from Mormons to Calvinists.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions," -2 Timothy 4:3


If I were a betting man, I would bet a large sum that this verse is not referring to people like Bishop Sprong.  Consider the times, the context and his audience.

wait... it's a letter from Saul (i just looked it up) =====>>>> Paulinism




> Just about everything he said was blatantly unbiblical.


Show me.  Again, I would bet a large sum you refer not to what Jesus said, but what someone else said that he said. Or someone else's interpretation of what Jesus said.




> But to say those things and still claim to be a Christian.... that to me is one of the worst things someone can do, because it misrepresents Jesus and the scriptures, and it totally misleads people.


I believe a Christian is more accurately described as a follower of what Jesus taught, not Saul of Tarsus. Those folks more accurately are practicing Paulinism.

----------


## Brett85

> What a weak and worthless idol this god of Arminianism is!  This is a faith that gives you hope???  Worshipping a being who can't even change the minds of the creatures he created???


There you go throwing around labels again.  I don't know if anyone here has ever called themselves an "Arminian."  It really isn't a good idea to ever give yourself a label that's based off of the name of a human being.  The only thing I call myself is a Christian, because I believe in Christ and what he did for me on the cross.

----------


## moostraks

> Take a step back and look at this idol that you've created for yourself.   A God....a God who created the entire universe by speaking a sentence.  A God who created man out of the dust of the ground.  The most powerful being and most powerful force in heaven and earth....This God can only "try to change our hearts, but ultimately we still have the free will to reject him".
> 
> What a weak and worthless idol this god of Arminianism is!  This is a faith that gives you hope???  Worshipping a being who can't even change the minds of the creatures he created???


The attitude of those who claim hyper-Calvinism as their belief system always remind me of the abusive people I have met in my life because they seem to thrive on the authoritarianism and negativity. 

S_F what you fail to grasp is that the "Arminian" Creator is all the greater because He can change the minds of His children but He allows us the free will of two paths. A real man is not one who finds a helpmate and threatens her into submission or forces her to stay. Why would you believe in a god who must resort to this level of control? Is the creature greater than the Creator in this respect?

----------


## moostraks

> I believe a Christian is more accurately described as a follower of what Jesus taught, not Saul of Tarsus. Those folks more accurately are practicing Paulinism.


 I have discovered this as well. Some folks take what Paul says and have created an entirely different belief system and claim it as Christianity. They do this all with no real regard for what Jesus said and each response begins with a but Paul said in verse...

----------


## Brett85

> If you have doubts that you are saved, it's probably a good indication that you are not.


If someone has doubts that they are saved, it might be because of people like you who come along and constantly tell them that they aren't saved.  Some people probably let that go to their head after a while.  You've done more to push people away from Christ than you probably realize.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There you go throwing around labels again.  I don't know if anyone here has ever called themselves an "Arminian."  It really isn't a good idea to ever give yourself a label that's based off of the name of a human being.  The only thing I call myself is a Christian, because I believe in Christ and what he did for me on the cross.


No you don't believe in what Jesus did for you on the cross.  Because you believe He did the EXACT same thing for the person who will be in Hell! 

Universal atonement means Jesus' sacrifice does NOT save.  You do NOT believe in the Jesus of the Bible.

----------


## Brett85

> No you don't believe in what Jesus did for you on the cross.  Because you believe He did the EXACT same thing for the person who will be in Hell! 
> 
> Universal atonement means Jesus' sacrifice does NOT save.  You do NOT believe in the Jesus of the Bible.


I don't have a problem with the idea of limited atonement.  I just have a problem with the idea of unconditional election.  I think that Jesus died for everyone who believes.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> S_F what you fail to grasp is that the "Arminian" Creator is all the greater because He can change the minds of His children but He allows us the free will of two paths. A real man is not one who finds a helpmate and threatens her into submission or forces her to stay. Why would you believe in a god who must resort to this level of control? Is the creature greater than the Creator in this respect?


As usual with you, I have to explain the bare essentials of Christianity to you, because you are not a Christian and don't know what Christianity is.

Christians believe that man is dead in sin and cannot turn to God.  This is why a man must be "made alive" or "forced" to turn to God.  Man cannot of his own will turn to God:

* The Arminian view of man:*






*The Biblical view of man:*






> Ephesians 2:4-6 NASB
> 
> But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, *even when we were dead* in our transgressions,* made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)*, and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

----------


## Brett85

> As usual with you, I have to explain the bare essentials of Christianity to you, because you are not a Christian and don't know what Christianity is.


James 4:6

"God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble."

God opposes you, Sola Fide.

----------


## erowe1

> I believe a Christian is more accurately described as a follower of what Jesus taught, not Saul of Tarsus. Those folks more accurately are practicing Paulinism.


Christians must follow what Jesus taught. But he taught what Paul taught. He also taught through Paul. And the most important thing he did, and the main reason he came to earth was not to teach, but to die for our sins and rise again, as both Jesus and Paul taught.

Paulism = Christianity. If someone's Gospel is not Paul's Gospel, then it isn't Jesus's Gospel.

----------


## erowe1

> I don't have a problem with the idea of limited atonement.  I just have a problem with the idea of unconditional election.  I think that Jesus died for everyone who believes.


People who believe in unconditional election believe that Jesus died for everyone who believes.

----------


## erowe1

> I have discovered this as well. Some folks take what Paul says and have created an entirely different belief system and claim it as Christianity. They do this all with no real regard for what Jesus said and each response begins with a but Paul said in verse...


Is someone does that, then it's bad.

If someone does the opposite, and has no real regard for what Paul said and each response begins with "but Jesus said in verse..." that's just as bad.

----------


## Brett85

> People who believe in unconditional election believe that Jesus died for everyone who believes.


Yeah I know, but you can believe that Jesus died for everyone who believes without believing in unconditional election.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I would argue that in many ways the clergy is in the same position as the laity because they can't come up with new interpretations that contradict sacred tradition.  They only pass it down through the centuries. Local protestant pastors have much more control over the doctrines of their followers than any bishop in the Orthodox Church.  That's why there are 30,000 - 40,000 denominations from Mormons to Calvinists.


Yes, this is a good way of putting it.    I wasn't trying to say that clergy can make up doctrine and so forth.  IDR the entire system required for altering church teachings, but it's very complicated and prevents arbitrary and incorrect interpretation.

----------


## erowe1

> I would argue that in many ways the clergy is in the same position as the laity because they can't come up with new interpretations that contradict sacred tradition.  They only pass it down through the centuries. Local protestant pastors have much more control over the doctrines of their followers than any bishop in the Orthodox Church.  That's why there are 30,000 - 40,000 denominations from Mormons to Calvinists.


I think what HB was saying was more true of EO than it is of RC Christians. The RCC, at least since Vatican 2, encourages the laity to study the Bible on their own. Contrast that with what the EO Synod of Jerusalem said:



> Question 1
> 
> Should the Divine Scriptures be read in the vulgar tongue [common language] by all Christians?
> 
> No. Because all Scripture is divinely-inspired and profitable {cf. 2 Timothy 3:16}, we know, and necessarily so, that without [Scripture] it is impossible to be Orthodox at all. Nevertheless they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and finally read. But to those who are not so disciplined, or who cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the Scriptures, the Catholic Church, knowing by experience the damage that can cause, forbids them to read [Scripture]. Indeed, tt is permitted to every Orthodox to hear the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation {Romans 10:10}. But to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden for these and other similar reasons. For it is the same thing to prohibit undisciplined persons from reading all the Sacred Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats.
> 
> Question 2
> 
> Are the Scriptures plain to all Christians that read them?
> ...


http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

----------


## Jamesiv1

> YOUR Ten Commandments, especially the seventh day which isn't mentioned, is missing more than a jot and tittle.


It's not supposed to be a quote.

what do you think VIII is all about?

answer: the seventh day.  It's just saying its ok if your seventh day is different from the other guy's seventh day.

duh

----------


## moostraks

> As usual with you, I have to explain the bare essentials of Christianity to you, because you are not a Christian and don't know what Christianity is.
> 
> Christians believe that man is dead in sin and cannot turn to God.  This is why a man must be "made alive" or "forced" to turn to God.  Man cannot of his own will turn to God:


Stop slandering me because I disagree with you. The tree will be judged by its fruits. You are not spreading the Biblical view no matter how many times you like to slap the label on your particular loveless views. 

So you regurgitate your same lame slanders and your same trite sentences heaped up with your holier than thou attitude but you fail to address why the creation would be greater in its respect for others by not forcing someone to stay or threatening them into submission. We have laws against this type of behavior because the majority realize it to be immoral. Why does your god behave so viciously and immorally? Why is your god such a nasty bully? Is it because it reflects your personal attitude towards others especially women? Do not think I haven't noticed your disrespect shown towards the women here. It is amazing how we are treated like we are stupid and blathering and yet even with the other men you never talk so dismissively towards them.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Stop slandering me because I disagree with you. The tree will be judged by its fruits. You are not spreading the Biblical view no matter how many times you like to slap the label on your particular loveless views. 
> 
> So you regurgitate your same lame slanders and your same trite sentences heaped up with your holier than thou attitude but you fail to address why the creation would be greater in its respect for others by not forcing someone to stay or threatening them into submission. We have laws against this type of behavior because the majority realize it to be immoral. Why does your god behave so viciously and immorally? Why is your god such a nasty bully? Is it because it reflects your personal attitude towards others especially women? Do not think I haven't noticed your disrespect shown towards the women here. It is amazing how we are treated like we are stupid and blathering and yet even with the other men you never talk so dismissively towards them.


You say I'm slandering you... and then you go on to call me "loveless", "disrespectful to women", that I belive in a "bully" god who behaves "viciously and immorally".   

As is usual with you, you never stay on the topic.  You ALWAYS go into ad hominen mode .  Whenever I try to get you to stay on topic or explain a verse (like the one in Ephesians 2), you said I'm "mean".

I know that I will get no rational argumentation from you.  I realize that.

I will say this though,  your depiction of the God of the Bible who has wrath against sin as "vicious" and "immoral" is the surest sign that you are not a Christian.

----------


## Schifference

Sola_Fide: What percentage of people do you feel think they are a Christian but actually they are not?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola_Fide: What percentage of people do you feel think they are a Christian but actually they are not?


Who could possibly know the answer to that question?

There will be many in that day who had false assurance,  but the Lord will say "Depart from me, I never knew you".

----------


## Schifference

Give your best gustimate. Obviously many are disillusioned and believe they are Christian but are not. Is there some sort of litmus test that equates to approved Christianity? 


> Who could possibly know the answer to that question?
> 
> There will be many in that day who had false assurance,  but the Lord will say "Depart from me, I never knew you".

----------


## Terry1

> Sola_Fide: What percentage of people do you feel think they are a Christian but actually they are not?



We can use Noah and his family as a type and shadow.  When God flooded the earth, there were only eight people that God judged as righteous enough to save.

The world is far more populated now than it was then I imagine, but compare the numbers from then and to now.  Yes---few---very few will be chosen because when they were called and presented with the truth, they willingly refused it.

God has a number in mind and I can only take a wild guess that number will be the same number that was once lost as a result of the fall of a third of heaven.  Mankind will replace that number.  Romans 9:27 
Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:* “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Give your best gustimate. Obviously many are disillusioned and believe they are Christian but are not. Is there some sort of litmus test that equates to approved Christianity?


Yes.  The Bible is the litmus test.

----------


## Schifference

> Yes.  The Bible is the litmus test.


Obviously there is controversy regarding interpretations. Let me narrow it down for you. Can you identify a Christian? Can you identify a person that is not a Christian but believes to be one? Are there many real Christians that belong to RPF? Are there many disillusioned people at RPF that think they are Christians but are not?

----------


## Brett85

> As is usual with you, you never stay on the topic.  *You ALWAYS go into ad hominem mode.*


And you don't?

----------


## VIDEODROME



----------


## Brett85

> We can use Noah and his family as a type and shadow.  When God flooded the earth, there were only eight people that God judged as righteous enough to save.
> 
> The world is far more populated now than it was then I imagine, but compare the numbers from then and to now.  Yes---few---very few will be chosen because when they were called and presented with the truth, they willingly refused it.
> 
> God has a number in mind and I can only take a wild guess that number will be the same number that was once lost as a result of the fall of a third of heaven.  Mankind will replace that number.  Romans 9:27 
> Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:* “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved.*


The Bible doesn't say that all of the people who perished in the flood weren't saved.  There's in a verse in the Bible that talkes about how Jesus through the holy spirit ministered to people before the flood in order to save them from hell fire.

Anyway, I don't think the number of people going to heaven is going to be quite that small.  The number is just going to be small in comparison to those who perish in the lake of fire.

----------


## Miss Annie

> Obviously there is controversy regarding interpretations. Let me narrow it down for you. Can you identify a Christian? Can you identify a person that is not a Christian but believes to be one? Are there many real Christians that belong to RPF? Are there many disillusioned people at RPF that think they are Christians but are not?


Oh the impending answer to this question makes me sad.     Jesus is not the leader to some "upper crust 'you can only join if' club".  Jesus died so that it would be EASY for people to be saved.  The bible says "God is no respector of persons".  He does NOT play favorites.   He does not love me anymore than he loves you.   I have 3 children.  I do not love anyone of them more than the other.  I tell them that if my love were pieces of pie..... they would all be the same size.   
The saddest part of Calvinism is not how it skews the character and love of God.  How it skews people's understanding of the character and love of God.   
God IS LOVE!!

----------


## Terry1

> Obviously there is controversy regarding interpretations. Let me narrow it down for you. Can you identify a Christian? Can you identify a person that is not a Christian but believes to be one? Are there many real Christians that belong to RPF? Are there many disillusioned people at RPF that think they are Christians but are not?


No one knows the hearts of man but God Himself--  If you understood the word, then you would understand that the Spirit of the Lord has the ability within a believer to recognize that same spirit in another who believes the same.  We may not all agree on interpretation, but where the Spirit of the Lord is and in who it resides is able to recognize the same in others.

----------


## Schifference

Sola_Fide is reluctant to answer. He is still online but avoiding the question.

----------


## moostraks

> Is someone does that, then it's bad.
> 
> If someone does the opposite, and has no real regard for what Paul said and each response begins with "but Jesus said in verse..." that's just as bad.


The difference in my experience with the people who dismiss Paul is that they focus on the love of Jesus. The followers of Paul tend to be vulgar tyrants who find validation in Paul to act obnoxiously towards others. I do not believe Paul would claim them if he  met them but this is all my personal experience ymmv.

----------


## moostraks

> You say I'm slandering you... and then you go on to call me "loveless", "disrespectful to women", that I belive in a "bully" god who behaves "viciously and immorally".   
> 
> As is usual with you, you never stay on the topic.  You ALWAYS go into ad hominen mode .  Whenever I try to get you to stay on topic or explain a verse (like the one in Ephesians 2), you said I'm "mean".
> 
> I know that I will get no rational argumentation from you.  I realize that.
> 
> I will say this though,  your depiction of the God of the Bible who has wrath against sin as "vicious" and "immoral" is the surest sign that you are not a Christian.


Hey man, you are the one who took what I posted previously and said for the zillionth time I am not a Christian as if you are entitled to make said proclamation. You don't think I find that slanderous? Your positions are loveless (read the post again as I called your views loveless not you, stay on point here) as the god you have portrayed is a violent bully with a lust for blood who creates evil to magnify himself through his chosen one-you. It cannot be sugar coated by claiming how wonderful it is for you, a chosen one, since you are a vile creature made perfect while the rest can burn in hell especially me-one you have made sure to proclaim often that is not a Christian.

Now you go on to say you get no rational argument just as I figured you would because as with the previous post you won't answer my questions you would rather deflect them to disrespect me. Reread my post, I asked if your god was such a bully because it reflected what you are and it was a question not a statement. Seems as if you do understand this is bullying behavior to make the claims you have or you would not have been so quick to respond to the negative light it casts upon yourself.

And finally regarding the fact that you are disrespectful of women, I thought it was just me, but it is any woman who crosses you (the women who agree with you there seems to be no need to ridicule as they feed your ego).The women who cross you get treated to your dismissive comments of blathering and irrational on a regular basis while the men only get accused of not being a Christian. So YES you take extra effort in destroying the women with a particular nastiness I have not witnessed you use on the men. If someone who is male would like to defend you then I will take it into consideration upon which I will reassess whether you hate both sexes that dare to cross you equally.

----------


## moostraks

> And you don't?


Ironically I try to take great pains to post opposing views with as little commentary as possible because of S_F and his penchant to call me bathering and irrational.

----------


## Terry1

> Ironically I try to take great pains to post opposing views with as little commentary as possible because of S_F and his penchant to call me bathering and irrational.


That comment to me coming from Sola, I'd take it as a compliment.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> The difference in my experience with the people who dismiss Paul is that they focus on the love of Jesus. The followers of Paul tend to be vulgar tyrants who find validation in Paul to act obnoxiously towards others. I do not believe Paul would claim them if he  met them but this is all my personal experience ymmv.


yikes!  a little harsh, but still well played

----------


## erowe1

> The difference in my experience with the people who dismiss Paul is that they focus on the love of Jesus. The followers of Paul tend to be vulgar tyrants who find validation in Paul to act obnoxiously towards others. I do not believe Paul would claim them if he  met them but this is all my personal experience ymmv.


I don't think that difference matters. If they replace the Jesus of the Bible, which is the Jesus of Paul's Gospel, with some Jesus who's all the things they like about the real Jesus and none of the things they don't, then they're no closer to the real Jesus than anyone who does the opposite. In fact, they're surely further away than the Paulists you're talking about. None of those Paulists actually put Jesus's words below Paul's. They just try to harmonize them without diminishing Paul's words in his inspired letters as any less authoritative than the words of Jesus in the inspired Gospels. But there's a very popular idea out there that Jesus came preaching a great message about love, and then Paul messed everything up by forgetting Jesus's message and replacing it with a message about Jesus. For these people we need to sweep away those mistakes of Paul and get back to the real message of Jesus, which for them is all about what he taught (and not all of what he taught, just the parts they're comfy with), and not about his dying on the cross for our sins and rising again.

----------


## eduardo89

> YYou ALWAYS go into ad hominen mode .


Coming from the guy who has called the Catholics and Orthodox on this forum ministers of Satan on multiple occasions.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Coming from the guy who has called the Catholics and Orthodox on this forum ministers of Satan on multiple occasions.


+rep

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Coming from the guy who has called the Catholics and Orthodox on this forum ministers of Satan on multiple occasions.


I have said that, and I believe that.  But that is not all I say.  I argue Biblically and logically.

----------


## eduardo89

> I have said that, and I believe that.  But that is not all I say.  I argue Biblically and logically.


lol

----------


## Brett85

> I have said that, and I believe that.  But that is not all I say.  I argue poorly and illogically.


Fixed.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> lol


Eduardo,  you may not like my answers but I do try to argue.   I don't just throw out insults and leave it there.  There is a basis for me saying that the Pope is an antichrist and you know it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Coming from the guy who has called the Catholics and Orthodox on this forum ministers of Satan on multiple occasions.


Yeah, but his reasons why (Which I agree with in this case) are theological, whether you agree with him or not.  If he said "Catholic priests are pedophiles" THAT would be an ad hominem but in this case its an argument based on theology.

----------


## moostraks

> Eduardo,  you may not like my answers but I do try to argue.   I don't just throw out insults and leave it there.  There is a basis for me saying that the Pope is an antichrist and you know it.


This is NOT true. I responded toa post you made with no personal attack and you came back with NO response to my post other than to slander me with your accusations of not being a Christian and to pimp for another one of your ridiculous points ignoring my question with grossly oversized pictures. You have still yet to respond to my original question of why the creation is greater than your god.

----------


## moostraks

> I don't think that difference matters. If they replace the Jesus of the Bible, which is the Jesus of Paul's Gospel, with some Jesus who's all the things they like about the real Jesus and none of the things they don't, then they're no closer to the real Jesus than anyone who does the opposite. In fact, they're surely further away than the Paulists you're talking about. None of those Paulists actually put Jesus's words below Paul's. They just try to harmonize them without diminishing Paul's words in his inspired letters as any less authoritative than the words of Jesus in the inspired Gospels. But there's a very popular idea out there that Jesus came preaching a great message about love, and then Paul messed everything up by forgetting Jesus's message and replacing it with a message about Jesus. For these people we need to sweep away those mistakes of Paul and get back to the real message of Jesus, which for them is all about what he taught (and not all of what he taught, just the parts they're comfy with), and not about his dying on the cross for our sins and rising again.


I happen to disagree with your assessment as I think if you miss the message of Love, which in my experience is what the Paul folks do, then all else is pointless as in order to understand what the greatest commandments involve one must start from Love and then work their way forward. As for the Paul folks putting the words of Jesus below Paul, in my experience, they certainly do because they explain their position from what they interpret Paul to mean and torture the words of the Jesus to fit their interpretation.

Yes, some red letter folks are preaching a faulty message, this is true of the religious community in general in my opinion. I have just experienced, repeatedly, the ones who take an unhealthy attitude towards others are the ones who start most arguments with "but Paul said..." For one to truly grasp the concept of the level to which one needs to commit to their faith to follow the 2 greatest commandments is staggering and without a doubt impossible without a very strong leading by the Holy Spirit. However, this relationship with be evidenced by their fruits of Love while all the right head knowledge will get you no where if you do not have these fruits of Love. So we seem to be coming at this from two different perspectives where I think that a red letter person would be in a position to start to employ the mechanics that Paul explains while you argue that without understanding the mechanics then they will not understand how to love. I think when you really grasp true Love, then the rest will follow.

----------


## moostraks

> yikes!  a little harsh, but still well played


Lol! I didn't mean to come across so harsh, but this is really just an explanation of my experience.

----------


## erowe1

> I happen to disagree with your assessment as I think if you miss the message of Love, which in my experience is what the Paul folks do, then all else is pointless as in order to understand what the greatest commandments involve one must start from Love and then work their way forward. As for the Paul folks putting the words of Jesus below Paul, in my experience, they certainly do because they explain their position from what they interpret Paul to mean and torture the words of the Jesus to fit their interpretation.
> 
> Yes, some red letter folks are preaching a faulty message, this is true of the religious community in general in my opinion. I have just experienced, repeatedly, the ones who take an unhealthy attitude towards others are the ones who start most arguments with "but Paul said..." For one to truly grasp the concept of the level to which one needs to commit to their faith to follow the 2 greatest commandments is staggering and without a doubt impossible without a very strong leading by the Holy Spirit. However, this relationship with be evidenced by their fruits of Love while all the right head knowledge will get you no where if you do not have these fruits of Love. So we seem to be coming at this from two different perspectives where I think that a red letter person would be in a position to start to employ the mechanics that Paul explains while you argue that without understanding the mechanics then they will not understand how to love. I think when you really grasp true Love, then the rest will follow.


I don't disagree with you. But I think what you said is missing the very most important thing, which is the Gospel, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again on the third day according to the scriptures.

That truth is the central hub that everything else revolves around. The Gospel is the truth in whose light all the other points need to get worked out. You put love in that place. And, since the Gospel is a gospel of God's love, love is in that place. But it's not just love as an abstraction that is left up to us to define, it is the divine love that is demonstrated in that Gospel.

----------


## moostraks

> I don't disagree with you. But I think what you said is missing the very most important thing, which is the Gospel, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again on the third day according to the scriptures.
> 
> That truth is the central hub that everything else revolves around. The Gospel is the truth in whose light all the other points need to get worked out. You put love in that place. And, since the Gospel is a gospel of God's love, love is in that place. But it's not just love as an abstraction that is left up to us to define, it is the divine love that is demonstrated in that Gospel.


Yep, I believe we are thinking along the similar lines. It is just that you seem to be angling from the line of the necessity of grasping the head knowledge where I think before we had the access that we (meaning you and I) had to the information we have at our finger tips then we started with a very rudimentary seed that was planted in our soul. So I see the red letter people as having the clean slate.  Some of the Paul folks are like the cap wearing crowd that wear a cap only because they are told to and might down right resent it so the benefit of wearing a cap is lost because they don't start with love. This has been my own personal struggle and it resulted in a path where I had to walk away from the head teaching so I could get down to the heart.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> I don't disagree with you. But I think what you said is missing the very most important thing, which is the Gospel, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again on the third day according to the scriptures.
> 
> That truth is the central hub that everything else revolves around. The Gospel is the truth in whose light all the other points need to get worked out. You put love in that place. And, since the Gospel is a gospel of God's love, love is in that place. But it's not just love as an abstraction that is left up to us to define, it is the divine love that is demonstrated in that Gospel.


*FAIL*

This is where many who call themselves Christians totally fail.

*You are starting from a belief rather than an action.* ('the gospel'=belief, love=action)

This is the exclusionary part, this is the arrogant part, this is the self-righteous part.

This is the part that says to other faiths "you are wrong", this is the part that says to people on different spiritual paths "you're going the wrong way, pal", this is the part that says "if you don't believe what I believe, you're gonna burn in hell for eternity"

that is just wrong on sooooo many levels.

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."  Matthew 22:36-39  KJV 1611

Jesus taught "Love", Paul taught "Gospel"

I'll go with Jesus on this one.


edit:
another way to put this is "Lead with your heart, not your head."
+rep moostraks  (are you married? i think I'm in love with you)

----------


## erowe1

> *FAIL*
> 
> This is where many who call themselves Christians totally fail.
> 
> *You are starting from a belief rather than an action.* ('the gospel'=belief, love=action)
> 
> This is the exclusionary part, this is the arrogant part, this is the self-righteous part.
> 
> This is the part that says to other faiths "you are wrong", this is the part that says to people on different spiritual paths "you're going the wrong way, pal", this is the part that says "if you don't believe what I believe, you're gonna burn in hell for eternity"
> ...


Case in point.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Case in point.


Hindus
Buddhists
Muslims
Jews
Bahá'ís
Sikhs
Zoroastrianists
Jains
Atheists
Agnostics
Native Americanists
Secularists
Non-religionists
Deists
Shintoists
Indigenous people of almost everywhere-ists
Taoists
Confucianists

also cases in point.

the point I'm trying to make is simply if all human beans could just lead with our hearts instead of our heads, we could all get along just swell. you've got your beliefs, he's got his beliefs, I've got mine - whatever.  doesn't mean we can't love each other while we're here.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is NOT true. I responded toa post you made with no personal attack and you came back with NO response to my post other than to slander me with your accusations of not being a Christian and to pimp for another one of your ridiculous points ignoring my question with grossly oversized pictures. You have still yet to respond to my original question of why the creation is greater than your god.


You can have this debate with yourself because I don't care to talk about who said what and who has their feelings hurt.

The original verse we were talking about was in Ephesians 2.




> Ephesians 2:3-5 NASB
> 
> Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, *and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.* But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, *even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ* (by grace you have been saved),


Does the Bible teach that we are by nature children of wrath and dead in our sins?  Yes or no?

Does God make a dead man alive when He saves them?  Yes or no?

----------


## moostraks

> You can have this debate with yourself because I don't care to talk about who said what and who has their feelings hurt.
> 
> The original verse we were talking about was in Ephesians 2.
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Bible teach that we are by nature children of wrath and dead in our sins?  Yes or no?
> 
> Does God make a dead man alive when He saves them?  Yes or no?


So slander, complain when called on it, then act like you are the one taking the high road. Lol! 

I see you are redirecting from the statement I made which you refuse to acknowledge.  I have asked why it is that the creation would be greater than your god in regards to relationships with another. Why is it that we find it repulsive for an individual to decide upon someone he demands a relationship with to force them by threat of eternal harm or hold them captive against their will? A loving relationship is not made through violence and captivity. The Creator is great enough that while He could use force, He sacrificed so that the scales could be peeled off our eyes regarding our own foolishness and selfishness. He knocks, we open the door or ignore the knock.

And your point with Ephesians? What are you trying to reword it to say? The discussion is about a gift which was given to us of Love. I have not argued against ancestral sin. I just don't accept your total depravity position. As for alive, well my position is that the ones who don't start with love are dead now and later. Wrap yourself up with all the demands of a work to prove your high mental acuity. You think the rich in the earlier years of the church didn't know all the head knowledge of faith? Without love all the ranting is a moot point.

----------


## moostraks

> *FAIL*
> 
> This is where many who call themselves Christians totally fail.
> 
> *You are starting from a belief rather than an action.* ('the gospel'=belief, love=action)
> 
> This is the exclusionary part, this is the arrogant part, this is the self-righteous part.
> 
> This is the part that says to other faiths "you are wrong", this is the part that says to people on different spiritual paths "you're going the wrong way, pal", this is the part that says "if you don't believe what I believe, you're gonna burn in hell for eternity"
> ...


 Thank you!!! And sorry yes, I am married. The right one is there for you as long as you have love in your heart I believe.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So slander, complain when called on it, then act like you are the one taking the high road. Lol! 
> 
> I see you are redirecting from the statement I made which you refuse to acknowledge.  I have asked why it is that the creation would be greater than your god in regards to relationships with another. Why is it that we find it repulsive for an individual to decide upon someone he demands a relationship with to force them by threat of eternal harm or hold them captive against their will? A loving relationship is not made through violence and captivity. The Creator is great enough that while He could use force, He sacrificed so that the scales could be peeled off our eyes regarding our own foolishness and selfishness. He knocks, we open the door or ignore the knock.
> 
> And your point with Ephesians? What are you trying to reword it to say? The discussion is about a gift which was given to us of Love. I have not argued against ancestral sin. I just don't accept your total depravity position. As for alive, well my position is that the ones who don't start with love are dead now and later. Wrap yourself up with all the demands of a work to prove your high mental acuity. You think the rich in the earlier years of the church didn't know all the head knowledge of faith? Without love all the ranting is a moot point.





> Ephesians 2:3-5 NASB
> 
> *Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.*But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, *even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ* (by grace you have been saved),


1. Is man dead in sin and by nature a child of wrath?  YES or NO?

2. Does God's grace make a dead person alive?  YES or NO?

----------


## moostraks

> Case in point.


I disagree with you as I see this as a condemnation regarding someone you don't know the inner thoughts of as He does. Paul needs to be interpreted through Jesus and not the other way around. It is when you start with the head knowledge and attempt to define love you will likely end up getting it all wrong and the works become, as S_F constantly insists, undoable. If you start with love then work into what Paul talks about, you have the correct framework to understand how things work in a society based upon love and with love you grasp oh, for instance, why a headship veil is important. Just because a woman puts a prayer cap on does not mean she will love her husband or Creator for their unique attributes. However a woman who loves her husband or Creator for their unique attributes who is properly choosing to wear a veil will do so as an outward sign of her faith. This is but one of many contentious teachings for us by Paul.

----------


## moostraks

> 1. Is man dead in sin and by nature a child of wrath?  YES or NO?
> 
> 2. Does God's grace make a dead person alive?  YES or NO?


I answered you. Read the post you are referencing You still, STILL, have not answered me. Ancestral sin-yes. Alive in Christ-yes those are who open the door AND hear His message of Love. If you don't have the 2 greatest commandments as were told to you by The Lord as your two greatest commandments then all of the rest of your beliefs are worthless.

ETA-worthless in a sense that you are wasting your time and need to reassess why you do what you do, any of it.

----------


## erowe1

> I disagree with you as I see this as a condemnation regarding someone you don't know the inner thoughts of as He does.


It was a condemnation of the opinions that he expressed quite explicitly. There was no need to know any inner thoughts beyond the ones he explained. He was saying the very kinds of things I was talking about earlier. And you will notice that he is as clear about disagreeing with what I said as I am about disagreeing with what he said.

----------


## moostraks

> It was a condemnation of the opinions that he expressed quite explicitly. There was no need to know any inner thoughts beyond the ones he explained. He was saying the very kinds of things I was talking about earlier. And you will notice that he is as clear about disagreeing with what I said as I am about disagreeing with what he said.


I took it more as a condemnation of his existence of faith. If I misinterpreted your comment then my apologies. I don't have a problem with his positions but i also don't think that the Creator is held captive to the writing of inspired text. When asked directly He gave us the two greatest commandments. I think the Creator had all the time in the world if He wanted to in regards to making a greater case of hurdles to overcome. Paul is often misinterpreted imo, and it is the stumbling blocks that others have made of his teachings that cause problems. So I understand when others choose to be red letter only. It isn't Paul's teachings that are at fault but a loveless interpretation of the faith.

----------


## erowe1

> I took it more as a condemnation of his existence of faith. If I misinterpreted your comment then my apologies. I don't have a problem with his positions but i also don't think that the Creator is held captive to the writing of inspired text. When asked directly He gave us the two greatest commandments. I think the Creator had all the time in the world if He wanted to in regards to making a greater case of hurdles to overcome. Paul is often misinterpreted imo, and it is the stumbling blocks that others have made of his teachings that cause problems. So I understand when others choose to be red letter only. It isn't Paul's teachings that are at fault but a loveless interpretation of the faith.


I think he was saying that Paul's teachings ARE at fault. He can correct me if I'm wrong about that. And whereas you want to defend the existence of his faith, he seemed to be saying that faith isn't what matters. Notice his list of all the other religions, including atheists, in his response to me.

I don't want to get into a point-by-point rebuttal of what he said because I think that the position I presented in the post he repudiated was clear enough. I would just be stating the obvious. He and I are coming from opposite places, and he and I are both stating clearly enough what those are.

----------


## bubbleboy

.....did somebody fart?

----------


## moostraks

> I think he was saying that Paul's teachings ARE at fault. He can correct me if I'm wrong about that. And whereas you want to defend the existence of his faith, he seemed to be saying that faith isn't what matters. Notice his list of all the other religions, including atheists, in his response to me.
> 
> I don't want to get into a point-by-point rebuttal of what he said because I think that the position I presented in the post he repudiated was clear enough. I would just be stating the obvious. He and I are coming from opposite places, and he and I are both stating clearly enough what those are.



Right, I understand what you are saying. My point was that it isn't what Paul is saying that someone may take issue with but the means by which it has been presented by someone who lacks love. So you might be surprised to find out that someone may disagree with what is being stated by Paul but if they have the faith we are called to have then you might be surprised by their follow through on the issues.

I don't have a problem with loving others including those who have a different faith than I do. We are called to love others even our enemies and let the Creator sort it out. Doesn't mean you have them necessarily teach in your church but you sure should be an example of love in deeds.

----------


## moostraks

> I answered you. Read the post you are referencing You still, STILL, have not answered me. Ancestral sin-yes. Alive in Christ-yes those are who open the door AND hear His message of Love. If you don't have the 2 greatest commandments as were told to you by The Lord as your two greatest commandments then all of the rest of your beliefs are worthless.
> 
> ETA-worthless in a sense that you are wasting your time and need to reassess why you do what you do, any of it.



Hey S_F you have managed to go into other threads this afternoon and post, so why won't you answer my question? I answered yours, again and again...

Wait for it... is it because I am blathering on or because I am not Christian or is it because I am emotional? Which loaded phrase do you want to use so you don't have to answer my question?

Oh and for brevities sake lest you say what question, it was the one regarding why does the creation hold itself to a higher standard than your god who is a blood thirsty tyrant? Tell me how we are evil when we have a standard for acceptable practices for relationships but your god is good when he commits evil deeds. 

I am waiting for the Romans clause for a response as that is all I ever see if you do acknowledge someone's questions regarding your beliefs. For the record, I ain't questioning the Creator here, I am questioning your beliefs.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> I think he was saying that Paul's teachings ARE at fault. He can correct me if I'm wrong about that. And whereas you want to defend the existence of his faith, he seemed to be saying that faith isn't what matters. Notice his list of all the other religions, including atheists, in his response to me.


I'm not saying anyone is at fault.  I'm just saying I wish there was more love between people of faith - people of ALL faiths.

You will never put God in someone's heart by beating him over the head with beliefs.

You love them until the hardness melts, they open their *own* hearts, and let God in.

People who already have God in their heart but have different beliefs? Give them a big hug, and help each other along the way as we trudge this mortal coil.

----------


## Miss Annie

> I'm not saying anyone is at fault.  I'm just saying I wish there was more love between people of faith - people of ALL faiths (like my list above).
> 
> You will never put God in someone's heart by beating him over the head with beliefs.
> 
> You love them until the hardness melts, they open their *own* hearts, and let God in.
> 
> People who already have God in their heart but have different beliefs? Give them a big hug, and help each other along the way as we trudge this mortal coil.


Amen!   Why do we love Jesus?  Is it not because he first loved us?  

*1Jo 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.*
1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
1Jo 4:17 ¶ Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
1Jo 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
*1Jo 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.*
1Jo 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
*1Jo 4:21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.*

----------


## Terry1

Jamesiv1 is correct, this is what we all need to be and do, but this can be a real test for some of us because the Lord calls us to love the "unlovable".  Now, I know how hard this can be because the Lord prompted me more than once to approach some people I did not want to go near or touch with a ten foot pole.  I said in my own mind "no Lord---not that person, I can't stand that person", but I did anyway.  What happened as a result of listening to the Holy Spirit with one person is that I found out that I had been judging them based upon their outward appearance and actions.  When I approached that person and introduced myself, we talked and later I found out that this person had been suffering terribly due to losing a son to a tragic accident.  That she had been searching out the Lord and needed help and a shoulder.  

The other person I was instructed to help, but the Lord spoke to me and told me that what I did would not be appreciated, that I would be hated later on, but I was to do it for them anyway.  He was right.  After everything I did--that person pretty much betrayed me and bad mouthed me, but I did what God wanted me to do for that person understanding already what He said came true.

I learned a long time ago--we just can't judge a heart of anyone---only God.  It's really hard sometimes because we see with our carnal eyes and hear with our carnal ears and if we're not walking in the Spirit of the Lord---the flesh can really over-power us and blind to what God is trying to reveal to us about that person.  The flesh and the spirit war with each other.

----------


## erowe1

> Amen!   Why do we love Jesus?  Is it not because he first loved us?  
> 
> *1Jo 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.*
> 1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
> 1Jo 4:17 ¶ Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
> 1Jo 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
> *1Jo 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.*
> 1Jo 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
> *1Jo 4:21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.*


Notice that word "confess" in v. 15 and "believed" in v. 16 of what you presented. You can't have this love without that faith.

If you read 1 John in light of the Gospel of John, then I think that it also is clear that the faith he's talking about is belief in the very same Gospel as Paul's Gospel of Christ's death for our sins and resurrection according to the scriptures.

----------


## Miss Annie

> Notice that word "confess" in v. 15 and "believed" in v. 16 of what you presented. You can't have this love without that faith.
> 
> If you read 1 John in light of the Gospel of John, then I think that it also is clear that the faith he's talking about is belief in the very same Gospel as Paul's Gospel of Christ's death for our sins and resurrection according to the scriptures.


Right,..... if Christians confess they also believe.  If they confess and believe they should then pour out God's love on the saved and unsaved.  
I am not sure I am understanding your point here.

----------


## Miss Annie

> Notice that word "confess" in v. 15 and "believed" in v. 16 of what you presented. You can't have this love without that faith.
> 
> If you read 1 John in light of the Gospel of John, then I think that it also is clear that the faith he's talking about is belief in the very same Gospel as Paul's Gospel of Christ's death for our sins and resurrection according to the scriptures.


double post

----------


## erowe1

> Right,..... if Christians confess they also believe.  If they confess and believe they should then pour out God's love on the saved and unsaved.  
> I am not sure I am understanding your point here.


Did you read the discussion leading up to the post you were replying to with those verses from 1 John?

----------


## Miss Annie

> Did you read the discussion leading up to the post you were replying to with those verses from 1 John?


I skimmed it briefly but was not paying really close attention.  I just really loved the post  that I quoted.  It is an attitude that we should all have....... irregardless of what the previous posts were about.  That is why I directly quoted THAT particular post and no others.  I was not getting involved in the conversation as a whole,....... just commenting on James post.  Does that clarify?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> So, what do you make of the Sermon on the Mount?  These people he talked about certainly do not obtain any of it in this realm.


Here it is Sola, or anyone else.

----------


## moostraks

> Notice that word "confess" in v. 15 and "believed" in v. 16 of what you presented. You can't have this love without that faith.
> 
> If you read 1 John in light of the Gospel of John, then I think that it also is clear that the faith he's talking about is belief in the very same Gospel as Paul's Gospel of Christ's death for our sins and resurrection according to the scriptures.


So you think you can make the Faith exclusionary based upon this?

----------


## Miss Annie

> Here it is Sola, or anyone else.





> *So, what do you make of the Sermon on the Mount? These people he talked about certainly do not obtain any of it in this realm.*


I think I missed your original question..... so forgive me if my answer is not in line with it.  
My take on the Sermon on the Mount is that it is beautiful!      It was Jesus telling us that "religion" is not just about our "outer" behavior, but is in essence "an inside job".  

The verses below are an example of how Jesus is calling us to a higher level of living.. "the inside job": 
Matthew 5
21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

It is simply my opinion, but I believe (based on personal experience) that the lack of these kinds of teachings, such as The Sermon on the Mount, has a lot to do with the lack of mental and emotional stability that we see so rampant these days.  The Sermon on the Mount shows us that we need to control our mental and emotional "faculties" and bring those "wild horses" under control...... and that we are even capable of doing that.  When I was growing up, no one taught me that I was capable of doing that.  I was on the beginning side of "if you feel it, express it".  
The Word saved my life in this area, to be honest.   I was a "wild horse" running amuck with no understanding that there was even a need to tame the thought life, and surely did not understand the link that the thought life has upon our actions.

----------


## erowe1

> So you think you can make the Faith exclusionary based upon this?


Yes, it's exclusionary. Not everybody has it.

----------


## moostraks

> Yes, it's exclusionary. Not everybody has it.


So you believe that unless someone agrees with what you believe the proper phraseology is to proclaim their faith then they do not have faith?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So you believe that unless someone agrees with what you believe the proper phraseology is to proclaim their faith then they do not have faith?


Stop focusing on what man believes and focus on what the apostles believed recorded in the Scriptures.

----------


## erowe1

> So you believe that unless someone agrees with what you believe the proper phraseology is to proclaim their faith then they do not have faith?


No. Where do you get that from this conversation?

----------


## moostraks

> Stop focusing on what man believes and focus on what the apostles believed recorded in the Scriptures.


Hey S_F why don't you answer my question I asked you instead of being a bully and telling me what to do?

Aren't you the same person with their nose in everyone else's beliefs and then tell them what they think? I am merely asking a question. 

Erowe put a claim out there and I asked if it was based upon that specific Scripture he was excluding others. He never directly answered.

----------


## moostraks

> No. Where do you get that from this conversation?


I am asking you based upon your last response. Was curious.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Stop focusing on what man believes and focus on what the apostles believed recorded in the Scriptures.


ummm.... what were the apostles, aliens?

the Bible ain't the only scripture in town, either.

that's a big part of my point. Do you think Christianity has a lock on God?  I don't.  Are you going to tell all the believers of all the other faiths on the planet that you are right and they are wrong? That's the arrogance and self-righteousness I was referring to earlier.

The God I believe in is big enough for everybody.  I believe those who have God in their heart (as Miss Annie says, God is Love) are all worshiping the same God.  The God of Gods. I believe there are lesser gods, but the way I read it Noah and Abraham were worshiping the God of Gods.  Good Muslims worship the God of Gods. Good Christians worship the God of Gods. Good Jews worship the God of Gods.  That's why all three are called 'the Abrahamic religions' (for those that might not be aware).

Any faith worshiping a God of Love is worshiping the God of Gods, in my humble belief system.  They might call Him different names, they might believe He dwelt among us as different deities (because *their* Bible tells them so) - I don't have a problem with any of that.

How can you tell if they worship a God of Love?  By their fruits.

Watch what they do, not what they say.

----------


## moostraks

> ummm.... what were the apostles, aliens?
> 
> the Bible ain't the only scripture in town, either.
> 
> that's a big part of my point. Do you think Christianity has a lock on God?  I don't.  Are you going to tell all the believers of all the other faiths on the planet that you are right and they are wrong? That's the arrogance and self-righteousness I was referring to earlier.
> 
> The God I believe in is big enough for everybody.  I believe those who have God in their heart (as Miss Annie says, God is Love) are all worshiping the same God.  The God of Gods. I believe there are lesser gods, but the way I read it Noah and Abraham were worshiping the God of Gods.  Good Muslims worship the God of Gods. Good Christians worship the God of Gods. Good Jews worship the God of Gods.  That's why all three are called 'the Abrahamic religions' (for those that might not be aware).
> 
> Any faith worshiping a God of Love is worshiping the God of Gods, in my humble belief system.  They might call Him different names, they might believe He dwelt among us as different deities (because *their* Bible tells them so) - I don't have a problem with any of that.
> ...


I am right there with you on how we should know the faith of others. I can understand why churches would decide to have certain conditions for the members to adhere to for the sake of keeping the peace within the membership and having a common goal from which to work forward with in the future. For someone to claim a faith of love and to spend all one's time humiliating the beliefs of others seems counter productive imo. A belief that has merit will draw others to it, in this case, by the Spirit within the members which is evidenced by their love for even one's enemies.

----------


## erowe1

> Are you going to tell all the believers of all the other faiths on the planet that you are right and they are wrong? That's the arrogance and self-righteousness I was referring to earlier.


Are you not calling those you disagree with wrong in this post and in post 337?

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Are you not calling those you disagree with wrong in this post and in post 337?


No, I'm rebuking them 

seriously, yes... I'm afraid so. Pot calling kettle black.  Sorry about that.

I'll take a lesson from Rand and try to "just answer the questions y'all ask" if any.  Or at least avoid being judgemental about it. I got a few +reps on my posts and that almost always causes my head to get bigger, regretfully.

Thanks anyway to those that gave me the reps.  I appreciate it.

----------


## erowe1

> No, I'm rebuking them 
> 
> seriously, yes... I'm afraid so. Pot calling kettle black.  Sorry about that.
> 
> I'll take a lesson from Rand and try to "just answer the questions y'all ask" if any.  Or at least avoid being judgemental about it. I got a few +reps on my posts and that almost always causes my head to get bigger, regretfully.
> 
> Thanks anyway to those that gave me the reps.  I appreciate it.


No need to apologize. Truth and falsehood really exist. If something is true, then its negation is false. Any time we claim that anything is true we are claiming that something else is false.

This isn't a bad thing. It's just unpopular today.

----------


## moostraks

> Are you not calling those you disagree with wrong in this post and in post 337?


 I think it is almost impossible to disagree without that being the conclusion but there is a difference between saying I think your position is wrong and I disagree with all the conditions you place on the matter and by saying you don't have a saving faith which most of us here do not presume to do aside from an obnoxious outlier or two when discussing the issues. I pray no one believes I think myself worthy of judging the eternal state of another's soul but I sure do have opinions on the issues. KWIM?

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Christians must follow what Jesus taught. But he taught what Paul taught. He also taught through Paul. And the most important thing he did, and the main reason he came to earth was not to teach, but to die for our sins and rise again, as both Jesus and Paul taught.
> 
> Paulism = Christianity. If someone's Gospel is not Paul's Gospel, then it isn't Jesus's Gospel.


Jesus did not have a "gospel" until Paul made up all that stuff about him, including "the main reason he came to earth" as you mention above.

Jesus taught:
1. Love God with all your heart
2. Love your neighbor as yourself
Paul dreamed up:
1. Jesus is God
2. all that 'trinity' stuff
3. all that 'you must be saved' stuff
Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love, Love

That's what Jesus taught.

By the way, love is not a feeling, it is an action word.

----------


## erowe1

> Jesus did not have a "gospel" until Paul made up all that silly stuff about him, including "the main reason he came to earth" as you mention above.
> 
> Jesus taught:
> 1. Love God with all your heart
> 2. Love your neighbor as yourself
> 
> Paul dreamed up:
> 1. Jesus is God
> 2. all that silly 'trinity' stuff
> ...


Paul didn't dream up the Gospel. Paul believed in Jesus very soon after the resurrection happened. And the Gospel he preached was the same one that Jesus's own original disciples had already been preaching before Paul believed it.

This Gospel was originally proclaimed by Jesus himself, as all the Gospels attest. The only way to recreate Jesus in the way that you're trying to do is by deliberately picking through the records we have of his teachings and keeping the parts you like and throwing out the parts you don't.

Paul also enjoined that same command to love and the foremost command, just like Jesus did. That command is a part of the message of Paul and Jesus, but it isn't the whole of it.

----------


## TER

St. Paul became baptized into the Church, shared the common cup of faith, namely the Holy Eucharist, establishing his communion and unity of mind, faith, body, and spirit with the remaining Apostles and the entire Church, and was so loved and highly regarded  for his fidelity to the gospel of Christ, that when he reprimanded St. Peter who was in the wrong regarding circumcision, he was backed by the other hierarchs and Apostles. To say that St. Paul taught a different gospel is to ignore the mystical and sacramental unity of faith and worship which defined the Church of the Apostles, of which St. Paul was one of its greatest pillars.  It was precisely because he was in such unity of mind and spirit with the testimony of the Church that he became such a luminary as the Apostle to the Gentiles.

----------


## pcosmar

> Yes, it's exclusionary. Not everybody has it.


I disagree.

I believe that Faith is a gift given to all.
Some misplace it.

----------


## Schifference

So many people are no longer here.

----------

