NationStates Jolt Archive

Except that God commands us to behave in certain ways to each other.
If He commands us, why can we disobey Him? If it's a command, why aren't we forced to follow it? Ah, but that means we have free-will... but, didn't God take it away because of the sins?

Yes, I am no better than you. Arguably I am worse, because I know better. The point is I wouldn't want to be saved unless God by His grace changed me.
How can God change you? You would have to accept the changes, unless you are fine with the way you are because this was your pre-ordained destiny.

There is only one version of Genesis which I'm aware of. No, there is error in translation. That is why there are so many translations. Everyone is trying to get the error out.
A List of Biblical Contradictions (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html)
Biblical Contradictions (http://www.atheists.org/christianity/contradictions.html)
Skeptics Annotates Bible/Quran/Book of Mormon (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm)

Contradiction straight out of Genesis (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html)

I notice that none of the Fundie-Christians had anything to say to me about the following...



By the way, Ed you wouldn't happen to be a Christian Reconstructionist would you?

I've been trying to catch up. Sorry for the delay. I don't know what a Christian Reconstructionist is.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about ignoring 2/3 of the religion. The point is not to be a better peron. That's a side effect. The point is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior and to bring others to Him.

If He commands us, why can we disobey Him? If it's a command, why aren't we forced to follow it? Ah, but that means we have free-will... but, didn't God take it away because of the sins?


How can God change you? You would have to accept the changes, unless you are fine with the way you are because this was your pre-ordained destiny.


A List of Biblical Contradictions (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html)
Biblical Contradictions (http://www.atheists.org/christianity/contradictions.html)
Skeptics Annotates Bible/Quran/Book of Mormon (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm)

Contradiction straight out of Genesis (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html)

I agree with that second bit, no one can change you but yourself. Everything else was a misunderstanding then? Why then do people make millions telling others they are driven by the thoughts of society?

Free will is not the same thing as free agency.

Free agency is free choice.

Free will is that your able to want anything. We lost that. Naturally, we want sin and nothing else.

Free will is the same as free choice; the will do do we you want and the freedom to do as you choose.

How do you know what "we" want anyway? How do you know that people want sin? What gives you the moral authority to say that?

Here's the question:

Are we sinners because we sin? Or do we sin because we are sinners?

The answer is the second. The Bible teaches that natural Man, including the unborn Man is totally averse to God.
We are neither, as we are humans. We are part of nature and we becomes sinners after committing a sin and we commit a sin after making the free choice to. Before that, you cannot be a sinner because you have done nothing that is sinful.

Free will is the same as free choice; the will do do we you want and the freedom to do as you choose.

How do you know what "we" want anyway? How do you know that people want sin? What gives you the moral authority to say that?


We are neither, as we are humans. We are part of nature and we becomes sinners after committing a sin and we commit a sin after making the free choice to. Before that, you cannot be a sinner because you have done nothing that is sinful.

Briliant!!

Your argument needs a definition of Sin. Buddha found a definition and claimed it was only a belief investment of a thought. Freedom is natural.

Westminster Shorter Catechism

Question 14: What is sin?

Answer: Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the Law of God.

Time for class again.

I want to respond to all of you, but you are so numerous I'm falling behind. I'll be back in about 2 hours.

Westminster Shorter Catechism

Question 14: What is sin?

Answer: Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the Law of God.

And who wrote the Law of god down? or did this so called God, which is more accurately named Jehova (sorry on the spelling) simply yell at every one all the time as part of a skitzofrenic fit worldwide?

And who wrote the Law of god down? or did this so called God, which is more accurately named Jehova (sorry on the spelling) simply yell at every one all the time as part of a skitzofrenic fit worldwide?
It was just some guy with a lot of time on his hands after his wife denied him any sex because she found his porno stash. :D

And who wrote the Law of god down? or did this so called God, which is more accurately named Jehova (sorry on the spelling) simply yell at every one all the time as part of a skitzofrenic fit worldwide?

more accurately? you think jehova is any better than adonai, yahway or allah?

It was just some guy with a lot of time on his hands after his wife denied him any sex because she found his porno stash. :D

Fair enough! Gotta go, beautiful day here.Later

I've been trying to catch up. Sorry for the delay. I don't know what a Christian Reconstructionist is.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about ignoring 2/3 of the religion. The point is not to be a better peron. That's a side effect. The point is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior and to bring others to Him.

The Christian Reconstructionists are a group of Christians who are SO extreme they make Pat Robertson look SANE by comparison (which is pretty hard to do). Their beliefs in basic are the following, Democracy is against the will of God and the only government that should rule is a Christian Theocracy in which the Bible is the only source of law. Anyone who is not a Christian or breaks any of the Old Testament Laws (including the Kosher Laws) need to be punished according to what is said in the Bible (which means death). They only use the King James Bible by the way. Their major debate is if they are required to own slaves or not.

Those are the Christian Reconstructionists in basic, you can find out more on the Wiki.

Those are the Christian Reconstructionists in basic, you can find out more on the Wiki.

And for those of you who are lazy, here is the link: Wiki: Christian Reconstructionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism)

We might have laws that seemingly protect Christianity, but really does that ensure that its not persecuted against? Have you ever been a christian and had to face ridicule every day in HS, and even at Uni, just because you beleive that a man died on a cross to save people? Until you have been spat upon, beat, and verbally abused, i don't think you can say who is and isn't persecuted.

Sorry to randomly dredge up the past of the thread, but this stuck in my craw.

Using Zilam's definition, I'm more than qualified to say who is and is not persecuted - I was 'spat upon, beat, and verbally abused' by Christians for not being heterosexual.

Definitions should probably be very carefully chosen, because I don't believe that Christians in North America or Europe are persecuted; and 'lo, so it shall be.

They all have the Old and New Testaments. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics have added the Apocrypha which are not inspired. But that is part of their growing apostasy.

The Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches were the first Christians who had these books long before Protestants came along. They're not the ones who are making a departure from tradition.

The Christian Reconstructionists are a group of Christians who are...
A sub-division of Calvinists...

Calvinism - Subsect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinists#Christian_Reconstructionism)

I decided to look it up so I could get an idea of what this religion was about, and it comes across as rather... cold.

The Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches were the first Christians who had these books long before Protestants came along. They're not the ones who are making a departure from tradition.
You're right.

I don't believe that Christians in North America or Europe are persecuted; and 'lo, so it shall be.

I think it's hard to make blanket statements like that. People of all religions are persecuted all over the place. How serious the persecution is? Not so bad in the USA. Although I've been told by 'Christians' of a different denomination that I am evil because I say their beliefs are wrong, that the right thing to do is agree with some generalized 'we're all right' theology and basically change all of my religious beliefs. When I said I was sorry but my religion is what it is and I'm not going to change over a thousand years of tradition to make one person happy this person refused to speak with me any longer.
Same thing I get from a lot of agnostics. I'm stupid, I believe in a 'childish' religion, I hate women (you don't have to say anything against women), I secretly want to worship more than one God, if there is a hell I'm sure going to it because I dare to attend religious services. Blah blah blah. It's just verbal persecution and it really isn't that bothersome because 90% of these people are just repeating what some magazine article told them and have never thought about it themselves. Three minutes of discussion usually will usually tear apart their weird ideas about my beliefs.

Hilariously I also get people coming up to me to tell me about my religion. Like "Did you know, your religion worships Mary? Worships statues? You know all your clergy are just top secret homosexuals right? Isn't it against your religion to pray to God? It's YOUR FAULT that people died during the crusades."
I don't think that is serious persecution, but my religion is constantly giving me incovenience. It was way easier when I was an atheist, but I'd rather do the right thing than the easy thing.

You seemed to have missed the mockery of Zilam that was present in my other post. If anyone who's been spat upon, beat, and verbally assaulted can dictate who has been persecuted or not, then Zilam has no right to countermand me when I tell him that Christians are not being persecuted, whether or not that is what I actually believe.

And to respond to you - atheism in the current world climate is anything but easy, I'll have you know. Atheists get it just as bad as Catholics, if not worse. Atheists are the most distrusted group in the USA right now - according to polls, people are more likely to trust a Muslim that they don't know (consider the hype about OMG TERRARIZM) than they are to trust an atheist they don't know.

That's pretty freaking bad.

You seemed to have missed the mockery of Zilam that was present in my other post. If anyone who's been spat upon, beat, and verbally assaulted can dictate who has been persecuted or not, then Zilam has no right to countermand me when I tell him that Christians are not being persecuted, whether or not that is what I actually believe.

And to respond to you - atheism in the current world climate is anything but easy, I'll have you know. Atheists get it just as bad as Catholics, if not worse. Atheists are the most distrusted group in the USA right now - according to polls, people are more likely to trust a Muslim that they don't know (consider the hype about OMG TERRARIZM) than they are to trust an atheist they don't know.

That's pretty freaking bad.

I know.

It sucks really badly. Just because you don't believe in God...

And yet... those who say it the loudest are a bigger threat to society than those who don't...

You seemed to have missed the mockery of Zilam that was present in my other post. If anyone who's been spat upon, beat, and verbally assaulted can dictate who has been persecuted or not, then Zilam has no right to countermand me when I tell him that Christians are not being persecuted, whether or not that is what I actually believe.

And to respond to you - atheism in the current world climate is anything but easy, I'll have you know. Atheists get it just as bad as Catholics, if not worse. Atheists are the most distrusted group in the USA right now - according to polls, people are more likely to trust a Muslim that they don't know (consider the hype about OMG TERRARIZM) than they are to trust an atheist they don't know.

That's pretty freaking bad.

That's preposterous. I mean, there are a lot of atheists out there giving them all a bad name. The assholes who just want to tell everyone how stupid religion is. Basically the same people who say how stupid atheists are for not believing in God. People doing the same thing with different words. WHY AREN'T YOU LIKE ME? I HATE THAT.

Perhaps not the right thread for this kind of question, but i´m going to ask anyways to those "Christian" guys!

1. Do you belive that dinosours exisisted?

2. If yes, shouldn´t they have been mentioned in the bible, then?


Please don´t make this too complicated. A simple yes or no will have to do.

Yes

Yes, and they are. The description of Behemoth and Leviathan in Job were once thought to be describing elephants and stuff because those were the largest animals known to exist. But there descriptions match that of dinosaurs and other "prehistoric" reptiles.

Yes

Yes, and they are. The description of Behemoth and Leviathan in Job were once thought to be describing elephants and stuff because those were the largest animals known to exist. But there descriptions match that of dinosaurs and other "prehistoric" reptiles.

Except for the part where the fossil record shows a gap of millions of years after the last dinosaur and before the first human.

There are no poor translations, because god would want us to know the truth, and the holy spirit would keep the translations correct.


Right?

No. There are people who are so concerned with making the Bible "understandable" that they deliberatley change things. I said the essence is the same, not every little detail. Otherwise, there wouldn't be all these translations. The proper transation is probably "small bugs that crawl" but someone decided to make it easier and translate as "insect" ignoring the fact about 4 legs.

But that is purely speculation on my part, because I don't know what verse is being referred to.

Yes

Yes, and they are. The description of Behemoth and Leviathan in Job were once thought to be describing elephants and stuff because those were the largest animals known to exist. But there descriptions match that of dinosaurs and other "prehistoric" reptiles.

Which makes sense considering the ample fossil evidence that suggests that humans and dinosaurs cohabitated on the planet, and were not in fact seperated by millions of years.

After all, if we actually had evidence to suggest that there was NO WAY any human, Job or otherwise, had ever actually seen a living dinosaur and that they all died a long time before human evolution, then that whole part of the bible just couldn't be true...

.......crap.

What is your religous background? Because it's rare for someone to be this into religion without listening to some sort of priest or minister. And most the Baptists are far more authoritarian that the Catholics are.

I'm Presbyterian. But I have not agreed with any of my pastors. The first pastor (who I was to young to remember) lied and cheated and got thrown out. The second was from an Assembly of God background and so said a lot of stuff that goes against Presbyterian belief. And the current one can't preach to save his life. He's a good pastor, but a bad preacher. Not that I would do any better.

No. There are people who are so concerned with making the Bible "understandable" that they deliberatley change things. I said the essence is the same, not every little detail. Otherwise, there wouldn't be all these translations. The proper transation is probably "small bugs that crawl" but someone decided to make it easier and translate as "insect" ignoring the fact about 4 legs.

But that is purely speculation on my part, because I don't know what verse is being referred to.

How remarkably convenient. Concede that there are obvious faults with the bible, when faced with proof of that, but then blather on about the "essence" of it. That way you are able to basically admit that the bible is wrong in parts, yet not concede that maybe, JUST MAYBE some entire sections of it, if not the whole damn thing, isn't in fact god inspired.

But that would interfere with your "kill the fags" agenda though, wouldn't it?

So how do you know that whole part about homosexual activities being gay isn't a poor translation? Or just slipped in by some homophobe with an agenda after the fact?

Once you accept the possibility of ONE error, accept that SOME part of it may not be god's true word, then you must accept that ANY part of it may be also.

Maybe his name was Jebus after all.

No. The essence must be true. There are other things that are clouded (this four legged insect). But all that is necessary for salvation is preserved. Also, all the translations (even the bad ones) agree on the issue of homosexuality and it is spoken against in many places, not just in one place. Several places in Leviticus, Genesis and the New Testament.

No, you're not getting it. God HAS to be everything, or else he's not god.

No, you're not getting it. That's not the Christian God. That's some Eastern mysticism.

Don't have time to read everything since I was last here.

Ed---You really need to do a study as to how the Bible came about. There were hundreds of writings that were considered cannon at various times. Different Popes had different committees select writings. Some went in and out regularly. Hebrews and Revelations we two that almost weren't put in.

Actually the NT was cannonized BEFORE the OT. When the Jews got around to cannonizing their scriptures they chose different books than the Christians had chosen for the OT. This was quite a problem. There were books quoted that didn't make the cannon.

Actually the NT came into the form it's in almost by accident. The last committee didn't think they would be the last committee so they weren't that serious about choosing. They left out Hebrews because there were no Hebrews in the church, then someone argued that jesus was a Hebrew so it should be included. Revelation was left out because apocolyptic books were out of fashion. There were many that had been cannon in the past but that was past at the time of the committee. At the last day someone suggested that at least one apocolyptic book should be included just as an example to show people what they were like, so they grabbed Revelation of John and slapped it on the back.

The final cannon was set, not by the church, but by the printing press. Gutenburg (sp?) took the books the committee had selected and printed them. For the first time, nonchurch people got copies. What the committee assumed would be constantly reviewed (as it had been in the past) was suddenly set in tradition.

You can argue that God spoke to the committee and printer, but the history doesn't make it that solid.

the law also speaks specifically against wearing blended fabrics.

Yes, and? I'll take the lesser of two evils. Wearing blended fabric or going naked? I'll go with blended fabric. Though when I find something that is a single fabric I buy it.

I believe his point is, that technically "priest" is specifically catholic, while I believe protestant says "minister".

The general catch all term I suppose is "preacher"

Well priests are also Eastern Orthodox and Anglican, just so you know.

And I have never really listened to a minister for my theology either. See my above post somewhere.

So by telling us this you are motivated by your own sinful want to lead us away from the salvation that we might find by trying to hold words like mercy and justice to sensible definitions and meaningful concepts instead of all this contrived "'coz God sez so," nonsense?

Sounds about right to me.

Out of curiosity, is your definition of inherently sinful want here a circular one? i.e. "I want to provide food to the poor."
"Well then feeding the poor is sinful, otherwise you wouldn't want to do it."

No. The act itself may not be sin: feeding the poor, for example. It may actually be good because you followed the Law. But you sinned because you did not do it for the glory of God. You did it because you wanted to look good, because it's expected, because your mother told you to.

If God has changed your heart, though, you will want to do good for the glory of God and you will not be sinning.

Yes, and? I'll take the lesser of two evils. Wearing blended fabric or going naked? I'll go with blended fabric. Though when I find something that is a single fabric I buy it.

Best strip down boy, or we'll stone you to death.

Otherwise you're just rationalizing one violation of the law of god, and disallowing another.

How about all homosexual men continue to have sex with other men, until they find a woman they are attracted to and want to have sex with?

[QUOTE]Free will is the same as free choice; the will do do we you want and the freedom to do as you choose.

How do you know what "we" want anyway? How do you know that people want sin? What gives you the moral authority to say that?

They are not the same in Christian theology. And I am merely repeating Scripture.

We are neither, as we are humans. We are part of nature and we becomes sinners after committing a sin and we commit a sin after making the free choice to. Before that, you cannot be a sinner because you have done nothing that is sinful.

Again Scripture sas otherwise.

The contradictions you showed earlier are all easily explained. If you have any questions about particular ones, I'll talk about it.

And who wrote the Law of god down? or did this so called God, which is more accurately named Jehova (sorry on the spelling) simply yell at every one all the time as part of a skitzofrenic fit worldwide?

The Holy Spirit divinely inspired men to record what had happened, keeping them from error. Because it is God's Word it is both inerrant and infallible.

Yes, and? I'll take the lesser of two evils. Wearing blended fabric or going naked? I'll go with blended fabric. Though when I find something that is a single fabric I buy it.

This like all of the dietary laws were to be images for an illiterate people to use to understand how they were to live. They were to stay true to the religion of their God and not blend it with the other religions around them.

The Holy Spirit divinely inspired men to record what had happened, keeping them from error. Because it is God's Word it is both inerrant and infallible.

can you point to me a creature called a behemoth, or one that fits its description, that lived along side man so that Job might have seen it?

The Christian Reconstructionists are a group of Christians who are SO extreme they make Pat Robertson look SANE by comparison (which is pretty hard to do). Their beliefs in basic are the following, Democracy is against the will of God and the only government that should rule is a Christian Theocracy in which the Bible is the only source of law. Anyone who is not a Christian or breaks any of the Old Testament Laws (including the Kosher Laws) need to be punished according to what is said in the Bible (which means death). They only use the King James Bible by the way. Their major debate is if they are required to own slaves or not.

Those are the Christian Reconstructionists in basic, you can find out more on the Wiki.

I'm halfway. Slaves were never required, though there were regulations about their treatment. I do believe in a Christian theocracy. I do not use the King James Bible, though I have one to reference. The dietary laws apply to Jews only, not Gentiles. We are to remain as we were before we became Christians. So there are parts of the Law which Gentiles do not need to follow, because they were made to set the Jews apart as a culture.

The Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches were the first Christians who had these books long before Protestants came along. They're not the ones who are making a departure from tradition.

Um, yes they are. The Protestants returned to Scripture. They removed the Apocrypha which had been added after the Canon had been decided upon.

Except for the part where the fossil record shows a gap of millions of years after the last dinosaur and before the first human.

I see no evidence to believe the fossil record. It's accuracy is based on the assumption that it is true.

Which makes sense considering the ample fossil evidence that suggests that humans and dinosaurs cohabitated on the planet, and were not in fact seperated by millions of years.

After all, if we actually had evidence to suggest that there was NO WAY any human, Job or otherwise, had ever actually seen a living dinosaur and that they all died a long time before human evolution, then that whole part of the bible just couldn't be true...

.......crap.

I'm a young-earth Creationist. Fossil recoerd means nothing to me.

How remarkably convenient. Concede that there are obvious faults with the bible, when faced with proof of that, but then blather on about the "essence" of it. That way you are able to basically admit that the bible is wrong in parts, yet not concede that maybe, JUST MAYBE some entire sections of it, if not the whole damn thing, isn't in fact god inspired.

But that would interfere with your "kill the fags" agenda though, wouldn't it?

I never said that their are faults with the Bible. I said there are faults with translation. All of which are easily seen, because no one makes the same mistake. Person A makes a different mistake than Person B and C, so we can see where the mistake is and fix it.

Best strip down boy, or we'll stone you to death.

Otherwise you're just rationalizing one violation of the law of god, and disallowing another.

How about all homosexual men continue to have sex with other men, until they find a woman they are attracted to and want to have sex with?

I am required to wear clothing. We are not required to have sex.

can you point to me a creature called a behemoth, or one that fits its description, that lived along side man so that Job might have seen it?

Well since dinosaurs existed, they had to have been with man at some point, because it says that God brought all the animals to Adam.

I never said that their are faults with the Bible. I said there are faults with translation. All of which are easily seen, because no one makes the same mistake. Person A makes a different mistake than Person B and C, so we can see where the mistake is and fix it.

Like the translation error which makes 'adam' and 'eve' into actual people? In the Hebrew, they are clearly references to the 'earth' being united with the 'spirit'... a retelling of the creation of man through the breath of life... like that one?

I am required to wear clothing. We are not required to have sex.

Why are you required to wear clothing?

(And have you been careful to make sure you haven't mixed two kinds of material?)

Like the translation error which makes 'adam' and 'eve' into actual people? In the Hebrew, they are clearly references to the 'earth' being united with the 'spirit'... a retelling of the creation of man through the breath of life... like that one?

Well that just destroys the whole basis of Christianity, so of course I can't accept that one.

It sounds more to me like the neo-liberalism seeping in.

I see no evidence to believe the fossil record. It's accuracy is based on the assumption that it is true.

You don't see the irony here, do you?

The whole of Scripture without additions (like the Apocrypha).

what whole scripture is THAT? who do you think put the bible together? who decided what went in and what stayed out?

Why are you required to wear clothing?

(And have you been careful to make sure you haven't mixed two kinds of material?)

It is sinful to appear naked in public. There are exceptions of course. I'm sure if you stripped during a sarin attack, God would excuse you. Sarin is a chemical that clings to your clothes. AndI already said that I where clothes of one fabric as much as I can.

Well that just destroys the whole basis of Christianity, so of course I can't accept that one.

It sounds more to me like the neo-liberalism seeping in.

I don't care if you can accept it, it's right there in the Hebrew... Eve is a transliteration of the Hebrew 'chavvah', literally 'spirit'... and adam is 'the red clay', as in the Hebrew 'adamah.

It's nothing to do with liberalism... neo or otherwise. It is the actual wording of the text.

I'm a young-earth Creationist. Fossil recoerd means nothing to me.

Out of a sense of morbid curiousity, why practice selective acceptance of evidence in order to reinforce a view of the past that has no bearing on how you practice your religion?

what whole scripture is THAT? who do you think put the bible together? who decided what went in and what stayed out?

A council (Nicaea?) decided officially which ones went in and which stayed out. There were not huge debates as everyone claims. There were debates, but they weren't humongous.

The criteria were:
Accepted as Scripture by the Jews for the Old Testament (which the Apocrypha is not)
Written by someone personally called by Jesus or someone once removed for the New Testament (Mark was the traveling companion of Peter the Apostle)
The New Testament books had to have been used by the majority of churches already.

You don't see the irony here, do you?

Yes and no. It comes down to faith. The irony is that those who extol the wonderful thing called fossil records refuse to say that it's based on faith even thought they like to point out that religion has nothing but faith to support it.

Out of a sense of morbid curiousity, why practice selective acceptance of evidence in order to reinforce a view of the past that has no bearing on how you practice your religion?

Because I find the evidence questionable.

I'm a young-earth Creationist. Fossil recoerd means nothing to me.

well that explains a lot. There's no point debating anything with someone who buries his head in the sand and willfully ignores all evidence.

I don't care if you can accept it, it's right there in the Hebrew... Eve is a transliteration of the Hebrew 'chavvah', literally 'spirit'... and adam is 'the red clay', as in the Hebrew 'adamah.

It's nothing to do with liberalism... neo or otherwise. It is the actual wording of the text.

And it can't have anything to do with the fact that people's names often came from nature? Adam was made from the dust. So let's name him something that has to do with the ground. How 'bout clay? That's even a name in our language. So that person down the street named Clay really doesn't exist. He's just the personification of the earth.

There are many more: Dawn, Rose, Iris, Hazel...

Well since dinosaurs existed, they had to have been with man at some point, because it says that God brought all the animals to Adam.

I see no evidence to believe the fossil record. It's accuracy is based on the assumption that it is true.

The irony is irresistable. You claim not to believe in evolution and fossil evidence because the theory that it "it's (sic) accuracy is based on the assumption that it is true" but you use something in the bible to prove the bible.

That's too good, you have to be a puppet.

It is sinful to appear naked in public. There are exceptions of course. I'm sure if you stripped during a sarin attack, God would excuse you. Sarin is a chemical that clings to your clothes. AndI already said that I where clothes of one fabric as much as I can.

Which verse says you must be clothed?

Second Samuel 6:14 "And David danced before the LORD with all [his] might; and David [was] girded with a linen ephod." (An ephod is basically a skirt with shoulder straps... David was not covering his modesty with all that jumping round).

Genesis 2:25 "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."

First Samuel 19:24 "And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, [Is] Saul also among the prophets?" (Saul apparently sees no problem with it).

Isaiah 20:3 "And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years [for] a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;" (Isaiah, similarly has no constraints).

John 21:7 "Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt [his] fisher's coat [unto him], (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea." (So - Simon Peter also sees no problems with the bare flesh).


As for 'wearing as much of one fabric as you can'... that's not how Levitical law works, my friend. You do it, or you don't do it. There is no 'try'.

Because I find the evidence questionable.

Your alternative being a book assembled from texts in 382 AD? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome)

There is plenty questionable about both, especially in the texts that were left out of the Bible and the gaps in the fossil record. What makes the Bible less questionable?

Because I find the evidence questionable.

only because you willfully ignore it. although there's some difficulty tracking down exact dates with little margin of error, some facts are simply irrefutal.

The earth is billions of years old and dinosaurs lived, and died, millions of years before mankind existed.

The irony is irresistable. You claim not to believe in evolution and fossil evidence because the theory that it "it's (sic) accuracy is based on the assumption that it is true" but you use something in the bible to prove the bible.

That's too good, you have to be a puppet.

Yes, we already had this discussion. You are in as much doo doo as I.

Yes and no. It comes down to faith. The irony is that those who extol the wonderful thing called fossil records refuse to say that it's based on faith even thought they like to point out that religion has nothing but faith to support it.

The people who talk about fossil records, base it on a whole load of evidence that seems to point to one idea. The young earth creationists who oppose the fossil record, base it on the idea that one book is right.

One of these is 'faith'.

Which verse says you must be clothed?

Second Samuel 6:14 "And David danced before the LORD with all [his] might; and David [was] girded with a linen ephod." (An ephod is basically a skirt with shoulder straps... David was not covering his modesty with all that jumping round).

Genesis 2:25 "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."

First Samuel 19:24 "And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, [Is] Saul also among the prophets?" (Saul apparently sees no problem with it).

Isaiah 20:3 "And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years [for] a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;" (Isaiah, similarly has no constraints).

John 21:7 "Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt [his] fisher's coat [unto him], (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea." (So - Simon Peter also sees no problems with the bare flesh).


As for 'wearing as much of one fabric as you can'... that's not how Levitical law works, my friend. You do it, or you don't do it. There is no 'try'.

Biblically as well as culturally, naked meant not clothed properly. We make that distinction. They didn't.

Your alternative being a book assembled from texts in 382 AD? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome)

There is plenty questionable about both, especially in the texts that were left out of the Bible and the gaps in the fossil record. What makes the Bible less questionable?

Faith. Just as faith in science makes the fossil record less questionable for some people.

And it can't have anything to do with the fact that people's names often came from nature? Adam was made from the dust. So let's name him something that has to do with the ground. How 'bout clay? That's even a name in our language. So that person down the street named Clay really doesn't exist. He's just the personification of the earth.

There are many more: Dawn, Rose, Iris, Hazel...

But, we are not talking about the guy down the road, are we. So - let us accept the argument that 'adam' was a man, named for the earth. (There is a lot of evidence to believe this to be untrue... not least the fact that the Hebrew often uses 'adam' as a collective term)

Why would 'eve' be named spirit? Is she not earth, too?

Or are we now making god capricious? he picks a name because he thinks it sounds pretty?

Given the fact that the text ahs ALREADY explained how man is formed from the marriage of earth and spirit, why would you think it more likely that the account is describing literal people?

A council (Nicaea?) decided officially which ones went in and which stayed out. There were not huge debates as everyone claims. There were debates, but they weren't humongous.

The criteria were:
Accepted as Scripture by the Jews for the Old Testament (which the Apocrypha is not)
Written by someone personally called by Jesus or someone once removed for the New Testament (Mark was the traveling companion of Peter the Apostle)
The New Testament books had to have been used by the majority of churches already.

You need to go back and read my previous post. The Jews cannonized their scriptures AFTER the Christians cannonized their OT.

Yes, we already had this discussion. You are in as much doo doo as I.

Don't compare myself to you. I believe in what is rational, and what is best supported by the evidence. I don't reject what is the best explanation in favor of a single book which has basically no supporting evidence

Biblically as well as culturally, naked meant not clothed properly. We make that distinction. They didn't.

Where is the verse. I just showed you a half dozen biblical examples of how it is okay (indeed, better than 'okay', since David was described as being 'after gods own heart', I believe)... to be out in your bare skin, or with your crown jewels flapping in the wind... like David's little dance.

So - show me where the scripture says it is better to be clothed, and then explain why some of the holiest men in the bible seem to have no qualms about prancing around sans culottes.

But, we are not talking about the guy down the road, are we. So - let us accept the argument that 'adam' was a man, named for the earth. (There is a lot of evidence to believe this to be untrue... not least the fact that the Hebrew often uses 'adam' as a collective term)

Why would 'eve' be named spirit? Is she not earth, too?

Or are we now making god capricious? he picks a name because he thinks it sounds pretty?

Given the fact that the text ahs ALREADY explained how man is formed from the marriage of earth and spirit, why would you think it more likely that the account is describing literal people?

Eve does not sound to me like 'chavvah' But I don't know Hebrew, so...

Also, why shouldn't she be named spirit. If we're saying where she came from, shouldn't she be named bone? So there must be some other relationship. But that doesn't mean that she is purely symbollic.

And where does it talk about marriage between earth and spirit. It only says that God made Adam from dust and breathed life into him.

Faith. Just as faith in science makes the fossil record less questionable for some people.

Alright, that's all I wanted to know.

Faith. Just as faith in science makes the fossil record less questionable for some people.

There is no such thing as blind faith in science. To say so shows a fundamental failure to understand what science is.

Faith in religion and belief in science are not comparable. belief in science requires constant vigilance to test, test, and test again and only then, ONLY when NO OTHER EXPLINATION WORKS do we accept a thing as THEORY, and we STILL try to rigorously defeat it.

Scientific theory works only when it stands against constant vigilance against all effort to disprove it.

Religious faith on the other hand demands unquestioning obedience, don't question it, don't debate it, don't try to disprove it. God said so, so don't you DARE think otherwise.

But, we are not talking about the guy down the road, are we. So - let us accept the argument that 'adam' was a man, named for the earth. (There is a lot of evidence to believe this to be untrue... not least the fact that the Hebrew often uses 'adam' as a collective term)

Why would 'eve' be named spirit? Is she not earth, too?

Or are we now making god capricious? he picks a name because he thinks it sounds pretty?

Given the fact that the text ahs ALREADY explained how man is formed from the marriage of earth and spirit, why would you think it more likely that the account is describing literal people?

because he does not understand that even if it is an allegory that he can still be a Christian, he does not understand that everything cannot be taken literally.

I am required to wear clothing. We are not required to have sex.

It is sinful to appear naked in public. There are exceptions of course. I'm sure if you stripped during a sarin attack, God would excuse you. Sarin is a chemical that clings to your clothes. AndI already said that I where clothes of one fabric as much as I can.

Ok, so, where in your Bible does it say it's a sin to appear naked in public?

Adam and Eve never had a problem with nudity until they had a bit of an apple from the tree of knowledge, which shamed them into concealing their nakedness.

Biblically as well as culturally, naked meant not clothed properly. We make that distinction. They didn't.

And what exactly is not "clothed properly"? That's a rather vague statement.

Faith. Just as faith in science makes the fossil record less questionable for some people.

No, overwhelming evidence makes the fossil record 'less questionable' for some people.

On the other hand, your refutation is 'I think this book is true - with NO supporting evidence - and thus ALL your evidence must be wrong'.

Look at it statistically... is it more likely that one book is wrong, or hundreds of years of accumulated evidence?

Don't compare myself to you. I believe in what is rational, and what is best supported by the evidence. I don't reject what is the best explanation in favor of a single book which has basically no supporting evidence

Why don't you behave rationally, then?

Instead of mockery and insult, try discussion. Nothing has been proven regarding evolution. Therefore, you accept in on faith, regardless of how much evidence there is for it.

Eve does not sound to me like 'chavvah' But I don't know Hebrew, so...


But, you'll argue it with me?


Also, why shouldn't she be named spirit. If we're saying where she came from, shouldn't she be named bone? So there must be some other relationship. But that doesn't mean that she is purely symbollic.


It also doesn't mean she is literal.


And where does it talk about marriage between earth and spirit. It only says that God made Adam from dust and breathed life into him.

And the dust is the earth, and the breath is the spirit. What did you think it was, just air? Does air alone make dead flesh live?

But, you'll argue it with me?



It also doesn't mean she is literal.



And the dust is the earth, and the breath is the spirit. What did you think it was, just air? Does air alone make dead flesh live?

I must be misunderstanding you. Can you please go over your point again?

Which makes sense considering the ample fossil evidence that suggests that humans and dinosaurs cohabitated on the planet, and were not in fact seperated by millions of years.

After all, if we actually had evidence to suggest that there was NO WAY any human, Job or otherwise, had ever actually seen a living dinosaur and that they all died a long time before human evolution, then that whole part of the bible just couldn't be true...

.......crap.

I'm having trouble figuring out if you're being sarcastic. Even the "crap" at the end doesn't preclude the possibility of sincerity.

At least in light of the existence of these people. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/walkthrough/)

Why don't you behave rationally, then?

Instead of mockery and insult, try discussion. Nothing has been proven regarding evolution. Therefore, you accept in on faith, regardless of how much evidence there is for it.

So "nothing has been proven" even though there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers covering two hundred years of accumulated evidence spanning dozens of different fields of science?

because he does not understand that even if it is an allegory that he can still be a Christian, he does not understand that everything cannot be taken literally.

And this is why you are so appreciated. :)

It's a matter of grasping what is important from the text, and not 'sweating the small stuff'.

If you are going to take EVERY word literally, you find yourself wondering how Jesus was wandering in the wilderness facing his demons AND at a wedding in Cana at the same time.

The question should always be: "Is this IMPORTANT to what I believe?" The Genesis account of the first few pages is framing a story about Hebrew patriarchs. It doesn't matter if any of it is literal, so long as you assume that God was the instigator of the story, and the message has always been one of bridging the gap between Creator and Creature.

because he does not understand that even if it is an allegory that he can still be a Christian, he does not understand that everything cannot be taken literally.

That's how you're supposed to read the Bible. Literally.

Read Poetry as Poetry, read History as History, read Theology as Theoloy.

If Genesis is not history, then all the theology is messed up and there is no Christianity. You cannot be Biblical Christian and think that the Creation is allegory.

You can be a feel-good modern hippie Christian, though.

Today I went to the campus church at the University Union. It was a normal worship service. We all gathered in and sat, and then began to sing a song. Halfway through the song, the service pastor told us the following:




At that point they locked the doors, turned off the lights, and had one band member stay up on stage with his acoustic guitar, and he was going to play a few songs. We were furious. Several members began to cry. But the funniest thing happened, instead of being quiet with our worship, we sang loud and with such great passion. It was the first service I have been to where I have felt the Spirit just flood down and fill everyone. Everyone was just crying out to God and we had Him there with us, and our hands were raised, and we sang sang so loudly, and just praised Him. It was the greatest feeling ever, as if we were all raised to a new level, perhaps right in front of God Himself at that point. After about 2 or 3 songs, the service pastor come back up and told us we had been "Punk'd", and that this was a test of our faith, to see if we would be quiet in the midst of a particular danger, IE losing our place of worship, or if we would be like Peter and John in the early part of Acts, where they say "We can't help but to speak what we have seen and heard". This is definitely something that will stay with me forever. I mean, that initial felling of just anger, and being upset about having to be silent, but then it was washed away by our praises to God. I feel so...free inside now. I think this was a very needed step in my walk. So does anyone else have a similar experience?

Thats complete BS. Sounds to me like your Church,even though I have the upmost respect(I'm an agnostic FYI) for it, is completely evil. And what? Do you want this country to be controled by some religios wacko who wants to ban everything but(a...Catholicism...Christianaty....)? I say get a room! And your Church just lied to you BTW(7 deadly sins anyone?)Never trust anything that waves the BS flag!:headbang:

So "nothing has been proven" even though there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers covering two hundred years of accumulated evidence spanning dozens of different fields of science?

And just as many with legitmate scientists saying it's impossible.

I must be misunderstanding you. Can you please go over your point again?

The point is, the scripture describes a story... basically - God reaches down and scoops up a handful of the dirt, and blows some magical property into it that makes it live.

Try blowing on a clay figurine, and tell me if it comes alive.... the 'breath of life' is not just air.

Then, a chapter later, we have a story again (in the Hebrew) where spirit and earth are united. Which is more logical... to assume there are two parallel stories but one is about a pair of naked dimwits in a garden somewhere, or to allow that the ORIGINAL version (which has been reinterpreted a number of times, even within the earliest books of the Hebrew scripture) is simply bing retold?

A council (Nicaea?) decided officially which ones went in and which stayed out. There were not huge debates as everyone claims. There were debates, but they weren't humongous.

The criteria were:
Accepted as Scripture by the Jews for the Old Testament (which the Apocrypha is not)
Written by someone personally called by Jesus or someone once removed for the New Testament (Mark was the traveling companion of Peter the Apostle)
The New Testament books had to have been used by the majority of churches already.

i dont think youre right. i think that the bible was set almost as is in the catholic or orthodox versions somewhere around the council of nicaea. st jerome disagreed with the inclusions of certain books some....50ish years later so it must have been set by the year 400ad.

so you think that god let the bible be WRONG for 1000 years until the protestants got inspired and fixed it? kinda lazy of him wasnt it?

I'm through with this debate.

In fact, I'm through with NSG. I'm obviously doing more harm than good. God forgive me.

And I ask that all of you would forgive me if I stepped on your toes. I didn't mean to. Actually, there were probably times when I did mean to, and for that I am even sorrier.

Have a great life, all of you. And may God guide you. Love, best wishes, and prayers!

That's how you're supposed to read the Bible. Literally.

Read Poetry as Poetry, read History as History, read Theology as Theoloy.

If Genesis is not history, then all the theology is messed up and there is no Christianity. You cannot be Biblical Christian and think that the Creation is allegory.

You can be a feel-good modern hippie Christian, though.
You can read the Bible in other ways other than literally.

Theoloy? *snickers* (I could comment, but I won't).

The Catholic Church has admitted that evolution is fact and that creation is one story that is part of it and shouldn't be taken literally.

You cannot be Biblical Christian and think that the Creation is allegory.

You can be a feel-good modern hippie Christian, though.

assuming you are correct, you have three options:

1) be a feel-good modern hippie christian
2) don't be a christian at all
3) be objectively wrong and hold beliefs that can easily be demonstrated to be false by anyone with even a passing knowledge of various fields

And just as many with legitmate scientists saying it's impossible.

"As many"? Really? Less than a thousand (many w/ "degrees" from diploma mills) compared to tens of thousands from hundreds of legitimate institutions?

Buh Bye.

I'm through with this debate.
Can't take the truth?

In fact, I'm through with NSG. I'm obviously doing more harm than good. God forgive me.
I thought you couldn't make an effort to be saved, that it had to be handed down at God's discretion? That helping suffering was part of God's broad plan?

And I ask that all of you would forgive me if I stepped on your toes. I didn't mean to. Actually, there were probably times when I did mean to, and for that I am even sorrier.
You didn't step on toes; you just said some very... odd stuff.

Well, you would be mistaken. I do not need to give an account of my works to you, but if you saw a record of my service in mercy acts, you would see that that does not apply to me.


You have a record?? of service?? in mercy acts???

That just sounds so incredibly un-Christlike.

That's how you're supposed to read the Bible. Literally.

Read Poetry as Poetry, read History as History, read Theology as Theoloy.

If Genesis is not history, then all the theology is messed up and there is no Christianity. You cannot be Biblical Christian and think that the Creation is allegory.

You can be a feel-good modern hippie Christian, though.

Curious. You know, of course, that Job, Song of Solomon (or Song of Songs, in some versions) and the Psalms are all 'poetic' texts, yes?

As for whether or not you can be a 'biblical Christian' and believe that some parts of the texts are allegorical or metaphorical... do you honestly believe that Job's bowels literally boiled? Do you think 'heaven' was literally 'bent' in Psalm 18? Was Rehoboam literally threatening to whip people with scorpions?

That's how you're supposed to read the Bible. Literally.

Read Poetry as Poetry, read History as History, read Theology as Theoloy.

If Genesis is not history, then all the theology is messed up and there is no Christianity. You cannot be Biblical Christian and think that the Creation is allegory.

You can be a feel-good modern hippie Christian, though.
I don't think the entire Bible is literal, in fact there are large portions of it that are not, for example Jesus' parables, they are in fact metaphors, not literal stories, Revelation, the prophecy in Daniel......and the creation story. I believe it all has truth, lessons that apply, but it doesn't have to be literal for me to learn from it.

I don't think anyone would say that I am a hippie....but that's interesting that you think that.

I'm through with this debate.

In fact, I'm through with NSG. I'm obviously doing more harm than good. God forgive me.

And I ask that all of you would forgive me if I stepped on your toes. I didn't mean to. Actually, there were probably times when I did mean to, and for that I am even sorrier.

Have a great life, all of you. And may God guide you. Love, best wishes, and prayers!
alrighty then.

That's how you're supposed to read the Bible. Literally.

Read Poetry as Poetry, read History as History, read Theology as Theoloy.

If Genesis is not history, then all the theology is messed up and there is no Christianity. You cannot be Biblical Christian and think that the Creation is allegory.

You can be a feel-good modern hippie Christian, though.

genesis is not history. its not meant to be history. there is no need to believe in the existence of a literal garden of eden in order to be a christian.

I know. Just goes to show you that you can't always be so general with your assumptions.


-edit- not YOU Kat. A rhetoric You. :p

I didn't take it to be a personal dig, no fears.

I'm through with this debate.

In fact, I'm through with NSG. I'm obviously doing more harm than good. God forgive me.

And I ask that all of you would forgive me if I stepped on your toes. I didn't mean to. Actually, there were probably times when I did mean to, and for that I am even sorrier.

Have a great life, all of you. And may God guide you. Love, best wishes, and prayers!

Quitting NS? It's a shame to see you cut and run. Isn't your 'mission' supposed to be witnessing to heathens like me?

Where-so-ever the spirit leads you, my friend.

I'm having trouble figuring out if you're being sarcastic. Even the "crap" at the end doesn't preclude the possibility of sincerity.

At least in light of the existence of these people. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/walkthrough/)

At any time, ever, if there's even the slightest POSSIBILITY that I MIGHT be advocating a fundamentalist young earth perspective....ignore that possibility.

My post was sarcasm in the extreme.

Question: How can I get deleted?

I don't want banned: the ends don't justify the means.

I would like my country to not exist anymore, but I don't know how.

This may not be the right forum for this anyway.

Question: How can I get deleted?

I don't want banned: the ends don't justify the means.

I would like my country to not exist anymore, but I don't know how.

This may not be the right forum for this anyway.
Don't log in for 28 days.

Question: How can I get deleted?

I don't want banned: the ends don't justify the means.

I would like my country to not exist anymore, but I don't know how.

This may not be the right forum for this anyway.

it automatically deletes after 30 days of inactivity.

Don't log in for 28 days.

That's an odd number. Thank you.

I don't think even that [suicide] is unforgivable. Since, most people that commit suicide could be argued to be in a state of poor mental health, specifically, they are going against the most natural mindset of self preservation for what are sometimes reasons that don't seem 'worth it' to a stable person. I don't believe that these people are truly culpable for their actions.

It's a mortal sin, and it violates the Commandment of "Thou shalt not kill."
In times past (and for all I know, now) suicides were not buried in consecrated ground because of this.

That's an odd number. Thank you.
Just make sure you have Vacation Mode left unchecked and that automatic login is left off, so that even if you come to the NS homepage, you won't get accidently logged in.

Yes, 28 days is odd, but, that's what 'they' determined.

It's a mortal sin, and it violates the Commandment of "Thou shalt not kill."
In times past (and for all I know, now) suicides were not buried in consecrated ground because of this.
It is actually "thou shalt not murder"; as killing was necessary when it came to fending off dangerous animals, or acting in self-defence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwardis
No! I don't know how else to say this. He knew what was going to happen. But was He under any obligation to stop it? No. Show me how He was. To do so, He would have to eliminate free agency and that would have you in an uproar as well (if you were even able to have an uproar).

He was under an obligation to stop it if he disagreed with the results to such an event, and doubly so if he were to punish any of those involved when he had the ability to prevent it from happening.

If god cannot be "obligated" to do anything (which is true), and never punishes (which is true), then your argument falls apart, as it should.

You're thinking of god as if he were one of his creations (a "being" of some sort).

That is just not the "nature" of god.

God is not a creature (created thing). God is the (singular) creator.

because he does not understand that even if it is an allegory that he can still be a Christian, he does not understand that everything cannot be taken literally.

Oh, he understands that. He just thinks that it's patently obvious that the stuff he's willing to accept as literally true (such as that he's lucky enough to be going to heaven, but there are billions in the world who are doomed because they weren't lucky enough to live near a charismatic missionary) is literally true, and that the stuff he'd rather not believe is literally true is metaphorical somehow.

i.e.:
Naked = Inappropriate clothing
Hate = Love, but less than more love
Horny woman in Song of Solomon = Christs love for the church (I don't believe Ed has specifically put his seal of approval on this one, but many have).

Oh, he understands that. He just thinks that it's patently obvious that the stuff he's willing to accept as literally true (such as that he's lucky enough to be going to heaven, but there are billions in the world who are doomed because they weren't lucky enough to live near a charismatic missionary) is literally true, and that the stuff he'd rather not believe is literally true is metaphorical somehow.

i.e.:
Naked = Inappropriate clothing
Hate = Love, but less than more love
Horny woman in Song of Solomon = Christs love for the church (I don't believe Ed has specifically put his seal of approval on this one, but many have).
oh dear. no wonder people look at me sideways when I say I am a Christian

oh dear. no wonder people look at me sideways when I say I am a Christian
I looked sideways because you didn't seem like a Christian...:p

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiemria
I don't think even that [suicide] is unforgivable. Since, most people that commit suicide could be argued to be in a state of poor mental health, specifically, they are going against the most natural mindset of self preservation for what are sometimes reasons that don't seem 'worth it' to a stable person. I don't believe that these people are truly culpable for their actions.

It's a mortal sin, and it violates the Commandment of "Thou shalt not kill."
In times past (and for all I know, now) suicides were not buried in consecrated ground because of this.

To not bury people in consecrated ground is "man's" choice, not god's.

Is it a good choice? I would argue yes, as it is man's place to judge their fellow man on their behavior, and suicide is not a good thing for a society (as judged by most societies in actuality).

But does god not forgive those who commit suicide?

I would say he forgives them, as that is all the he can do, as god never punishes.

"Thou shalt not kill" actually means, "Thou shalt not take life without very good reason."

The "reason" is left up to men to decide ("men" as in humans!), as that is man's job.

I looked sideways because you didn't seem like a Christian...:p

uh.......why don't I seem like a Christian? that worries me.

uh.......why don't I seem like a Christian? that worries me.

No, that's a good thing. It's good because you talk like you love your religion but you have no desire to force it onto other people. IE: you don't fit into that rabid Christian stereotype.

It's a mortal sin, and it violates the Commandment of "Thou shalt not kill."
In times past (and for all I know, now) suicides were not buried in consecrated ground because of this.

i keep hearing that the unforgivable sin is to *do something mean* to the holy spirit. i dont remember what it is, its in some gospel but i dont remember ever hearing about it in church.

i think that these days a suicide can be buried in consecrated ground if they were distraught or otherwise out of their mind when they did it. same as being "not guilty by reason of insanity" in court.

i keep hearing that the unforgivable sin is to *do something mean* to the holy spirit. i dont remember what it is, its in some gospel but i dont remember ever hearing about it in church.

i think that these days a suicide can be buried in consecrated ground if they were distraught or otherwise out of their mind when they did it. same as being "not guilty by reason of insanity" in court.

rejection of salvation is the only unforgivable IIRC (which I think I do)

Just make sure you have Vacation Mode left unchecked and that automatic login is left off, so that even if you come to the NS homepage, you won't get accidently logged in.

Yes, 28 days is odd, but, that's what 'they' determined.

28 days is just 4 weeks.

Doesn't seem so odd.

rejection of salvation is the only unforgivable IIRC (which I think I do)

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin, isn't it?

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin, isn't it?

yeah thats it

or so i hear

i have NO idea what it would mean to blaspheme the holy spirit so maybe im safe from it?

uh.......why don't I seem like a Christian? that worries me.

You don't seem like a lot of 'christians'.

In my opinion, that is a good thing - because many seem to consider the politics of the religion, and the trappings of the religion, as more important than trying to be 'christlike'.

yeah thats it

or so i hear

i have NO idea what it would mean to blaspheme the holy spirit so maybe im safe from it?

Or maybe you've already done it without realizing it. :eek:

yeah thats it

or so i hear

i have NO idea what it would mean to blaspheme the holy spirit so maybe im safe from it?

I don't know. I can blaspheme anything that moves. I'm good like that.

But then, I never bought into that merit system anyway. In my book, people who cut of their tiny daughter's arms with a kitchen knife should burn... and those who doubt, or just don't care about religion should get an eye-opening surprise on their arrival at the pearly gates.

But I don't get to choose. I'm a godless heathen, and I'm not losing any sleep over it. I'll find my imoortality some other way.

Or maybe you've already done it without realizing it. :eek:

well...being damned for unwittingly sinning is still better than edwardis' idea that im damned from the beginning of time no matter what i do.

do you know what would constitute blashpeming the holy spirit?

Okay, I went and cried (Shut up!) and beat myself up (figuratively) and prayed.

And I'm not leaving. I think it would be sinful for me to do so, as Grave n Idle pointed out.

So again, I'm sorry for being an ass. I don't retract anything I've said, just the way I said some of it.

PS- I just got your name, Graven Idol, I mean Grave n Idle.

well...being damned for unwittingly sinning is still better than edwardis' idea that im damned from the beginning of time no matter what i do.

do you know what would constitute blashpeming the holy spirit?

Love you too. :fluffle:

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the refusal to repent. God will only forgive you if you repent. And you can't repent if you refuse to repent.

well...being damned for unwittingly sinning is still better than edwardis' idea that im damned from the beginning of time no matter what i do.

do you know what would constitute blashpeming the holy spirit?

You'd have to speak evil of the Spirit of God is my understanding.

So, if someone was to actively try and portray God as genuinely evil and decieve others about God, then they can not find forgiveness I guess.

I don't believe you can do it accidentally, I think you have to have a knowledge of God's Spirit and still work against Him.

So again, I'm sorry for being an ass. I don't retract anything I've said, just the way I said some of it.
You were standing firm; you didn't say anything inflammatory, which is surprising considering some people who defend their faith cam be very rude and offensive. You were an ass, you just said odd things.

And you can't repent if you refuse to repent.
Uh... repenting means you already want to, so, if you don't want to repent, it means you refuse to.

Uh... repenting means you already want to, so, if you don't want to repent, it means you refuse to.

:confused: We are commanded to repent. So if we don't it's a sin, right?

So if you must repent to be forgiven of your sins, the only one which you couldn't be forgiven of is the refusal to repent. Because then you wouldn't be forgiven of any of your sins. Though, theoretically, if you had repented you would have been forgiven of all of them.

Love you too. :fluffle:

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the refusal to repent. God will only forgive you if you repent. And you can't repent if you refuse to repent.

welcome back

why is it called blaspheming the holy spirit?

do you remember what book and verse it is?

welcome back

why is it called blaspheming the holy spirit?

do you remember what book and verse it is?

Matthew, maybe?

EDIT: Yes, Matthew 12:31,32 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

A note in my Bible says: 12:31,32 Speaking against the Spirit, calling the work of the Spirit the work of Satan, involves an explicit, willful, and decisive rejection of the very Power that can bring about repentence. The notion of the "unforgivable sin" has caused needless anxiety. Anyone who has been convicted of sin by the Spirit (John 16:8) and now believes the truth cannot possibly have committed it. See "The Unpardonable Sin" at Mark 3:29.

That note is a page long, so I won't type it in, unless someone wants me to.

:confused: We are commanded to repent. So if we don't it's a sin, right?

So if you must repent to be forgiven of your sins, the only one which you couldn't be forgiven of is the refusal to repent. Because then you wouldn't be forgiven of any of your sins. Though, theoretically, if you had repented you would have been forgiven of all of them.
But then wouldn't that be making an effort to get salvation that is only granted on the good grace of God who decides who's worthy and who's not?

Question, how can one repent when one has no sins? How can an infant repent?

But then wouldn't that be making an effort to get salvation that is only granted on the good grace of God who decides who's worthy and who's not?

Question, how can one repent when one has no sins? How can an infant repent?

The infant is not refusing. The infant is unable. I don't know what God does in that instance. I hope that He, knowing their "fate," would change their hearts, but I would hope for a lot of things, few of which have happened.

Love you too. :fluffle:

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the refusal to repent. God will only forgive you if you repent. And you can't repent if you refuse to repent.

hmmmm

according to the sites im looking at on the net, its ascribing the works of the holy spirit to satan instead

so if i see you speaking in tongues as the apostles did, and i suggest that its NOT the holy spirit inspiring you but is the devil instead, i am blaspheming the holy spirit.

in matthew jesus drove a demon out of some poor sod and the pharisees suggested that only satan can cast out his own minions, jesus rebuked them with the whole blaspheming thing. to suggest that obvious god-driven miracles are the work of satan is to work against the holy spirits intent in impressing people with the power of god.

**EDIT**

oh i see above that we were working on the same thing.

Okay, I went and cried (Shut up!) and beat myself up (figuratively) and prayed.

And I'm not leaving. I think it would be sinful for me to do so, as Grave n Idle pointed out.

So again, I'm sorry for being an ass. I don't retract anything I've said, just the way I said some of it.

PS- I just got your name, Graven Idol, I mean Grave n Idle.

I'm glad to see you are not leaving. You keep telling your truth, I'll keep telling mine. Maybe one of us will hear the other, maybe not... but we owe it to each other to keep trying.

Regarding the crying thing, a great philosopher once wrote: "Don't be afraid to be weak. Don't be too proud to be strong. Just look into your heart, my friend - That will be the return to yourself, the return to innocence. If you want, then start to laugh. If you must, then start to cry. Be yourself - don't hide. Just believe in destiny. Don't care what people say, Just follow your own way. Don't give up, and use the chance, to return to innocence"

I'm glad to see you are not leaving. You keep telling your truth, I'll keep telling mine. Maybe one of us will hear the other, maybe not... but we owe it to each other to keep trying.

Regarding the crying thing, a great philosopher once wrote: "Don't be afraid to be weak. Don't be too proud to be strong. Just look into your heart, my friend - That will be the return to yourself, the return to innocence. If you want, then start to laugh. If you must, then start to cry. Be yourself - don't hide. Just believe in destiny. Don't care what people say, Just follow your own way. Don't give up, and use the chance, to return to innocence"

Well thank you for that. It's not Scripture, but it will work. :p

hmmmm

according to the sites im looking at on the net, its ascribing the works of the holy spirit to satan instead

so if i see you speaking in tongues as the apostles did, and i suggest that its NOT the holy spirit inspiring you but is the devil instead, i am blaspheming the holy spirit.

in matthew jesus drove a demon out of some poor sod and the pharisees suggested that only satan can cast out his own minions, jesus rebuked them with the whole blaspheming thing. to suggest that obvious god-driven miracles are the work of satan is to work against the holy spirits intent in impressing people with the power of god.

**EDIT**

oh i see above that we were working on the same thing.

Yes.

The infant is not refusing. The infant is unable. I don't know what God does in that instance. I hope that He, knowing their "fate," would change their hearts, but I would hope for a lot of things, few of which have happened.
If he knew their fate from before they were in the womb, as he knows the fate of their parents, wouldn't he have tried to give them a good heart and allowed these infants to be born sin-free?

Mark 3:29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.

There are numerous passages that say that if you repent that you will be forgiven all your sins, so I would think that the only sin that you could commit and not be forgiven was to not repent in the first place..

however, there are other (http://www.gotquestions.org/unpardonable-sin.html) views.

welcome back

why is it called blaspheming the holy spirit?

do you remember what book and verse it is?

I believe:

Matthew 12:31-2 is the culprit: "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come."

So - you can say what you like about Jesus, it appears... but don't diss the dude in the sheet.

rejection of salvation is the only unforgivable IIRC (which I think I do)

You can't reject that which you can't separate from yourself ("salvation" aka "being forgiven by god").

That's why it's "unforgivable".

Since nothing is unforgivable by god (as god only forgives), the unforgivable is impossible, and for you to perform the impossible (reject that which you can't reject) is impossible,.. therefore you can WISH to do the impossible, but god simply smiles and shows you the impossibility of your attempt.

In the meantime, your forgiven your foolishness.

Well thank you for that. It's not Scripture, but it will work. :p

Whatever works. Truth... even inspired truth... doesn't always have to come from the pages of the same book.

If he knew their fate from before they were in the womb, as he knows the fate of their parents, wouldn't he have tried to give them a good heart and allowed these infants to be born sin-free?

Umm, I don't know.

Could He have? Surely. Would He have? I only got what Scripture says and it doesn't say that.

Again, they naturally have an evil heart. Who God gives a good heart to is not my concern. Well, I should be concerned. I only mean I have no part in it and am to do the same thing no matter what until Jesus returns.

Mark 3:29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.

There are numerous passages that say that if you repent that you will be forgiven all your sins, so I would think that the only sin that you could commit and not be forgiven was to not repent in the first place..

however, there are other (http://www.gotquestions.org/unpardonable-sin.html) views.

Ack! Beat me too it!

(I went for the Matthew version, but it's about the same thing...) :)

In Catholicism, repenting is done through confession and the serving of a penace. How do the Protestant ones allow for repentence and the absolving of sin?

So - you can say what you like about Jesus, it appears... but don't diss the dude in the sheet.

That made me think of the movie "It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown!"

Ack! Beat me too it!

(I went for the Matthew version, but it's about the same thing...) :)

yeah, same thing happened the other day in church someone asked for a scripture reference and I came up with the story in 2 Kings, and someone else came up with the same one in 2 Chronicles.

;)

Umm, I don't know.

Could He have? Surely. Would He have? I only got what Scripture says and it doesn't say that.

Again, they naturally have an evil heart. Who God gives a good heart to is not my concern. Well, I should be concerned. I only mean I have no part in it and am to do the same thing no matter what until Jesus returns.
Wouldn't you be concerned if it was your child? Wouldn't you want your child to be in God's good graces? to be considered sin-free and in possession of a good heart that embraces God?

Whatever works. Truth... even inspired truth... doesn't always have to come from the pages of the same book.

Oh, I agree. We'll have to talk about myth some time.

I think I'll argue with you on the metaphorical genesis thing:
20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

Pretty clear that Eve is Eve from that.
Adam might just mean "the man" wherever it is, but that doesn't change the meaning much, it just means we don't know the guy's name.

In Catholicism, repenting is done through confession and the serving of a penace. How do the Protestant ones allow for repentence and the absolving of sin?

You are justified by faith, not the work of confession. Your sins are absolved by Christ's sacrifice, not a priest's words. Repentence is the commitment to make Jesus Christ your personal Lord and Savior. Then there is particular repentence when you hit your little brother and pray for forgiveness and try not to do it again.

Love you too. :fluffle:

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the refusal to repent. God will only forgive you if you repent. And you can't repent if you refuse to repent.

Rubish.

Repenting is simply coming clean with yourself.

God forgives everthing, but we forgive ourselves nothing, until we "repent" to ourselves.

If you refuse to repent (to yourself) you simple waste your time in the world being afraid of the consequences of your "evils", waiting anxiously for them to leap out at you to do you harm when you least expect it.

I believe:

Matthew 12:31-2 is the culprit: "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come."

So - you can say what you like about Jesus, it appears... but don't diss the dude in the sheet.

its just another in the long list of things in the new testament that i dont understand.

i can see why he was pissed but unforgivable forever seems a bit harsh.

You can't reject that which you can't separate from yourself ("salvation" aka "being forgiven by god").

That's why it's "unforgivable".

Since nothing is unforgivable by god (as god only forgives), the unforgivable is impossible, and for you to perform the impossible (reject that which you can't reject) is impossible,.. therefore you can WISH to do the impossible, but god simply smiles and shows you the impossibility of your attempt.

In the meantime, your forgiven your foolishness.
while I agree with you (from the once saved always saved camp myself) I meant the refusal of the free gift of salvation, not the refusal of it once you had already accepted.

In Catholicism, repenting is done through confession and the serving of a penace. How do the Protestant ones allow for repentence and the absolving of sin?

Christ died for our sins, when we make the original commitment we are forgiven for past, and future sins, there is no need to further absolve sins as far as a salvation perspective, but from a sanctification perspective we need to repent (turn away from) sin because it soils our walk otherwise. *

*again all from a once saved always saved perspective.

Wouldn't you be concerned if it was your child? Wouldn't you want your child to be in God's good graces? to be considered sin-free and in possession of a good heart that embraces God?

Oh, of course I'm concerned. That was bad diction on my part. I'm very concerned for everyone's soul. Not as much as I should be, but I doubt anyone is as concerned as they should be.

I merely meant that I have no say. And my concern, my desire to see the preson saved does not change that.

Rubish.

Repenting is simply coming clean with yourself.

God forgives everthing, but we forgive ourselves nothing, until we "repent" to ourselves.

If you refuse to repent (to yourself) you simple waste your time in the world being afraid of the consequences of your "evils", waiting anxiously for them to leap out at you to do you harm when you least expect it.

Where are you coming from? I mean, what's a summary of your belief system?

Because you're not talking about traditional Christianity.

I think I'll argue with you on the metaphorical genesis thing:


Pretty clear that Eve is Eve from that.
Adam might just mean "the man" wherever it is, but that doesn't change the meaning much, it just means we don't know the guy's name.

With whom?

In Catholicism, repenting is done through confession and the serving of a penace. How do the Protestant ones allow for repentence and the absolving of sin?

For me:

Repentence is stating the reality of what happened and admitting responsibility for actions I've taken to myself and those affected.

Absolution is gained when repentence is stated.

..and god smiles that warm wonderful smile again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
You can't reject that which you can't separate from yourself ("salvation" aka "being forgiven by god").

That's why it's "unforgivable".

Since nothing is unforgivable by god (as god only forgives), the unforgivable is impossible, and for you to perform the impossible (reject that which you can't reject) is impossible,.. therefore you can WISH to do the impossible, but god simply smiles and shows you the impossibility of your attempt.

In the meantime, your forgiven your foolishness.

while I agree with you (from the once saved always saved camp myself) I meant the refusal of the free gift of salvation, not the refusal of it once you had already accepted.

My point is that it's not your prerogative to refuse it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kryozerkia
In Catholicism, repenting is done through confession and the serving of a penace. How do the Protestant ones allow for repentence and the absolving of sin?


Christ died for our sins, when we make the original commitment we are forgiven for past, and future sins, there is no need to further absolve sins as far as a salvation perspective, but from a sanctification perspective we need to repent (turn away from) sin because it soils our walk otherwise. *

*again all from a once saved always saved perspective.

Exactly. To NOT repent (and in so doing receive absolution) we simply heap needless anxiety on ourselves, so it's better to "cleanse" ourselves as opposed to wandering the earth covered in filth.

It's just NOT hygenic..!! :)

My point is that it's not your prerogative to refuse it.
okay, I'll bite. What religion/denomination/current theological theory do you follow?

its just another in the long list of things in the new testament that i dont understand.

i can see why he was pissed but unforgivable forever seems a bit harsh.
Simpsons - Bible Stories episode
Homer (Adam): This sucks. Things were so much better back in the garden.
Marge (Eve) : I'm sure God will let us return soon. I mean, how long can he hold a grudge?

Lovejoy: Forever and ever ... [turns a page and continues reading] ... and ever and ...

With whom?

I agree... I'm not sure which point of view that one is supposed to be debating... ;)

Oh, I agree. We'll have to talk about myth some time.

We have to get Willamena involved too, if we do. That's like her 'special starter for ten' subject.

We have to get Willamena involved too, if we do. That's like her 'special starter for ten' subject.

I don't know her. Have to meet her.

I think I'll argue with you on the metaphorical genesis thing:

Pretty clear that Eve is Eve from that.
Adam might just mean "the man" wherever it is, but that doesn't change the meaning much, it just means we don't know the guy's name.

Actually, you might be missing something in the context.

Genesis 3:19-20 "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return. And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."

See what it says? It reaffirms that Adam is 'dust', and then it goes on to describe WHY Eve is called Eve. Is it her name... or is it what she does? WHY is she called Eve? "because she was the mother of all living".... the one thing common to all the flesh, the thing that separates the living from the dead is... what? The 'breath of life'... the 'spirit'.

(Also, if you look at it, Adam means men AND women, when it is used collectively).

I don't know her. Have to meet her.

Not as much of a fixture as she was. I hope she hasn't left. :(

I think it's disgusting that the priest had to "test" your faith. You should be able to believe in what you want to and how you want to, without someone making sure you feel "this" strongly about it. The priest shouldn't be paranoid that you all will convert to some other religion... this is a huge pet-peeve of mine:headbang:

...
Christ died for our sins, when we make the original commitment we are forgiven for past, and future sins, there is no need to further absolve sins as far as a salvation perspective, but from a sanctification perspective we need to repent (turn away from) sin because it soils our walk otherwise. *

*again all from a once saved always saved perspective.


Having a good background in both Baptist theology (as you are talking about) and some Pentecostal Assembly of God type of salvation theology (FYI they differ in that they do not believe in a once saved always saved institution so much as a once saved and if you choose to backslide now it's your own fault, not Gods. Thus, for your new sins, would you crucify Christ again for your new and intentional sins?). I tend to personally favor the once saved always saved logic/theology myself, but I also understand that once saved it not a license to sin all you want for the rest of your life either. Paul addressed that concept as well, that we are not to use our liberty, our freedom, to continue in sin and not even permission for any non-sins, if by that act we hinder others in their faith in finding Salvation in Christ, that our license is NOT a freedom to commit sins of the flesh until Christ returns.

I bring this up and post about it now because the topic discussed recently was the topic of what is the unforgivable sin, what is the blaspheme of the Holy Ghost. I will suggest that blaspheme of the Holy Ghost can only be done by a once Christian. A person who has felt the moving of the spirit, the act of being born again and was probably baptized themselves or might as well have been (I'm not making rules, I outlining an allegory) but have not only backslid into fleshly physical sins that they repent of regularly and are angry at themselves for (I do what I would not do but do not do what I would do), but instead, have NOW become traitorous and have denied the Holy Ghost, like divorcing a spouse that has done nothing wrong. They have have turned their back on the spirit they once felt and probably have denied to the public world that the Holy Ghost even exists, they likely petition others to NOT find the Holy Ghost, or tell others that the Holy Ghost does not exists, when they know that it does. I so doing they will share the fate of those that they lie to, or would if people were to listen to them. Such are the ones that Jesus said it would be better for them if a millstone was tied around their necks and they were thrown into the Sea than what will happen to them for making his children stumble…

I also wonder if some in this forum haven’t approached this level of denial of the Holy Ghost, especially if as they say, they once knew. I certainly hope not. But I have seen a few too many people post in this forum that say things like, “I was once a Christian” or “I once felt the spirit but now I think it was an endorphin in my metabolism,” etc., things like that which make me wonder about how far they are backsliding and denying to the world what the Holy Ghost is. I don’t think I want to “push” these people too hard when they say such things because they are likely getting too close to actually blaspheming the Holy Ghost (A thing I once thought was essentially impossible, to feel the Holy Ghost and the redemption of being born again, who after that could ever deny it and be unthankful for it afterwards? I couldn’t have imagined. Or so I used to think). But in this forum, denying ones personal past salvation in the blood of Christ and rejecting it now for the secular world and modern philosophies is almost a common thing, nearly a cliché, quite sad really. And potentially far more mortally dangerous in my mind, especially if my understanding of what Blaspheme of the Holy Ghost is anywhere near correct for what Jesus was describing.)

Having a good background in both Baptist theology (as you are talking about) and some Pentecostal Assembly of God type of salvation theology (FYI they differ in that they do not believe in a once saved always saved institution so much as a once saved and if you choose to backslide now it's your own fault, not Gods. Thus, for your new sins, would you crucify Christ again for your new and intentional sins?). I tend to personally favor the once saved always saved logic/theology myself, but I also understand that once saved it not a license to sin all you want for the rest of your life either. Paul addressed that concept as well, that we are not to use our liberty, our freedom, to continue in sin and not even for non sins if it hinders others in their faith, that our license is freedom to commit sins of the flesh until Christ returns.

I bring this up and post about it now because the topic discussed recently was the topic of what is the unforgivable sin, what is the blaspheme of the Holy Ghost. I will suggest that blaspheme of the Holy Ghost can only be done by a once Christian. A person who has felt the moving of the spirit, the act of being born again and was probably baptized themselves or might as well have been (I'm not making rules, I outlining an allegory) but have not only backslid into fleshly physical sins that they repent of regularly and are angry at themselves for (I do what I would not do but do not do what I would do), but instead, have NOW become traitorous and have denied the Holy Ghost, like divorcing a spouse that has done nothing wrong. They have have turned their back on the spirit they once felt and probably have denied to the public world that the Holy Ghost even exists, they likely petition others to NOT find the Holy Ghost, or tell others that the Holy Ghost does not exists, when they know that it does. I so doing they will share the fate of those that they lie to, or would if people were to listen to them. Such are the ones that Jesus said it would be better for them if a millstone was tied around their necks and they were thrown into the Sea than what will happen to them for making his children stumble…

I also wonder if some in this forum haven’t approached this level of denial of the Holy Ghost, especially if as they say, they once knew. I certainly hope not. But I have seen a few too many people post in this forum that say things like, “I was once a Christian” or “I once felt the spirit but now I think it was an endorphin in my metabolism,” etc., thinkgs like that which make me wonder about how far they are backsliding and denying to the world what the Holy Ghost is. I don’t think I want to “push” these people too hard when they say such things because they are likely getting too close to actually blaspheming the Holy Ghost (A thing I once thought was essentially impossible, to feel the Holy Ghost and the redemption of being born again, who after that could ever deny it and be unthankful for it afterwards? I couldn’t have imagined. Or so I used to think). But in this forum, denying ones personal past salvation in the blood of Christ and rejecting it now for the secular world and modern philosophies is almost a common thing, nearly a cliché, quite sad really. And potentially far more mortally dangerous in my mind, especially if my understanding of what Blaspheme of the Holy Ghost is anywhere near correct for what Jesus was describing.)

I believe that if someone leaves the visible Church, he'll be back, or it was all emotionalism and self-deceit.

I believe that if someone leaves the visible Church, he'll be back, or it was all emotionalism and self-deceit.

You realise, of course, that those who would be your opposite numbers there... would say the exact same thing about those who remained in/returned to 'the visible church'?

I believe that if someone leaves the visible Church, he'll be back, or it was all emotionalism and self-deceit.

I used to think that too. However, what I said above, is more accurate for describing Lucifer and his downfall as well as for what would be an unforgivable sin for us as as humans on earth.

For someone to know the kingdom of heaven and then to deny it and to entice other's not choosing it as well, it would then be an unforgivable sin. Like for us to know and then to deny and blaspheme the Holy Ghost, and how could anyone be guilty of that if they don't know what it is? They cannot, it takes someone that has felt the Holy Ghost and then turned on it, to become traitorous to it, to be able to blaspheme the Holy Ghost, anyone else would simply be a doubter, a non-believer.

I stand by my newer understanding until better theology is presented.

You realise, of course, that those who would be your opposite numbers there... would say the exact same thing about those who remained in/returned to 'the visible church'?

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

Are you taking a nonChristian's point of view? An atheist, for example? Or are you saying that they left a particular church to go to another? Presbyterian to Methodist, for example?

If it's the second, they are both included in the visible Church. Visible Church meaning the group of believers and nonbelievers who are part of the various organzied churches around the world.

do you know what would constitute blashpeming the holy spirit?

When you see God's influence and deny it. As the pharisees knew that Jesus had the spirit of God, his actions were of God, but they denied it in order to keep their power and influence.

You can't do it accidently. You must know in your heart that what you experience or see is of God.

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

Are you taking a nonChristian's point of view? An atheist, for example? Or are you saying that they left a particular church to go to another? Presbyterian to Methodist, for example?

If it's the second, they are both included in the visible Church. Visible Church meaning the group of believers and nonbelievers who are part of the various organzied churches around the world.

What he means is that if in an atheists family a member or friend becomes a Christian, they might say about that person, "It's just an emotional thing, they will come to their senses and come back to us and our understanding..." And thus denying the significance of that person’s conversion and new convictions.

When you see God's influence and deny it. As the pharisees knew that Jesus had the spirit of God, his actions were of God, but they denied it in order to keep their power and influence.

You can't do it accidently. You must know in your heart that what you experience or see is of God.

I agree with your point, but I'm not so sure the Pharisees really understood that Jesus was the Messiah and they denied him. I think they simply might have been doubters of the truth, and thus, no more than everyday sinners, like everyone else.

I used to think that too. However, what I said above, is more accurate for describing Lucifer and his downfall as well as for what would be an unforgivable sin for us as as humans on earth.

For someone to know the kingdom of heaven and then to deny it and to entice other's not choosing it as well, it would then be an unforgivable sin. Like for us to know and then to deny and blaspheme the Holy Ghost, and how could anyone be guilty of that if they don't know what it is? They cannot, it takes someone that has felt the Holy Ghost and then turned on it, to become traitorous to it, to be able to blaspheme the Holy Ghost, anyone else would simply be a doubter, a non-believer.

I stand by my newer understanding until better theology is presented.

Well, I understand what you're saying but I disagree. Someone can be so opposed to the Christian idea of God that they could blaspheme without fully understanding.

Also: Romans 8:29, 30 "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brother. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

There is no "some of those whom..." It's all of them going from one step to the next.

And elsewhere:Romans 8: 38,39 "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Not God's general love, but the love Christians have through Jesus. And we cannot be separated from it, not by powers (we are powers, though very feeble ones) nor anything in creation (which we most certainly are).

I used to think that too. However, what I said above, is more accurate for describing Lucifer and his downfall as well as for what would be an unforgivable sin for us as as humans on earth.

For someone to know the kingdom of heaven and then to deny it and to entice other's not choosing it as well, it would then be an unforgivable sin. Like for us to know and then to deny and blaspheme the Holy Ghost, and how could anyone be guilty of that if they don't know what it is? They cannot, it takes someone that has felt the Holy Ghost and then turned on it, to become traitorous to it, to be able to blaspheme the Holy Ghost, anyone else would simply be a doubter, a non-believer.

I stand by my newer understanding until better theology is presented.


wow i didnt really understand your last few posts but i could feel the sincerity of your emotion.

the thing is, in the original example of the bible that pissed off jesus so much, the pharisees suggested that his driving out a demon from some poor guy was the work of satan rather than the work of god. seems to me that the pharisees had never felt the power of the holy spirit and were trying to make sure that none of the onlookers were moved by it either.

so id say you are wrong in thinking that only a true believer can blaspheme the holy spirit if the first example of it doesnt involve a true believer.

What he means is that if in an atheists family a member or friend becomes a Christian, they might say about that person, "It's just an emotional thing, they will come to their senses and come back to us and our understanding..." And thus denying the significance of that person’s conversion and new convictions.

Well of course. I don't quite understand the relevence of that, though.

If someone leaves the visible Church, I say "They'll come to their senses or it's over." The atheists say the same thing. And the significance is ...what?

But then wouldn't that be making an effort to get salvation that is only granted on the good grace of God who decides who's worthy and who's not?

Question, how can one repent when one has no sins? How can an infant repent?

Well, he has yet to give me a satisfactory answer on how people who have not been informed about Christ can be expected to repent their sins to him, so good luck on getting one on the infants.

My guess. "An infant can't repent, but God has no obligation to save every infant, so if he lets them go to hell he's still merciful because you got to grow up and have the chance to repent your sins, even if only because you got the idea from participating in this thread."

Well, he has yet to give me a satisfactory answer on how people who have not been informed about Christ can be expected to repent their sins to him, so good luck on getting one on the infants.

My guess. "An infant can't repent, but God has no obligation to save every infant, so if he lets them go to hell he's still merciful because you got to grow up and have the chance to repent your sins, even if only because you got the idea from participating in this thread."

I'm sorry I missed your post. I didn't see it. They all run together after a while.

They can't repent. But as you so correctly pointed out He is not required to make the opportunity available. If He chooses to, He will provide a way: send a missionary (most common), send an angel (as He did to Mary), or appear Himself (as He did to Paul).

Well, I understand what you're saying but I disagree. Someone can be so opposed to the Christian idea of God that they could blaspheme without fully understanding.

I agree. But that's why I said I think only a Christian could be guilty of it...

Also: Romans 8:29, 30 "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brother. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

There is no "some of those whom..." It's all of them going from one step to the next.

And elsewhere:Romans 8: 38,39 "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Not God's general love, but the love Christians have through Jesus. And we cannot be separated from it, not by powers (we are powers, though very feeble ones) nor anything in creation (which we most certainly are).

And with this I also agree. That's why I said I used to think it was impossible for a person to be able to deny Christ and the Holy Ghost after having been born again. However, Lucifer did know and he turned. God did not loose his grip on salvation, Lucifer chose to forsake salvation, knowingly. And with this understanding, I think humans might be capable of it as well. Blaspheming the Holy Ghost cannot be a sin of people that have never felt the holy Ghost, it wouldn't make any sense that way. Why would it be warned about if it was impossible to do?

Can we cross out our own names? Erase them out of the book of life? I don't know, but I think that's what Jesus warned us about.

What he means is that if in an atheists family a member or friend becomes a Christian, they might say about that person, "It's just an emotional thing, they will come to their senses and come back to us and our understanding..." And thus denying the significance of that person’s conversion and new convictions.

No - that's not what I mean, although it is close.

For those within the religion, so to speak, those who become apostate must appear "all emotionalism and self-deceit". The believer who stays with the church obviously cannot comprehend how someone could apparently 'turn their back' on the church, so the apostate's whole church experience is 'written off' as "emotionalism and self-deceit".

All I'm saying is - to those who would leave the church, the 'faith' of those who remain might seem just as false, just as self deceiving, just as much emotionalism.

I wasn't really talking about Atheists 'losing people to the church' at all.

No - that's not what I mean, although it is close.

For those within the religion, so to speak, those who become apostate must appear "all emotionalism and self-deceit". The believer who stays with the church obviously cannot comprehend how someone could apparently 'turn their back' on the church, so the apostate's whole church experience is 'written off' as "emotionalism and self-deceit".

All I'm saying is - to those who would leave the church, the 'faith' of those who remain might seem just as false, just as self deceiving, just as much emotionalism.

I wasn't really talking about Atheists 'losing people to the church' at all.

Oh, okay. That make sense now.

Well, he has yet to give me a satisfactory answer on how people who have not been informed about Christ can be expected to repent their sins to him, so good luck on getting one on the infants.

My guess. "An infant can't repent, but God has no obligation to save every infant, so if he lets them go to hell he's still merciful because you got to grow up and have the chance to repent your sins, even if only because you got the idea from participating in this thread."

Mat 18:3 and several other places.

Children are without sin. They have not eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They are as Adam and Eve in the beginning. It is only when you reach that point in your life when you can say "I know this is wrong but I'm going to do it anyway" that you can sin. It is at that point when you have eaten from the tree. Sin is ALWAYS a choice. You cannot accidently sin.

wow i didnt really understand your last few posts but i could feel the sincerity of your emotion.

the thing is, in the original example of the bible that pissed off jesus so much, the pharisees suggested that his driving out a demon from some poor guy was the work of satan rather than the work of god. seems to me that the pharisees had never felt the power of the holy spirit and were trying to make sure that none of the onlookers were moved by it either.

so id say you are wrong in thinking that only a true believer can blaspheme the holy spirit if the first example of it doesnt involve a true believer.


I understand what you are saying, but I think the Pharisees were 'forgivable' I don't know if they were forgiven. Similar to how Saul was forgiven and able to become Paul... I think the Pharisees committed an unforgivable sin IF they understood that the power was indeed from God and they denied it. But I'm not sure how we can know if they simply denied it because they did not recognize it. Like a person might deny the testimony of Christians today, and telling others not to believe it either, it shouldn't be a mortal sin. IMO.

Mat 18:3 and several other places.

Children are without sin. They have not eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They are as Adam and Eve in the beginning. It is only when you reach that point in your life when you can say "I know this is wrong but I'm going to do it anyway" that you can sin. It is at that point when you have eaten from the tree. Sin is ALWAYS a choice. You cannot accidently sin.

Or instead of talking about innocence, it could be talking about the need to recognize and be fully dependent on another, specifically God.

Other places point to the sinful nature of the unborn:

Pslams 51:5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

.
I wasn't really talking about Atheists 'losing people to the church' at all.

My bad then. Sorry about that, no harm intended.

I understand what you are saying, but I think the Pharisees were 'forgivable' I don't know if they were forgiven. Similar to how Saul was forgiven and able to become Paul... I think the Pharisees committed an unforgivable sin IF they understood that the power was indeed from God and they denied it. But I'm not sure how we can know if they simply denied it because they did not recognize it. Like a person might deny the testimony of Christians today, and telling others not to believe it either, it shouldn't be a mortal sin. IMO.

maybe it doesnt matter since the pharisees werent going to become christians anyway. you can only be damned once.

not that i would presume to say who is damned and who isnt, it was just a thought.

Or instead of talking about innocence, it could be talking about the need to recognize and be fully dependent on another, specifically God.

Other places point to the sinful nature of the unborn:

Pslams 51:5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

But it also says that unless we have faith like little children we shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven.

I think infants are saved, but it is not because they are innocent, it is because of the blood of Christ, the same as everyone else’s salvation. Christ redeems them inasmuch as he can redeem anyone else that is capable of pure repentance and innocent continence. Christ can more easily wash the infant because unlike their older counterparts, they have not yet chosen to NOT accept salvation through Christ nor have they yet become lovers of physical sin found in love for the world... (I'm hypothesizing here, I can't back it all up scripturally, just saying is all).

maybe it doesnt matter since the pharisees werent going to become christians anyway. you can only be damned once.

not that i would presume to say who is damned and who isnt, it was just a thought.

Agreed, on all accounts.

Well, he has yet to give me a satisfactory answer on how people who have not been informed about Christ can be expected to repent their sins to him, so good luck on getting one on the infants.


Other places point to the sinful nature of the unborn:

Pslams 51:5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

First point: Paul says (sorry I don't have it looked up) that everyone can look at nature and see a creator. If they honor that creator they are honoring God. Remember that that part of God which became Jesus was the creator part of God. Therefore in honoring the creator they are honoring that part of God which became Jesus regardless of what name they give him.

Second part: Solomon was conceived in sin. David fathered him then killed his mother's husband to cover the sin.

But it also says that unless we have faith like little children we shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven.

I think infants are saved, but it is not because they are innocent, it is because of the blood of Christ, the same as everyone else’s salvation. Christ redeems them inasmuch as he can redeem anyone else that is capable of pure repentance and innocent continence. Christ can more easily wash the infant because unlike their older counterparts, they have not yet chosen to NOT accept salvation through Christ nor have they yet become lovers of physical sin found in love for the world... (I'm hypothesizing here, I can't back it all up scripturally, just saying is all).

thats a nice way of looking at it. christ saved us all and we lose salvation through our own actions.

ive always thought of the need to be like children is to not overthink things but take joy in faith and salvation.

But it also says that unless we have faith like little children we shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven.

I think infants are saved, but it is not because they are innocent, it is because of the blood of Christ, the same as everyone else’s salvation. Christ redeems them inasmuch as he can redeem anyone else that is capable of pure repentance and innocent continence. Christ can more easily wash the infant because unlike their older counterparts, they have not yet chosen to NOT accept salvation through Christ nor have they yet become lovers of physical sin found in love for the world... (I'm hypothesizing here, I can't back it all up scripturally, just saying is all).

Romans 3:10-18

"as it is written: 'None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.' 'Their throats is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.' 'The venom of asps is under their lips.' 'Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.' 'Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.' 'There is no fear of God before their eyes.' "

It's talking about Man's natural condition. And the unborn would share in it. Unless your unborn is a fish or some other thing worthy of the National Inquirer.

So they are lovers of the sin of the world.

The Westminster Confession says this:

Chapter X
3. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ throught the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word.

So, Scripture doesn't tell us how many of those unable to respond to the Word are saved. It could be none, it could be all. We don't know.

And as for the faith part, our faith is to be utterly and totally dependent on God, just as a child is utterly and totally dependent on its parents.

First point: Paul says (sorry I don't have it looked up) that everyone can look at nature and see a creator. If they honor that creator they are honoring God. Remember that that part of God which became Jesus was the creator part of God. Therefore in honoring the creator they are honoring that part of God which became Jesus regardless of what name they give him.

Second part: Solomon was conceived in sin. David fathered him then killed his mother's husband to cover the sin.

First, I think you are promoting modulism which is an incorrect explanation of the Trinity. I may be wrong, but that sounds to me like what you're saying.

And you have to be worshipping the God of Scripture, not just any rock.

Second, it was a Psalm of David.

...

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I agree that they are in sin, and they need salvation through Christ, not their own innocence. They need salvation through Christ alone, the same as everyone else.

My hypothesis was that in as much as Christ can save anyone who repents, the infant is automatically in a state of continual repentance and in Love with God, Jesus can more easily save them. And likewise, as Ashmoria said, infants should be capable of perfect "joy in faith and salvation."

I also agree that we simply don't know, but it is what I think.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I agree that they are in sin, and they need salvation through Christ, not their own innocence. They need salvation through Christ alone, the same as everyone else.

My hypothesis was that in as much as Christ can save anyone who repents, the infant is automatically in a state of continual repentance and in Love with God, Jesus can more easily save them. And likewise, as Ashmoria said, infants should be capable of perfect "joy in faith and salvation."

I also agree that we simply don't know, but it is what I think.

That's leaning very much toward innocence, so I am wary of it.

First, I think you are promoting modulism which is an incorrect explanation of the Trinity. I may be wrong, but that sounds to me like what you're saying.

And you have to be worshipping the God of Scripture, not just any rock.


God does and can reveal himself before scripture is given...

Romans 1
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For 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 men are without excuse.

And God will Judge those who do not know the Law by their own standards, which they will also fail unless they are under the blood of Christ...

Romans 2
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

That's leaning very much toward innocence, so I am wary of it.

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

God does and can reveal himself before scripture is given...

Romans 1
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For 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 men are without excuse.

And God will Judge those who do not know the Law by their own standards, which they will also fail unless they are under the blood of Christ...

Romans 2
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

But we now have the Law. My point was they cannot be worshipping Loki and say that they are correct because they are following the revelation of nature, which is inferior to the reveltation of Scripture.

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

Yes. Faith sees many things which wisdom and knowledge cannot.

But we now have the Law. My point was they cannot be worshipping Loki and say that they are correct because they are following the revelation of nature, which is inferior to the reveltation of Scripture.

Not everyone has the law, the Good News still has need of missionaries still. I agree with point that pagans are not automatically following God, not having heard the gospel yet is not an excuse of their behavior. I think Paul was saying the same thing. IF they are behaving as the Law requires by their own natural instinct, without having been exposed to the Law or the gospel, they have heard God in their own hearts, through creation. He is not saying that believing in and following Zeus (for example) is an acceptable alternative to following Christ...

Additionally, in regards to babies and infants...

Luke 18:
15People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

This too suggests that Jesus is completely capable of communing and redeeming children before they are capable of making the conscious decision for themselves. With this in mind, I still think Jesus saves infants, through the cross, not their own innocence.

But we now have the Law. My point was they cannot be worshipping Loki and say that they are correct because they are following the revelation of nature, which is inferior to the reveltation of Scripture.

A person is only responsible for what they know. If all they know is the observation that there is a creator and they honor that creator they have done all necessary. How loving would God be if this were not so? Jesus said the two great are Love God and Love everyone. And John, God is Love. If a person lives in the jungle or desert island they can do these two and that is all that is necessary.

But at the same time a person is responsible for gaining as much knowledge of God as possible. Once their knowledge is expanded so is their responsibility. You can't plead ignorance if you had the chance to learn the law.

Elijah went to heaven without knowing the messiah. But he did honor God to the best of his knowledge.

the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.[/indent]



I really don't understand why people try to make this complicated. The words seem to be very plain. Everywhere Jesus talked of children they were of heaven. Not once did he indicate that a child was responsible for anything. Especially in light of Genesis where God said people are innocent until they eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Show me a baby that has eaten of the tree of good and evil. When Jesus talked of repentance, it was always to adults. You expect him to say every time , "now this only applies to adults not children"? That would sound really stupid, especially in a culture where women had little choice and children none. Just show me once where Jesus or God said anything but that children had a get out of hell free card.

Not everyone has the law, the Good News still has need of missionaries still. I agree with point that pagans are not automatically following God, not having heard the gospel yet is not an excuse of their behavior. I think Paul was saying the same thing. IF they are behaving as the Law requires by their own natural instinct, without having been exposed to the Law or the gospel, they have heard God in their own hearts, through creation. He is not saying that believing in and following Zeus (for example) is an acceptable alternative to following Christ...

Additionally, in regards to babies and infants...

Luke 18:
15People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

This too suggests that Jesus is completely capable of communing and redeeming children before they are capable of making the conscious decision for themselves. With this in mind, I still think Jesus saves infants, through the cross, not their own innocence.

I understand, but it is by His grace that they are saved (providing they are saved) not anything of their own, like this half-repentence idea you mentioned earlier.

Well, this thread turned into quite the little soap opera was I was away, didn't it? I read through all the pages since I last posted, and there were, like, 25 posts of Edwardis's that I was all fired up to respond to, but I've decided not to, but to pick it up at the present point instead.

EXCEPT for this one post from Insignificantia, which I really must answer:

<snip?
If "your" god is not "omnipotent", then it is not god. And as such you are a fool and follower of silly goofy thoughts.

As a follower of silly goofy thoughts, your indignation at the opinions of others is amusing at best.
This insult is completely uncalled for. I guess Edwardis is not the only arrogant ass in this thread. Without knowing my beliefs at all, you presume to talk to me this way?

I'm a "fool" and a follower of "silly goofy" thoughts? First of all, there should have been a comma between "silly" and "goofy" since they are both adjectives. If you are going to talk down to people, you should at least try to seem smart. Second of all, at least I don't follow a god who accepts service from the likes of Hitler, nor one who likes to torture his creations by damning them before they are born and then kidding them that they can save themselves somehow.

I also don't follow a belief system that makes me so sure of my own rightness and superiority that I would talk to someone the way you just talked to me. The hell with your rudeness.

For the record: I am an animist -- that's a kind of polytheist, for those who don't know. The gods (lower case for a reason) of polytheism are not all-powerful. They are personifications/manifestations of the spiritual essence of specific bits of the universe -- weather, time, birth and death, war, love, food, etc. Some polytheist religions also believe in an all-powerful supreme deity. Some don't. I personally, do not care about it. If you like, I will stipulate to the existence of such a being. I do not worship it. In fact, I do not worship the more specific gods either. I venerate divine spirit in all beings, and I maintain relationships with the spirits and gods who I deal with in my life -- my ancestors, the spirits in the world around me, and the deities who guide me, my "tutelary gods." I have no need for an omnipotent god. I don't need to have everything done for me or explained to me. I don't need to be constantly checking with the boss of all creation to make sure I'm doing it right. If I'm not right, that fact will become evident soon enough.

And if you decide that the mere fact that I am a polytheist allows you to call me "fool" and "silly" and "goofy," then you, sir, are a bigot.

A person is only responsible for what they know. If all they know is the observation that there is a creator and they honor that creator they have done all necessary. How loving would God be if this were not so? Jesus said the two great are Love God and Love everyone. And John, God is Love. If a person lives in the jungle or desert island they can do these two and that is all that is necessary.

But at the same time a person is responsible for gaining as much knowledge of God as possible. Once their knowledge is expanded so is their responsibility. You can't plead ignorance if you had the chance to learn the law.

Elijah went to heaven without knowing the messiah. But he did honor God to the best of his knowledge.

Ooooo. I didn't expect that bit about Elijah. However, Elijah had faith in God and that is what saved him. Or rather God's grace saved him through his faith.

...and that is precisely why I can't stand religion; it "tests" your faith.
We all need tests now and then, and sometimes the rewards are just fantastic. ;)

Ooooo. I didn't expect that bit about Elijah. However, Elijah had faith in God and that is what saved him. Or rather God's grace saved him through his faith.

Agreed.

And so it is true of all. Those who lived before the messiah, those who were never told of the messiah, those who only know the messiah through creation. If anything God is just. And it would be injust to do anything else.

Agreed.

And so it is true of all. Those who lived before the messiah, those who were never told of the messiah, those who only know the messiah through creation. If anything God is just. And it would be injust to do anything else.

Or more than likely the Christian God does not exist and you live in a fantasy world of your own creation.

The only justice that exists is what humanity creates for itself.

Or more than likely the Christian God does not exist and you live in a fantasy world of your own creation.

The only justice that exists is what humanity creates for itself.

And we see how that works: it's very inconsistent. Hitler, Milosevic, Sadaam, Mao, Stalin...

And we see how that works: it's very inconsistent. Hitler, Milosevic, Sadaam, Mao, Stalin...

In comparision to the Spanish Inquisition, or the Witch Hunts of Europe (which the Protestants also engaged in), or the Crusades, or the Anti-Semitism that lead to the Holocaust.

Site a secular instant of violence and I can site three instances of religious violence.

More people have died for your imaginary friend (God) in the history of the world than for any other reason combined.

And we see how that works: it's very inconsistent. Hitler, Milosevic, Sadaam, Mao, Stalin...

Indeed, transcendant morals are important.



I haven't had time to read everything Edwardis. What did you think of what the original posters pastor said/did?

In comparision to the Spanish Inquisition, or the Witch Hunts of Europe (which the Protestants also engaged in), or the Crusades, or the Anti-Semitism that lead to the Holocaust.

Site a secular instant of violence and I can site three instances of religious violence.

More people have died for your imaginary friend (God) in the history of the world than for any other reason combined.

Those people were not following their religion, they were perverting it.

Indeed, transcendant morals are important.



I haven't had time to read everything Edwardis. What did you think of what the original posters pastor said/did?

I am glad that the group responded the way they did, as a whole.

But, I think it was sinful of the pastor to lie to them like that. The only time it is permissible to lie is if the Nazis are at your door asking where the Jews are. Also, and I don't know anyone in this group, but my own experiences tell me that very few of those people were actually moved. A lot were caught up in some emotional fit of "The government can't squash my rights!" Rather than, "I'm going to glorify God and praise Him no matter what Man says."

In comparision to the Spanish Inquisition, or the Witch Hunts of Europe (which the Protestants also engaged in), or the Crusades, or the Anti-Semitism that lead to the Holocaust.

Site a secular instant of violence and I can site three instances of religious violence.

More people have died for your imaginary friend (God) in the history of the world than for any other reason combined.

Well, I sited 5 and you only sited 4.

Second, the system may not be sinful, while those in the system are. And all of those that you mentioned above were part of that reality.

Well, I sited 5 and you only sited 4.

Second, the system may not be sinful, while those in the system are. And all of those that you mentioned above were part of that reality.
Well, the thing is, whilst those were committed by secular leaders, the major motive or justification for their crimes wasn't a hatred of religious people.

I am glad that the group responded the way they did, as a whole.

But, I think it was sinful of the pastor to lie to them like that. The only time it is permissible to lie is if the Nazis are at your door asking where the Jews are. Also, and I don't know anyone in this group, but my own experiences tell me that very few of those people were actually moved. A lot were caught up in some emotional fit of "The government can't squash my rights!" Rather than, "I'm going to glorify God and praise Him no matter what Man says."

I would agree, I asked Zilam if he thought that we could ever do good by doing evil and he didn't respond, nor did anyone to that post. I really don't think it's a difficult moral topic, but some people get confused with it or think it is ok to do whatever as long as it's for some greater good.

Well, the thing is, whilst those were committed by secular leaders, the major motive or justification for their crimes wasn't a hatred of religious people.

No? The Nazis had plans to destroy the Church after they finished with the Jews. They arrested several hundred ministers and elders and sent them to concentration camps because they refused to support the Nazis from the pulpit.

The Communists hate religion and have always persecuted the religious.

I would agree, I asked Zilam if he thought that we could ever do good by doing evil and he didn't respond, nor did anyone to that post. I really don't think it's a difficult moral topic, but some people get confused with it or think it is ok to do whatever as long as it's for some greater good.

Our evil can be used for good, and always is: God works all things for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose.

But that doesn't change the fact that it is still evil and we will be judgec for it.

No? The Nazis had plans to destroy the Church after they finished with the Jews. They arrested several hundred ministers and elders and sent them to concentration camps because they refused to support the Nazis from the pulpit.

The Communists hate religion and have always persecuted the religious.
The Nazis were happy to let the ministers who supported them continue along though. A lot of their propaganda appealed to religion, like "Children, Kitchen, Church" etc. They established their own Nazi church after all.

I'd personally say although the Communists hated religion, it was secondary to persecuting the wealthy or simply people disagreeing with them.

The Nazis were happy to let the ministers who supported them continue along though. A lot of their propaganda appealed to religion, like "Children, Kitchen, Church" etc. They established their own Nazi church after all.

I'd personally say although the Communists hated religion, it was secondary to persecuting the wealthy or simply people disagreeing with them.

You said that there was no hatred for religious groups, though. I agree that they hated religion because it was in their way, but that doesn't eliminate the hate.

You said that there was no hatred for religious groups, though. I agree that they hated religion because it was in their way, but that doesn't eliminate the hate.
Oops. I said "religious people" and implied religious people as a whole.

Our evil can be used for good, and always is: God works all things for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose.

But that doesn't change the fact that it is still evil and we will be judgec for it.

I'm just speaking of human evil on earth. I believe it is wrong to do something for a good cause. Like kill an old man to save 2 children. A lot of people would be for it but I think it is wrong and that you can't justify evil by a supposed good result.

Oops. I said "religious people" and implied religious people as a whole.

Umm, well I still disagree, but I agree. Yeah, that's it, John Kerry approach.

I think they were hostile to religion on the whole, but of they were able to twist religion to meet their needs, they would happily do it to manipulate people.

Ooooo. I didn't expect that bit about Elijah. However, Elijah had faith in God and that is what saved him. Or rather God's grace saved him through his faith.

Sure, I'll buy that. But that would mean that Messiah is not an absolute requirement for salvation. It would mean we can be saved by grace, without ever knowning the name of Jesus.

(Actually - that's one that always bothers me... this idea that 'in no other name can we be saved'... and yet, I've never even been to a Church that uses His real name.)

Sure, I'll buy that. But that would mean that Messiah is not an absolute requirement for salvation. It would mean we can be saved by grace, without ever knowning the name of Jesus.

(Actually - that's one that always bothers me... this idea that 'in no other name can we be saved'... and yet, I've never even been to a Church that uses His real name.)

Hear's the catch. He was saved by grace through faith in God as He had been revealved up to that time. So because we now know of the Messiah, He is required. Back with Abraham, he didn't even have the Law.

And "one name whereby we must be saved" is talking about Jesus sacrifice; there is no other person who could have saved us, though many have claimed to.

Here's the catch. He was saved by grace through faith in God as He had been revealved up to that time. So because we now know of the Messiah, He is required. Back with Abraham, he didn't even have the Law.So basicly, we'd have been much better off if he'd never come to earth..
Hail our saviour, he has doomed us all..

Well, I sited 5 and you only sited 4.

Second, the system may not be sinful, while those in the system are. And all of those that you mentioned above were part of that reality.

Yes - but of your five, one was raised by Georgian Jews, and one has long been suspected of being a Jew (his family name was Shicklgruber, until they changed it) and who was reported a number of times as being Catholic.

So basicly, we'd have been much better off if he'd never come to earth..
Hail our saviour, he has doomed us all..

If He had never come, no one would be saved from any time. It's just that now, since more has happened, we are accountable for more.

Yes - but of your five, one was raised by Georgian Jews, and one has long been suspected of being a Jew (his family name was Shicklgruber, until they changed it) and who was reported a number of times as being Catholic.

That doesn't change the fact that they rejected all that and persecuted those they came from.

No? The Nazis had plans to destroy the Church after they finished with the Jews. They arrested several hundred ministers and elders and sent them to concentration camps because they refused to support the Nazis from the pulpit.

The Communists hate religion and have always persecuted the religious.

Jesus was a communist.

Jesus was a communist.

:rolleyes: please don't start that again....I won't even be here to defend Him.

I have to go teach.

Jesus was a communist.

Show me where.

Hear's the catch. He was saved by grace through faith in God as He had been revealved up to that time. So because we now know of the Messiah, He is required. Back with Abraham, he didn't even have the Law.

And "one name whereby we must be saved" is talking about Jesus sacrifice; there is no other person who could have saved us, though many have claimed to.

Actually, according to Hebrew scripture, 'messiah' has nothing to do with any spiritual affairs, and is a title of earthly power.

But, aside from that - do you not believe that, with God, ALL things are possible? Why should salvation be a 'catch', if God can do anything? It seems COUNTER to 'grace' to introduce an EXTRA handicap to salvation, doesn't it?

As for "one name whereby we must be saved"... the text says 'name'. I don't understand how you justify editorialising the parts of scripture you don't like. If it says 'name', I'd say 'name' must be important, no?

:rolleyes: please don't start that again....I won't even be here to defend Him.

I have to go teach.

He preached community, communal living, sharing of resources. He made those of his men that were fit to certain tasks perform them, and took from each as they were able to give... rewarding according to need.

Textbook communist.

If He had never come, no one would be saved from any time. It's just that now, since more has happened, we are accountable for more.

Enoch was translated directly, before there was even Mosaic Law. Elijah was translated directly, before the New Covenant. Thus - it was possible to be 'saved' through grace with OR without this 'Jesus' fellow.

That would mean that the need for belief in Jesus, is actually an EXTRA handicap towards the possibility of salvation.

Actually, according to Hebrew scripture, 'messiah' has nothing to do with any spiritual affairs, and is a title of earthly power.

But, aside from that - do you not believe that, with God, ALL things are possible? Why should salvation be a 'catch', if God can do anything? It seems COUNTER to 'grace' to introduce an EXTRA handicap to salvation, doesn't it?

As for "one name whereby we must be saved"... the text says 'name'. I don't understand how you justify editorialising the parts of scripture you don't like. If it says 'name', I'd say 'name' must be important, no?

It doesn't mean one name, as in "If you use another name, you are damned." It's just talking about one person. I've never heard it explained the way you are explaining it.

I never said there was a catch to salvation. I meant only there was a catch in my explanation. There had to be a sacrifice and for whatever reason God made that sacrifice known to us, so we need to know it.

God cannot do anything. He can't do things outside His nature, which means He just can't let sin go.

He preached community, communal living, sharing of resources. He made those of his men that were fit to certain tasks perform them, and took from each as they were able to give... rewarding according to need.

Textbook communist.

Hahhah! I guess so, but definitly not communist in practice. Maybe more of a communal living idea. Communism is much too atheist.

Enoch was translated directly, before there was even Mosaic Law. Elijah was translated directly, before the New Covenant. Thus - it was possible to be 'saved' through grace with OR without this 'Jesus' fellow.

That would mean that the need for belief in Jesus, is actually an EXTRA handicap towards the possibility of salvation.

No. We are saved by grace through faith. But that grace was made possible through Jesus' sacrifice. But God can give that grace to whomever He wishes.

He preached community, communal living, sharing of resources. He made those of his men that were fit to certain tasks perform them, and took from each as they were able to give... rewarding according to need.

Textbook communist.

voluntary giving.....

really I am leaving to teach, can we do this later?

That doesn't change the fact that they rejected all that and persecuted those they came from.

No - they really didn't. Genocide is actually pretty biblical.

thats a cool story.

It doesn't mean one name, as in "If you use another name, you are damned." It's just talking about one person. I've never heard it explained the way you are explaining it.


It's right there in teh scripture. Pay more attention to what the book SAYS, and less to what people TELL you it says.

Seriously - go read the verse. Look ONLY at what is in scripture, and ignore the teachings of other men as to what they BELIEV it means. Focus only on the words, and tell me what it means.

If one allows that the name is unimportant, then one can be saved by Vishnu... since you could argue that you believe Vishnu and Jesus are the same entity.


I never said there was a catch to salvation. I meant only there was a catch in my explanation. There had to be a sacrifice and for whatever reason God made that sacrifice known to us, so we need to know it.


Why did there have to be a sacrifice? God had been managing perfectly well without, beforehand. Whether you call it a catch or no, the addition of an EXTRA detail that is 'required' for salvation IS a catch.


God cannot do anything. He can't do things outside His nature, which means He just can't let sin go.

Yes he can. He does it all the time, throughout the scripture. He even changes his 'nature', at the petition of man. I'm not sure why you think God would be constrained by restrictions YOU can understand... it doesn't sound very 'godlike' to me.

At that point they locked the doors, turned off the lights, and had one band member stay up on stage with his acoustic guitar, and he was going to play a few songs. We were furious. Several members began to cry. But the funniest thing happened, instead of being quiet with our worship, we sang loud and with such great passion. It was the first service I have been to where I have felt the Spirit just flood down and fill everyone. Everyone was just crying out to God and we had Him there with us, and our hands were raised, and we sang sang so loudly, and just praised Him. It was the greatest feeling ever, as if we were all raised to a new level, perhaps right in front of God Himself at that point. After about 2 or 3 songs, the service pastor come back up and told us we had been "Punk'd", and that this was a test of our faith, to see if we would be quiet in the midst of a particular danger, IE losing our place of worship, or if we would be like Peter and John in the early part of Acts, where they say "We can't help but to speak what we have seen and heard". This is definitely something that will stay with me forever. I mean, that initial felling of just anger, and being upset about having to be silent, but then it was washed away by our praises to God. I feel so...free inside now. I think this was a very needed step in my walk. So does anyone else have a similar experience?

first of......punk'd????
Who the hell using that word in the real world???? leave that religious/church group now! Run for the hills...

Except for that, why the whole religious fervour?
Because you sung a few hymns and were being defiant?

I don't get the religious thing, but hey if you feel good about yourself, i'm happy for you.

voluntary giving.....

really I am leaving to teach, can we do this later?

Voluntary or not, it is still communism. The perfect communist community WOULD be voluntary - one of the flaws in many of the models that have been tried. The one thing that really hurts communism as a model, is selfishness - the idea of "why SHOULD I give some of this to you?"

Th ministry of Jesus was all about, why you should.

Also, and I don't know anyone in this group, but my own experiences tell me that very few of those people were actually moved. A lot were caught up in some emotional fit of "The government can't squash my rights!" Rather than, "I'm going to glorify God and praise Him no matter what Man says."
I agree with you on that. It does seem like they are using it to make a political statement rather than to reaffirm their faith to God through a regular ceremony. After all, they seemed to need a political motive to loudly proclaim their love and loyalty to God through chrous.

Voluntary or not, it is still communism. The perfect communist community WOULD be voluntary - one of the flaws in many of the models that have been tried. The one thing that really hurts communism as a model, is selfishness - the idea of "why SHOULD I give some of this to you?"

Th ministry of Jesus was all about, why you should.

yes, but......I don't really think that Jesus was trying to bring about a new economic system, or a new government system....or anything else worldly.

Hahhah! I guess so, but definitly not communist in practice. Maybe more of a communal living idea. Communism is much too atheist.

Communism is an economic system and does not preclude religion. Several South American communist groups remained devoutly Catholic. In practice.

Besides. Jesus had no Earthly political power. All his political beliefs were in theory only. He had no government with which to practice.

Our evil can be used for good, and always is: God works all things for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose.

But that doesn't change the fact that it is still evil and we will be judgec for it.
How can evil be used for good when people use evil to begat evil? You know, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth as stated in The Code of Hammurabi? Or they get thoughts of revenge after they see someone inflicting harm unto them?

yes, but......I don't really think that Jesus was trying to bring about a new economic system, or a new government system....or anything else worldly.

No? "Render unto Caesar" he says. And "Render unto God". He makes a clear distinction between the worldly and the spiritual... but he does preach to both spheres.

The beatitudes, especially, read like an idealised chapter from a communist manifesto.

No - they really didn't. Genocide is actually pretty biblical.

Only at God's express command to a prophet. And I haven't heard any Bible-based prophets calling for genocide.