Admiral Thrawn Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 If a person is saved, then it follows, they will also have compassion. Clearly, and unfortunately, it does not follow. Prove it. A rejection of Jesus Christ is a rejection of God. You reject the Son, you also reject the Father. I'll pray, for your sake, that you are wrong. Blue's right. You can take solace in the fact that you believe you are right. My only solace is the fact that your understanding of Christianity is not universal. Well, you can believe a lie or you can believe the truth. One thing is sure. You are not 100% sure about anything (except being 100% sure about that). you yourself claim to be a Christian, why do you do so if you really believe that those who rejected Gandhi were in fact true and genuine christians? Because I have devoted my entire life to understanding my faith, and living it. I have also spent a good deal of my time working and living and interacting with other humans, so I tend to think I understand them as well. My faith is a hybrid of my devotion and my humanity, and I wouldn't want it any other way. So, why haven't you received Jesus as your Savior then? Ask Him into your heart and be born-again? You seem to know 'about' Jesus, but it does not sound to me like you have a personal relationship with Him, just some head knowledge. If your God leaves anyone but the most Evangelical hypocrites behind, that's fine. I'm happier with things my way; God, real or imaginary, works through me, and I'm happy with what he's done. If that means that, in your eyes, my Christianity is not 'genuine', then I'd be happy to spend eternity in Hell with Ghandi. Again, you do not have an experience with God, you do not even have the confidence that God is real? Your time is better spent seeking God then speculating on whether He is real or not. You need to have faith. you seem to come across as believing that deeds, behavior,and motives, are what makes a person a christtian No, they're a reflection of what makes person a Christian--much moreso than professed reverence to Christ. What do you mean no, you have just reaffirmed that statement but are just defining it a different way. You have to know what you are doing, not be groping about in darkness. That is why the Bible explains things clearly in matters of salvation. So, no one has to grope in the darkness or be unsure about where they * really * stand with God. It appears thus far, and I do not mean to knock you, but you do not have a personal relationship with Jesus, and your mind-set seems to be precluding that possibility, that it is not about deeds, but a relationship with God first. Unfortunately you have to realise something is wrong in order to do something about it. That is why Jesus said, its easier for whores, drunkards, and sinners to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, then it is for Pharisees. One group at least acknowledges they are in the wrong (if they really want to change), but the other is to blind to see it, and just think they are good in their own eyes. The "exclusiveness" and "Exclusion", that you and others reguard as evil, is in fact the very definition of Christian, being in fact a follower of Jesus, rather than Mohammed, or buddah, or the dali llama, or yes in fact Gandhi. That's certainly not my definition of Christian. Did Jesus define Christian? Did he even use the word? Mohammad recognized the importance of Jesus. As does the Dalai Lama and Ghandi. You should learn something from any of them. Jesus said, that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father but by Him. There is more verses and analogies in scripture that will support that truth. Why would Jesus have to suffer so brutally and spend His time here on earth, after being God Himself before He was born of the virgin Mary, if there were plenty of ways to reach God? It is always 'narrow' is the way that leadeth to life, and 'few there be that find it', while 'broad' is the way that leadeth to destruction. The 'broad' way is the highway, virtually, everyone is on. God does not package Himself as one of many gods. Jesus does not package Himself as a way, with many other ways.
Nicholas Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 One thing is sure. You are not 100% sure about anything (except being 100% sure about that). You consistently hold me to a standard to which you do not hold yourself. Unless, of course, you are not 100% sure of your own religious beliefs. I don't doubt your certainty, by the way; I doubt your qualifications for being so certain. So, why haven't you received Jesus as your Savior then? I believe I have, just probably not in the way you're used to. You seem to know 'about' Jesus, but it does not sound to me like you have a personal relationship with Him, just some head knowledge. I have not shared accounts of my personal relationship with Christ--if you can't understand what I'm saying on this forum about the general principles of modern Christianity, I doubt you can understand something that is, by its very nature, deeply personal. I also am not prepared to be that emotionally invested in this thread. I don't think that's a good idea. For your curiosity though, I do have a personal relationship with Christ--but I have it in addition to "some head knowledge" as opposed to having it instead of it. I don't think sacrificing academic rigor is neccessary in giving your heart to God; instead, I feel that's counterproductive. It's akin to pretending mathematics doesn't exist because you aren't good at calculus. Your time is better spent seeking God then speculating on whether He is real or not. You need to have faith. I'll be the arbiter of how my time is spent. I don't speculate on whether or not God is real--I just don't care one way or another. That's what faith is for, and I have plenty of it. I won't pass my faith off as certainty though, that's not faith at all, that's misleading. What do you mean no, you have just reaffirmed that statement but are just defining it a different way. If you redefine a statement, you're not affirming it. I meant what I said, and I can't make it any clearer: Deeds, behavior, and motives do not make someone a Christian--they're a reflection of the Christ within them, much moreso than outspoken membership of Christianity. That is why Jesus said, its easier for whores, drunkards, and sinners to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, then it is for Pharisees. One group at least acknowledges they are in the wrong (if they really want to change), but the other is to blind to see it, and just think they are good in their own eyes. How is your blindness different than the blindness of Pharisees? Replace adherence to the law with this born-again event you keep speaking of, and that story is about you to the letter. Jesus said, that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father but by Him. (This is the most important part of my post:) When Jesus said that, he was talking about Himself, not about Christianity. We are called to take the principles that Christ lived and died by and make a good life out of them. If you boil all of the history and politics out of most religion, the universal truth is that we are called to love to a degree that inspires others to love. I firmly believe that, and it defines me as a person. If you think that mainstream Christianity does a good job of encompassing the "way, truth, and life" that Jesus lived, then that's great for you. I think it's doing a terrible job, which is why I oppose it. Jesus did not endorse Christianity, ever. Therefore, your assertion that no man comes to the father but through Christianity--though it can be supported with (human) scripture--is not some universal divine truth, even though you hope it will be, because you're a supremacist. Jesus does not package Himself as a way, with many other ways. Jesus does not package himself at all. We packaged him, with varying degrees of success. It is always 'narrow' is the way that leadeth to life, and 'few there be that find it', while 'broad' is the way that leadeth to destruction. The 'broad' way is the highway, virtually, everyone is on. Christianity is not a narrow way, in terms of how many people are on it. It's the largest religion in America, and the largest religion in the world. It has influenced centuries of global economics, politics, memetics, and occaisionally, religious affairs. I think it needs to take several steps towards Christ, but I can already tell you like things the way they are. So I'm not trying to convert you to my understanding of God. I don't think you're at a point where you'd be able to understand it. All I'm doing is writing what I feel is a defense of Christ as I know Him, and I hope that some day someone will read it and agree.
Admiral Thrawn Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 So, why haven't you received Jesus as your Savior then? I believe I have, just probably not in the way you're used to. You dont believe you have, you either in fact have, or have not. Again, it doesn't sound like you are 100% sure. You seem to know 'about' Jesus, but it does not sound to me like you have a personal relationship with Him, just some head knowledge. I have not shared accounts of my personal relationship with Christ--if you can't understand what I'm saying on this forum about the general principles of modern Christianity, I doubt you can understand something that is, by its very nature, deeply personal. I also am not prepared to be that emotionally invested in this thread. I don't think that's a good idea. It's just a simple question, not an interrogation:) . It is funny that you would say that. Most born-again Christians I know cant wait to share their experiences about seeing Jesus Christ, or knowing Him, and are excited to share their relationship with God to other people. They even share their testimonies in public if they have a chance to explain what God has done for them, or how they have experienced God in their life. For your curiosity though, I do have a personal relationship with Christ--but I have it in addition to "some head knowledge" as opposed to having it instead of it. I don't think sacrificing academic rigor is neccessary in giving your heart to God; instead, I feel that's counterproductive. It's akin to pretending mathematics doesn't exist because you aren't good at calculus. What does a personal relationship with Christ mean to you? Your time is better spent seeking God then speculating on whether He is real or not. You need to have faith. I'll be the arbiter of how my time is spent. I don't speculate on whether or not God is real--I just don't care one way or another. That's what faith is for, and I have plenty of it. I won't pass my faith off as certainty though, that's not faith at all, that's misleading. Then that wouldn't be faith if you are not certain about the object of what you are believing in, other than an educated guess. Wouldn't you say? You cant believe something, and then entertain the possibility that what you are believing in may be false - I see that as paradoxical - doubt and faith can not peacefully co-exist. Jesus said, that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father but by Him. (This is the most important part of my post:) When Jesus said that, he was talking about Himself, not about Christianity. That is what I have always maintained. You kept referring to institutionalised Christianity, not me. We are called to take the principles that Christ lived and died by and make a good life out of them. If you boil all of the history and politics out of most religion, the universal truth is that we are called to love to a degree that inspires others to love. I firmly believe that, and it defines me as a person. Right - but self-effort, and self-righteousness by trying to follow a law, whether it is the Law of Moses, or some other law is not part of that mandate. Christ did not come to create another religion, or impose a legal yoke on people to follow. The law is the knowledge of sin, not the solution of sin. Everything has to flow naturally, in the Spirit. Love has to be natural too, or it is not love. If you think that mainstream Christianity does a good job of encompassing the "way, truth, and life" that Jesus lived, then that's great for you. I think it's doing a terrible job, which is why I oppose it. Many people think that mainstream Christainity is off course. I'm not posting apologetics to mainstream Christianity here, I never had. When you do, you are looking at people, and you are in the flesh, you are not looking to Christ, and you will go off balance. People in any church, even the right ones, will fail. If you faith depends on them, then good-luck, it wont probably last longer than a few services. Jesus did not endorse Christianity, ever. Therefore, your assertion that no man comes to the father but through Christianity--though it can be supported with (human) scripture--is not some universal divine truth, even though you hope it will be, because you're a supremacist. That's fine, but there is one problem: I never asserted that any man comes to the father but through Christianity. You keep on asserting 'Christianity', but if you look at my post, that phrase is absent. I've only referred to Jesus Christ, you are twisting this up to suggest I'm talking about institutionalised Christianity. You are talking about institutionalised Christianity, not me. It is always 'narrow' is the way that leadeth to life, and 'few there be that find it', while 'broad' is the way that leadeth to destruction. The 'broad' way is the highway, virtually, everyone is on. Christianity is not a narrow way, in terms of how many people are on it. It's the largest religion in America, and the largest religion in the world. It has influenced centuries of global economics, politics, memetics, and occaisionally, religious affairs. I'm talking about people who are saved, not just members of a church.
bluetuesday Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 Most born-again Christians I know cant wait to share their experiences about seeing Jesus Christ, or knowing Him, and are excited to share their relationship with God to other people. They even share their testimonies in public if they have a chance to explain what God has done for them, or how they have experienced God in their life. i know many christians like that too. sharing is fine with those who are ready to hear it. i'm just not sure the language of god is words. Then that wouldn't be faith if you are not certain about the object of what you are believing in... You cant believe something, and then entertain the possibility that what you are believing in may be false - I see that as paradoxical - doubt and faith can not peacefully co-exist. this is about as wrong as it's possible to be. faith is what you have in the absence of proof. if you can prove something, it's not faith. it's evidence. faith is what we are called to by a god who knows no objective proof for his existence exists. if i was god, you being certain that what you currently know is the truth would be a stumbling block in my being able to talk to you. how could i teach you anything new if you were certain all there was and all there ever could be to know about me had already been revealed? faith and doubt co-exist happily for me. i believe jesus was the son of god but if he wasn't, if he was simply a man inspired by god to teach us how to build the kingdom of god on earth, that's fine. clearly i also believe in the existence of god but if god doesn't exist, does it actually matter? my life is more about trying to making him real than being certain he exists. I never asserted that any man comes to the father but through Christianity. You keep on asserting 'Christianity', but if you look at my post, that phrase is absent. I've only referred to Jesus Christ, you are twisting this up to suggest I'm talking about institutionalised Christianity. You are talking about institutionalised Christianity, not me. no, admiral, this is a backtrack on your part. your posts have made it quite clear that unless you are 'saved' by becoming a christian you're out of the loop as far as eternity goes. the context in which you are referring to jesus christ has consistently been the literal biblical understanding that unless you believe in and accept jesus as christ and as atonement for your sin, you're in the wrong religious queue and will go to hell.
Nicholas Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 You dont believe you have, you either in fact have, or have not. I believe that I have. I won't cheapen my faith experience with arrogant language--such as using "fact" in cases of clear belief. Language may not mean a lot to you, but it does to me. It's just a simple question, not an interrogation:) . It may be a simple question, but it is not a simple answer. The reason I'm not detailing my personal relationship with Christ does not stem from a lack of joy or zeal, it simply comes from sincere doubts that you'd be able to understand it. Most born-again Christians I know cant wait to share their experiences about seeing Jesus Christ, or knowing Him, and are excited to share their relationship with God to other people. This is because I'm not a born-again Christian. I certainly share my relationship with God with other people, but only if I feel that I can get somewhere with it; also, I'm usually interested in hearing what other people have to say about it as well, which I'm sure is a unique experience to the born-again supremacists. They even share their testimonies in public if they have a chance to explain what God has done for them, or how they have experienced God in their life. I am well aware that they are very vocal about their conversions. They sometimes knock on my door to tell me about it. I don't feel such expositions are genuine, I think it's vain and obnoxious. Then that wouldn't be faith if you are not certain about the object of what you are believing in, other than an educated guess. Wouldn't you say? No, I wouldn't say, that's why I said the opposite. Faith is not certainty. If you're certain of something, you don't need faith. Faith can be confident, but never certain. You cant believe something, and then entertain the possibility that what you are believing in may be false - I see that as paradoxical - doubt and faith can not peacefully co-exist. Doubt and faith do not peacefully co-exist, they're actually quite volatile. That's what makes living a spiritual life so challenging. I recognize that your faith is not challenging. I don't see that as a good thing. I see it as exceptionally dangerous, which is why I'm even bothering to post about it. You kept referring to institutionalised Christianity, not me. No, I'm referring directly to you. You maintain that one must be "saved", but see Christianity as the only vehicle to that salvation. You quote Jn 14:6 as a means of excluding anything but Christianity, I do not interpret it that way. I think Christianity has, in some cases, done a very poor job at upholding Christian principles, and therefore maintain that people can know Christ (if not by that name) through any of the many belief systems, or through none at all. Lately your new thing is to insist that you're not talking about Christianity at all, but only Jesus Christ. Whether you accept it or not, the whole born-again/"saved"/fundamentalist life you embrace is a unique packaging of Christianity, and one I find dangerous. Institutionalism is not absent from your posts, or you wouldn't be threatened with the idea of Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, or Atheists ending up in heaven--which is how we got here in the first place.
Admiral Thrawn Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 It's just a simple question, not an interrogation:) . It may be a simple question, but it is not a simple answer. The reason I'm not detailing my personal relationship with Christ does not stem from a lack of joy or zeal, it simply comes from sincere doubts that you'd be able to understand it. Sure, I forgot, you have ruled out a direct relationship with Jesus Christ, and have dismissed that as a mental problem. You have a relationship with people, and what you do, not a relationship with Christ, you just coined that variable in. Then that wouldn't be faith if you are not certain about the object of what you are believing in, other than an educated guess. Wouldn't you say? No, I wouldn't say, that's why I said the opposite. Faith is not certainty. If you're certain of something, you don't need faith. Faith can be confident, but never certain. It seems that your style of faith seems to entertain an undercurrent of doubt somewhere. The Bible has allot to say about 'that' type of faith. It goes NOWHERE with God. You cant believe something, and then entertain the possibility that what you are believing in may be false - I see that as paradoxical - doubt and faith can not peacefully co-exist. Doubt and faith do not peacefully co-exist, they're actually quite volatile. That's what makes living a spiritual life so challenging. I recognize that your faith is not challenging. I don't see that as a good thing. I see it as exceptionally dangerous, which is why I'm even bothering to post about it. Au contrare. My faith is constantly challenged both within and without. The desire to sin is always going to exist. Circumstances that may encourage sin or doubt in the attributes or character of God are going to continue to exist. You kept referring to institutionalised Christianity, not me. No, I'm referring directly to you. You maintain that one must be "saved", but see Christianity as the only vehicle to that salvation. You quote Jn 14:6 as a means of excluding anything but Christianity, I do not interpret it that way. No, Jesus is the only vehicle to that salvation, not Christianity. I think Christianity has, in some cases, done a very poor job at upholding Christian principles, and therefore maintain that people can know Christ (if not by that name) through any of the many belief systems, or through none at all. It's not about upholding Christian principles - it's about receiving Jesus Christ into your heart. Lately your new thing is to insist that you're not talking about Christianity at all, but only Jesus Christ. Whether you accept it or not, the whole born-again/"saved"/fundamentalist life you embrace is a unique packaging of Christianity, and one I find dangerous. But it still doesn't change the fact that you are going to hell, and virtually almost everyone who doesn't know Christ.
bluetuesday Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 But it still doesn't change the fact that you are going to hell our father, who art in heaven; hallowed be thy name. thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. and lead us not into tempation, but deliver us from evil. amen. admiral, repeat as necessary.
Nicholas Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 Sure, I forgot, you have ruled out a direct relationship with Jesus Christ, and have dismissed that as a mental problem. You have a relationship with people, and what you do, not a relationship with Christ, you just coined that variable in. I have no idea what you just said. But, to be clear: (1) I do not have a mental problem. (2) I do have a relationship with Christ. It seems that your style of faith seems to entertain an undercurrent of doubt somewhere. The undercurrent of doubt is what separates faith from delusion. The faith you describe, as people have told you, isn't faith at all--it's not a "style" of faith. The Bible has allot to say about 'that' type of faith. It goes NOWHERE with God. You have a lot to say about that type of faith, and you use the Bible to say it. I'm not impressed with your opinions about God, the Bible, or me. As for God, if he favors delusional robots over people who question things, I'll be happy to spend eternity without him. Hell, I'll even write a book on it. Au contrare. My faith is constantly challenged both within and without. The desire to sin is always going to exist. Circumstances that may encourage sin or doubt in the attributes or character of God are going to continue to exist. That's a non sequitur. I said your faith is not challenging, not your moral resolve. Sin has nothing to do with it--I meant your belief in God is not challenging, because you lack a conflict between faith and doubt. No, Jesus is the only vehicle to that salvation, not Christianity. You're being circular on purpose, and now you're backtracking. You've been outspoken about the fact that you must be born-again and "saved", or else you go to hell. The fact that you maintain "Jesus is the only vehicle to salvation" certainly reveals your belief in Christian supremacy. It's not about upholding Christian principles I think it is. Clearly, that's where we have diverged from the beginning. But it still doesn't change the fact that you are going to hell, and virtually almost everyone who doesn't know Christ That's your stupid, hateful opinion. You can't pass it off as fact. Hell isn't a fact. It's imaginary. All accounts of Hell are literary, circular, and not fact-based. So go ahead and damn me to Hell from your perspective, but don't invoke fact when you have zero respect for what a fact actually is. 1
Author grace2005 Posted January 9, 2006 Author Posted January 9, 2006 I started out this thread to talk about eternal security. Now somehow the subject got changed and therefore somebody has hijacked my thread. If you are going to argue about something else other than eternal security please start your own thread and continue this debate somewhere else. I appreciate that.
Admiral Thrawn Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 Sure, I forgot, you have ruled out a direct relationship with Jesus Christ, and have dismissed that as a mental problem. You have a relationship with people, and what you do, not a relationship with Christ, you just coined that variable in. I have no idea what you just said. But, to be clear: (1) I do not have a mental problem. (2) I do have a relationship with Christ. But on another post you said (1) = (2). You do not acknowledge that there could be a real relationship with Christ, without being delusional. You have failed to define what your relationship with Christ means, by saying it is too emotional to invest in this thread. Yet, when I describe what it means, you have the audicity to suggest I see a doctor and I'm schizophreniac. I challenge you again to disclose your relationship with Christ, or God. Are you worried, people are going to suggest for you to see a doctor as you have done for me? It seems that your style of faith seems to entertain an undercurrent of doubt somewhere. The undercurrent of doubt is what separates faith from delusion. The faith you describe, as people have told you, isn't faith at all--it's not a "style" of faith. That is your opinion. Doubt cancels faith. Your understanding of faith, is not a type of faith that God would honour, because you can not 'waver', you have to believe 100%. The Bible says, he that wavers is like a ship tossed to and fro in the sea. The Bible has allot to say about 'that' type of faith. It goes NOWHERE with God. You have a lot to say about that type of faith, and you use the Bible to say it. I'm not impressed with your opinions about God, the Bible, or me. Of course, but for the record, I have always stayed true to interpretation of any Bible passage I have posted here. Whenever I do bring up Biblical passages, it is either scoffed at, ignored, - when the meaning of the passage is as plain as day. You are unconvincing, because you have no authority and can not back anything you say by the word of God. It is unfortunate, because we could have had a real fruitful theological debate, but your attitude makes that impossible. As for God, if he favors delusional robots over people who question things, I'll be happy to spend eternity without him. Hell, I'll even write a book on it. What are you talking about? Au contrare. My faith is constantly challenged both within and without. The desire to sin is always going to exist. Circumstances that may encourage sin or doubt in the attributes or character of God are going to continue to exist. That's a non sequitur. I said your faith is not challenging, not your moral resolve. Sin has nothing to do with it--I meant your belief in God is not challenging, because you lack a conflict between faith and doubt. Belief in God does not mean anything - the devil also believes in God too. What really matters here is 'power'. The power of God for salvation, deliverance, healing, miracles. Relationship with God. Being counted as a 'Friend of God' as Enoch or Abraham was. Belief in God -- doesn't cut it. No, Jesus is the only vehicle to that salvation, not Christianity. You're being circular on purpose, and now you're backtracking. You've been outspoken about the fact that you must be born-again and "saved", or else you go to hell. That is what I said. The fact that you maintain "Jesus is the only vehicle to salvation" certainly reveals your belief in Christian supremacy. It is what the Bible says. Do you want me to show you the scriptures? You see, what makes me different from you, is I can prove, and am willing to prove everything that I am saying. I boldly stand to be corrected - by someone who is compitent enough in knowledge of scripture to be a real challenge. I was hoping it would be you, but, this discussion is obviously going nowhere because you dont know the Bible. You claim you believe in Christ, and in the Bible, yet you can not bring up the Word of God, to support anything that you are saying. You are only confident, because you think it is right to you, it sounds right to you, and you think that is how the world aught to be, which unfortunately for me is not enough. When I bring quote from the word of God, you just scoff at it - and are not making a healthy discussion here by doing that. It's not about upholding Christian principles I think it is. Clearly, that's where we have diverged from the beginning. The Bible supports what I say, you want proof? But it still doesn't change the fact that you are going to hell, and virtually almost everyone who doesn't know Christ That's your stupid, hateful opinion. You can't pass it off as fact. Hell isn't a fact. It's imaginary. All accounts of Hell are literary, circular, and not fact-based. So go ahead and damn me to Hell from your perspective, but don't invoke fact when you have zero respect for what a fact actually is. It is not a hateful opinion and it is not stupid. I do not want you to go to hell, and of course, neither would God. We all want you to go to heaven, but you have to make that choice as to your eternal desination. That is out of anyone's hands, except your own. If you read the Bible, Jesus talked about hell, and it is mentioned in many, many different Bible references. Again, you want scriptural proof, I'm more than willing to provide it. Why dont you provide me with scriptural proof to support ANYTHING, and I mean ANYTHING, that you have said since the beginning of our discussion? Perhaps, it is because, it is not in the Bible?
Admiral Thrawn Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 I started out this thread to talk about eternal security. Now somehow the subject got changed and therefore somebody has hijacked my thread. If you are going to argue about something else other than eternal security please start your own thread and continue this debate somewhere else. I appreciate that. Different views on eternal security here were already discussed on this thread and it appeared to be going on the back-burner prior to the start of this discussion between Nicolas and myself.
Nicholas Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 You have failed to define what your relationship with Christ means I've already explicity told you why this is. I'd drop it if I were you. Your understanding of faith, is not a type of faith that God would honour So says you. I hardly respect your opinions about God, so I'm not sweating over your opinion of God's judgment of me. The Bible says, he that wavers is like a ship tossed to and fro in the sea. That's a good analogy. I don't see anything wrong with being tossed to and fro, but I'm not much of a mariner. I wouldn't expect smooth sailing. Of course, but for the record, I have always stayed true to interpretation of any Bible passage I have posted here. They are your interpretations, not God's. Take responsibility for your own words, don't pretend they are divine axioms. You are unconvincing Trust me, I'm not trying to convince you. It's impossible to convince a fundamentalist christian of anything. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. we could have had a real fruitful theological debate I highly doubt that. What are you talking about? You stated that my type of faith goes 'NOWHERE with God.' If God favors people who are arrogant, self-assured, and doubtless--then I'd rather not, when I die, be in their company. I think people who reconcile faith and intellect are better people, because that's my experience. Belief in God does not mean anything - the devil also believes in God too. What really matters here is 'power'. The power of God for salvation, deliverance, healing, miracles. Relationship with God. Being counted as a 'Friend of God' as Enoch or Abraham was. Belief in God -- doesn't cut it. This is the second time I've posted something about the challenge of having faith, and the second time you've posted something that makes zero sense as a response to that. If there's no conflict between faith and doubt, then there's no room to grow, spiritually. You just read the Bible, decide what it means, and close your mind to any further understanding. I like what bluetuesday said--"how could [God] teach you anything new if you were certain all there was and all there ever could be to know about me had already been revealed?" It is what the Bible says. Do you want me to show you the scriptures? No. I already issued a scriptural challenge to you, and you'll never be able to meet it. Where, in the scriptures, does it sanction the idolatry of scripture? The solo scriptura crowd has no basis for their scriptural fixation. Scripture was compiled, edited, and translated long after it was written. As such, none of the scripture is written within the context of scripture. I boldly stand to be corrected - by someone who is compitent enough in knowledge of scripture to be a real challenge. I was hoping it would be you, but, this discussion is obviously going nowhere because you dont know the Bible. I don't operate the same way you do. I don't use the Bible the same way you do. We're different religious people, you and I. I can tell you don't respect my way of going about it, and rest assured the feeling is mutual, you just think you're divinely justified. The fact that I don't abuse scriptural quotations in no way implies that I'm incapable of it, I just feel above it, and I have such a reverence for scripture that I refuse to abuse it the way you have. If you're challenging me to a scripture duel, I concede, on a defecit of utility, not talent. I don't need to prove to myself that I have a better understanding of the Bible than you do, and I've already seen that even if I did, you wouldn't buy it. Come back to me when you can read the Bible in its original language. I can stand in a debate on my own merit. I won't drag sacred text into it. Your quotations of scripture are often offensive, and never impressive. When I bring quote from the word of God, you just scoff at it - and are not making a healthy discussion here by doing that. I don't see that as a healthy discussion. It may be fun for your sort, but I think it's dangerous. To be clear though, when (and if?) I scoff, I'm scoffing at you, not God. This is how things occur: 1) Admiral reads scripture. 2) Admiral interprets scripture. 3) Admiral quotes scripture. Step two is critical. It means that anything you say is human and not divine, and claiming that your interpretation is divine is both blasphemous and cowardly, because you refuse to take accountability for your own opinions. That makes it clear that you're being disingenuous about your desires to have a 'fruitful debate', because you don't see it as 'Nicholas vs. Admiral Thrawn', you see it as 'Nicholas vs. God'.
Admiral Thrawn Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 You have failed to define what your relationship with Christ means I've already explicity told you why this is. I'd drop it if I were you. What does relationship to you mean then? Your understanding of faith, is not a type of faith that God would honour So says you. I hardly respect your opinions about God, so I'm not sweating over your opinion of God's judgment of me. The Bible says, he that wavers is like a ship tossed to and fro in the sea. That's a good analogy. I don't see anything wrong with being tossed to and fro, but I'm not much of a mariner. I wouldn't expect smooth sailing. The Bible says, such a person does not receive anything from God. It is in the book of James. That is what the bible says word for word. Of course, but for the record, I have always stayed true to interpretation of any Bible passage I have posted here. They are your interpretations, not God's. Take responsibility for your own words, don't pretend they are divine axioms. Want to go over everything that I have written, critique it, and explain how it is my own interpretations? Or are we just going to go on a blind rampage here? You are unconvincing Trust me, I'm not trying to convince you. It's impossible to convince a fundamentalist christian of anything. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. You are trying to convince me that no person can understand the Bible. we could have had a real fruitful theological debate I highly doubt that. You doubt everything don't you? What are you talking about? You stated that my type of faith goes 'NOWHERE with God.' Oh, I stated, eh? James 1:6-7 "But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he will receive any thing of the Lord". Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him". Now, tell me, what do you state about what I just quoted? If God favors people who are arrogant, self-assured, and doubtless--then I'd rather not, when I die, be in their company. I think people who reconcile faith and intellect are better people, because that's my experience. God is not a respector of persons. Every person is equal under the eyes of God, perfectly equal - same type of judgement for everyone. Nobody has an easier time, nobody has a more difficult time. I boldly stand to be corrected - by someone who is compitent enough in knowledge of scripture to be a real challenge. I was hoping it would be you, but, this discussion is obviously going nowhere because you dont know the Bible. I don't operate the same way you do. I don't use the Bible the same way you do. We're different religious people, you and I. I can tell you don't respect my way of going about it, and rest assured the feeling is mutual, you just think you're divinely justified. The fact that I don't abuse scriptural quotations in no way implies that I'm incapable of it, I just feel above it, and I have such a reverence for scripture that I refuse to abuse it the way you have. If you're challenging me to a scripture duel, I concede, on a defecit of utility, not talent. Of course, just like the Catholic church hid the Bibles from everyone in the MIddle Ages, or tried to keep it as 'too sacred' for the masses to understand. Scripture is there to understand God and all spiritual concepts. You can quote it, discuss it, but at the end of the day, the Bible speaks for itself. Obviously, this discussion has gotten way to personal, and I think it is going to have to close. You have an opportunity to convince me, or to say something, simply quote something from the Bible, and state your position on a matter, and that is fine. If you do not want to use the Bible, then this is clearly a waste of time since we are too far apart. Saying that the Bible can not be understood - which is essentially your message, will not have any effect. I know the Bible and can say, it does not contradict itself, and that anybody here can pick it up, read it, and understand it, (with a prayer before reading it for understanding). That is my position. I dont think people should feel intimidated from picking up the Bible and reading it for themselves. Jesus said, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, and reading the Bible is like bread, it is your spiritual food.
Nicholas Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 The Bible says, such a person does not receive anything from God. I have received plenty from God. This leads me to believe that one or all of the following is true: (1) The Bible is wrong. (2) Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. (3) God ignores the Bible regularly. Want to go over everything that I have written, critique it, and explain... Of course I don't. You are trying to convince me that no person can understand the Bible. No, I'm not. Oh, I stated, eh? Yes, you stated. Your interpretation of scripture damns me. That's all. I'm not afraid of that. Of course, just like the Catholic church hid the Bibles from everyone in the MIddle Ages, or tried to keep it as 'too sacred' for the masses to understand. The more I see the Bible being used as a weapon or a debate tool, the more I can see their point. It's clear to me that the Bible is your golden calf. You can bash the Catholic Church all you'd like, but they created the idol you worship. They chose what books made it in and what didn't. The canon is a product of the Catholic Church. All of those scribes, councils--they're all Catholic in nature. Scripture is there to understand God and all spiritual concepts. Where in scripture does it say that? You can quote it, discuss it, but at the end of the day, the Bible speaks for itself. No text speaks for itself, any scholar knows that. You have an opportunity to convince me, or to say something, simply quote something from the Bible That's not how I roll. I don't abuse scripture to win arguments. I feel like I don't have to. Saying that the Bible can not be understood - which is essentially your message That's not my message. You've ignored my message. If you can't understand what I'm saying in 2006, how can you understand something that was written thousands of years ago by different cultures for different audiences in different languages?
Admiral Thrawn Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 The Bible says, such a person does not receive anything from God. I have received plenty from God. Expand on this. Of course, just like the Catholic church hid the Bibles from everyone in the MIddle Ages, or tried to keep it as 'too sacred' for the masses to understand. The more I see the Bible being used as a weapon or a debate tool, the more I can see their point. It's clear to me that the Bible is your golden calf. You can bash the Catholic Church all you'd like, but they created the idol you worship. They chose what books made it in and what didn't. The canon is a product of the Catholic Church. All of those scribes, councils--they're all Catholic in nature. The Catholic church does not hold the true interpretation of scripture. I dispute all their theology and sacrements, as well as their original leader as being unfounded in the Bible. Scripture is there to understand God and all spiritual concepts. Where in scripture does it say that? That's easy, 2 Timonthy 3:16 "ALL SCRIPTURE, is given by inspiration of God, AND IS PROFITABLE, for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness." Doctrine means understanding God and all spiritual concepts. You have an opportunity to convince me, or to say something, simply quote something from the Bible That's not how I roll. I don't abuse scripture to win arguments. I feel like I don't have to. Hey judge, I'm a lawyer, but you know what, I dont like abusing the law, so I wont be bringing any legal arguements to try and prove my case, because I think the laws are too sacred, would you just listen to me if I told you that I was just right instead? That is how you are coming across with me. Lawyers need an authority when they are persuading a judge, that authority is the law of the land. When you are in a spiritual discussion, you need to quote the Bible in order to substantiate your arguements. Saying that the Bible can not be understood - which is essentially your message That's not my message. You've ignored my message. If you can't understand what I'm saying in 2006, how can you understand something that was written thousands of years ago by different cultures for different audiences in different languages? What is your message then? Is it not that a lay person can not read and understand Bible text in plain clear as day meaning? Are you not saying, that you have to be a designated scholar, priest or religious official in order to be qualified. I believe that is your message. You do not seem to suggest that any lay-person, or anyone, can pick up the Bible, get revelation directly from God as to what the text means, or interpret it in 'face value' meaning, and understand spiritual concepts.
Nicholas Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 Expand on this. I have seen God work through me and others, and I have felt divine providence. I don't need to expand on that, specifics are irrelevant. By your interpretation of scripture, God should be ignoring me, because of the nature of my faith. So who's wrong--James or you? Or is God wrong? The Catholic church does not hold the true interpretation of scripture. I didn't say they did. I just said "scripture" as we know it today was compiled by the Catholic Church, so whether you like it or not, the Bible is a Catholic relic. They chose what books made it and which did not. That's easy, 2 Timonthy 3:16 "ALL SCRIPTURE, is given by inspiration of God, AND IS PROFITABLE, for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness." Doctrine means understanding God and all spiritual concepts. Here's another perfect example of you quoting scripture and then interpreting it, and then pretending your interpretation is God's. Equivocating "doctrine" to mean "understanding God and all spiritual concepts" is not accurate, if you're appealing to the definition. The greek word for doctrine is didaskalia, and means simply "that which is taught". That's a fact. There is no scriptural basis for the supremacy of scripture, there cannot be, as no piece of scripture was composed within the context of its current compilation. That is how you are coming across with me. Lawyers need an authority when they are persuading a judge Your analogy presupposes that you are a judge--as if you have some soveirgn authority as an arbiter of the validity of my scriptural scholarship. When you are in a spiritual discussion, you need to quote the Bible in order to substantiate your arguements. That's a fundamentalist opinion, and one I do not respect. I've made it clear that I don't respect the game you play, so it amazes me that you're holding me to its rules. Are you not saying, that you have to be a designated scholar, priest or religious official in order to be qualified. I believe that is your message. When have I said anything even remotely similar? I have not appealed to any authority, or made "designtation" at all requisite. I don't think you need to be a priest or a designated scholar or religious official in order to understand the Bible. That said, I disagree that you can just say a prayer, read selections of it in English, and transform the selections you've read as some universalist reality. Every text--whether it's a history book or a Bible--is best read in context. If you read selections of the Gospels, and emerge with a legalistic, exclusive, hateful worldview, then I believe (strongly) that you're reading it wrong.
Admiral Thrawn Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 My apologies to Grace2005. Going back to eternal security - lets, put a hypothetical question, if a Christian, who is saved, suddently decided to kill himself, but changed his mind, but the action is too late, and now cant repent, or ask for forgiveness, would he still be saved?
Admiral Thrawn Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit constitutes an 'unforgivable sin'? If this occurred, then would it not compromise eternal security? How can a born-again Christian blaspheme against the Holy Spirit?
Admiral Thrawn Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 Nicolas; This discussion would have to continue on my thread 'Temporarily moving from this section'.
quankanne Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 Going back to eternal security - lets, put a hypothetical question, if a Christian, who is saved, suddently decided to kill himself, but changed his mind, but the action is too late, and now cant repent, or ask for forgiveness, would he still be saved? anyone who repents and accepts God into his life – whether it's during an act of suicide or another time – accepts God's salvation for him. haven't been able to access older posts on this thread, but I did see where you commented on the Catholic Church withholding the Bible from the people of the Middle Ages. Even if every person at that time was given a Bible for home and one for travel, it wouldn't have done much good since a large majority of the people were illiterate. The church also frowned on people coming up with their own translation of Scripture, much like what we see today. There's no grounding in how people are interpreting God's word, because there is no catechism, just someone "touched by the Spirit" who tries to make his interpretation the be-all, end-all. And that can be a dangerous thing.
Admiral Thrawn Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 The three unforgivable sins: Damnable sin. 1) Suicide - relies on the fact you can only seek forgivness when you are alive on this earth. Suicide is murder - you killed yourself. Since you are dead, you can not repent of being a murderer, nor can you seek forgiveness from God, because technically, you are dead. 2) Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit - Jesus said, all sins can be forgiven, even Blasphemies, except this one. 3) Receiving the mark of the Anti-christ on forehead and right hand, and bowing down to the image of the beast. (Technically, nobody in the past or current can commit this mass sacriledge, but as some point in the future, people can.)
Admiral Thrawn Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 Going back to eternal security - lets, put a hypothetical question, if a Christian, who is saved, suddently decided to kill himself, but changed his mind, but the action is too late, and now cant repent, or ask for forgiveness, would he still be saved? anyone who repents and accepts God into his life – whether it's during an act of suicide or another time – accepts God's salvation for him. Suppose the suicide is successful and the person is dead. The Bible does not teach that people can make things right, after the fact, of this life, but rather face the consequences, good or bad, of the actions done in this life. The church also frowned on people coming up with their own translation of Scripture, much like what we see today. Of course, because it would challenge its direct control over the lives of people. The church creates a false spiritual dependency - people confess their lives to a priest, they need to take communion, and sacrements - they can not ever have hope that they are really saved - because that may mean they do not need the church anymore and they may lose control, etc.... It is no coincidence that modern democracies came after the Reformation, while Autocratic societies were prevalent during the Mideivil times and before. There's no grounding in how people are interpreting God's word, because there is no catechism, just someone "touched by the Spirit" who tries to make his interpretation the be-all, end-all. And that can be a dangerous thing. That is why you have to test the spirits out and see if there are of God. Everyone who is saved, or has a relationship with Christ, and you will probably know them, have the same interpretation of scripture, as far as the fundamental doctrines of salvation are concerned, and the typologies of Christ in the Old Testament. Where interpretations differ are on other minor theological points, which accounts for the different denominations in the Protestant world, not to mention Evangelists and Preachers who have their own church. My interpretation of scripture, is not unique, and actually conform to lots of Protestant denominations that are out there, despite the fact my understanding of scripture is influenced by a touch of the Spirit. It means, the founders of those churches, pastors, and church members who also have had this 'touch', have the same predictable interpretation. However, lots of Protestent-Evangelical churches will not point people to warming a church pew to be saved, they will have alter calls for people to receive Christ. What I think is dangerous are cults, and any religious doctrine that gives people a false sence of eternal security, only to be wickedly surprised in the afterlife by putting their trust in a false system. That is too dangerous.
EnigmaXOXO Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 What I think is dangerous are cults, and any religious doctrine that gives people a false sence of eternal security, only to be wickedly surprised in the afterlife by putting their trust in a false system. That is too dangerous. With this, I personally agree! Cult (kult) n. 1. A system of religious worship. 2. a. Obsessive and faddish devotion to a principle or person. B. A group of persons sharing such devotion: sect.
quankanne Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 so if a person who is in the act of committing suicide sees error of his ways and repents and is spiritually in the rights with God, but physically is dying, then there's no hope for him? What about salvation for the hopeless sinners who aren't out there committing suicide but other sins against God? If salvation isn't valid for someone who repents, knowing his sin has hurt God and he wants to amend that, even as he lay dying, then technically, it's not really available to all. What makes your being saved or my being saved any better than that stray lamb who repents as it is being killed? Only God knows what is in the heart of a suicidal person, and the best you and I can do is conjecture his fate based upon our own limited knowledge. it would challenge its direct control over the lives of people probably. However, the Church also trains her priests for years before letting them loose, so these guys have background in theology and philosphy and Scripture, and their teaching of it doesn't detract from the teachings of the Church. The problem with people who are touched by the Spirit but who don't train for their preaching have greater opportunity to misinterpret Scripture and lead the flock astray. Look at the Jim Jones of the world, the David Koreshes. The beauty of a "system" like Catholicism – or even Judaism – is that it is based in thousands of years of teachings and beliefs, and it unchanging. The Pope isn't going to stand up one day and say, 'you know, we've been fools all along on the abortion and birth control issue, so we're going to change our stance on them.' you mention the Protestant churches: how many are there now in the world, and where did they begin? Out of discontent with how things were being done in the parent church. Henry VIII wasn't happy that the Church wasn't going to dissolved his marriage because the queen didn't give him boy babies, so he decided to break away and form his own church that allowed divorce for whatever reasons. Martin Luther, a religious, was fed up with a system that he saw was riddled with problems, but instead of choosing to change it from the inside, he revolted and started a new religion. And so on and so forth ... Everyone is a watered down version of the one before. You say the church "creates false spiritual dependency" by upholding the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist, among the others. Isn't Christ a reconciling God? How then would reconciliation with God through the sacrament be false? (If you were Catholic, you'd understand that there is no dependency upon reconciliation, as most people tend to avoid or overlook it.) Partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ through the Eucharist each time you go to Mass is a fallacy in the salvation plan? If you don't believe in the Eucharist as Christ, then yeah, it makes sense, but those of us who do believe understand that to receive Communion is an act of salvation because it is an act of faith and belief in the saving God who loves us and offers opportunity upon opportunity to be reconciled with him.
Author grace2005 Posted January 9, 2006 Author Posted January 9, 2006 Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin. All manner of sin & blasphemy shall be forgiven except the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (Mathew 12:31-32) Suicide is not the unpardonable sin. Suicide along with all other sins were taken care of by Jesus' death on the cross. He paid the penalty for the sins of mankind. Nobody will go to hell for any sins except the sin of unbelief in Jesus. So a believer who commits suicide is already forgiven. There are christians who commit suicide all the time. They are in heaven now because the blood of Jesus was shed for those sins. Repentance does NOT mean quitting your sins or cleaning up your lifestyle. Repentance in the context of salvation always means turning from the sin of unbelief & becoming a believer in Christ Jesus. The only sin God asks us to give up is our unbelief in His Son. Therefore repentance and faith are snyonomous terms. You can't find the word "repent" in the gospel of John because it means the same thing as "believe" which is mentioned several times all throughout the gospel of John. There is not a single person who has repented of all their sins. I haven't, you haven't, mother teressa hasn't not even the pope. We will continue to sin until the day we die physically. Born again christians are just sinners saved by grace. Grace is unmerited favor. You can't earn it or work for it. It is absolutely free. All a person has to do is take the gift. It really is that simple. Jesus paid the price. Eternal life is His gift to us. By the way Jesus Christ came for the sick. Suicide is a mental illness along with depression. So if a person does not go to heaven it won't be because he committed suicide. God has compassion on the mentally ill. I personally believe depression is a terminal illness. Society judges the mentally ill as losers especially those who commit suicide but thank God He is not like us. Society considers suicide a terrible crime and has no respect for those who kill themselves but God has mercy on the suicidal people. He understands their pain. Sure the people suicide victims leave behind may never forgive them but God already has.
Recommended Posts