Question For The Christians

[DesertBob]

I wouldn't respond to a being who wasn't real either. However, can you prove that God is not real? It seems like there might be an awful lot riding on such a decision, so I assume you have good backing for yours. Personally, I think there is too much evidence for God's existence and the fact that he is both engaged and interested.

The burden is not on me to prove that god doesn't exist, it's on you to prove he exists. Yours is the extraordinary claim. I see much evidence that he does not exist, is not engaged, and is not interested. The fact that I'm very happy with most aspects of my life this morning, I would once have attributed to god's blessing, but the unforced truth is that the things that are going well in my life are due to a combination of luck, and personal persistence / skill / effort.

 

It is actually reasonable to say that things are going better for me than they ever have in my adult life. If I were still a Christian, believe me, I would have great material for personal testimony time during Wednesday night prayer meeting. On the other hand, during most of my adult life as a Christian my life was by any objective standard other than the material, hell on earth. I don't blame that on Christianity (although Christianity certainly bears some indirect responsibility and was, on balance, no help). But I can say that many wasted brain cycles went into prayers for me and mine -- my own prayers and those of intercessory "prayer warriors" -- and not only were those prayers unanswered, pretty much the opposite of what was requested happened. Consistently. There are hand-waving circumlocutions to explain this of course -- god was testing me, god moves in mysterious ways, yadda yadda -- that's how the system works. God gets all the credit for what goes right, Satan and/or the victim get all the blame for what goes wrong. It's quite a cushy system from god's point of view. Limitless power and authority, zero responsibility.

 

It's a good thing I no longer believe in god. If I did, I would be really angry and resentful at broken promises. "Faith maketh not ashamed" -- that is bunk. I didn't drink, smoke, chew, or go with girls that do. You would have found no fault with me, my ethics, my morality, my attitude or my conduct. Actually all those statements are still true of me, the only difference is I am no longer looking to please or get the attention of an imaginary father. My motivation is much simpler and purer. I truly believe good is its own reward -- because there certainly aren't any others, of the "well done, thou good and faithful servant" variety. I now understand that life is random and truly has no guarantees, and once I accepted that, I could live in peace instead of enduring the constant cognitive dissonance of a belief system that was so at odds with reality.

 

My fiance doubled over with stomach pain in the store this morning. It passed, and it was probably gas. But it could just as well have been a fatal internal bleeding or a heart problem and her last thought might have been, "I'm going to die on the floor of this fucking PetCo??!?" What a way to go. But you know, we've both priced that in. We both have been through such losses and know better than most, that everything you care about can be taken from you at any time, for any reason or for no reason. It's so much better to accept that as what is, rather than constantly make excuses for a god who is supposed to protect, encourage, bless and enlighten his trusting children.

I believe in eternal security, but I don't think you have any reason for confidence given your current situation. Yours sounds much like the man described in Hebrews 6 who tasted of the heavenly gifts and yet turned away. The author was saying that that type of person should have no such security, that is reserved for those following faithfully after the Lord.

Yes, as is so often the case, the preponderance of scripture points in one direction and then you have the odd verse or two acting as if none of the other statements are there. However as I think you realize, my statements about my eternal security were tongue in cheek. I don't believe in eternal security anymore than I believe in god, heaven or hell. Questions of eternal (in)security are no longer relevant or germane to me.

Your situation is no less convenient and leaves you with the freedom to live your life however you want. The end result of sinner and saint is the same in your worldview, they both end up as worm food, so what is the point in living a moral life as morality is just a man made construct meant to keep the masses in line with some arbitrary standard.

No, it's a man made construct that has evolved for the overall good of society. No one is free to do as they please because all acts have consequences; saying "yes" to something is always saying "no" to something else.

 

As a Christian, I had no secret longings to cruise bars, have wanton sex, pillage and set fire to things, etc., and I don't do those things now, either. To tell the truth I never found the accepted morality restrictive. Some of my fellow Christians did. I recall in my Bible school daze, that some of my dorm mates rebelled against the 10 pm curfew; I merely was puzzled at why anyone would want to stay up that late, given that we had to catch the bus to campus at something like 6 am. I am not saying they were bad and I was good, it's just a canonical example of how some people have a strong need to differentiate themselves and I was really all about conforming -- and liked it.

 

So I present a problem for you if you want to lump me in with wayward children who were always chomping at the bit to do their own thing with their lower lip thrust defiantly forward. I don't have a rebellious bone in my body. Were there a god, I can truthfully say that I was god's for the losing, believe me.

Yet, the one who decides to break with that standard and "grab some of life's gusto" is really no worse than the person who lives a self-sacrificial life. People may not hold as high an opinion of the cad than the saint, but those are just opinions and they don't really matter unless the person cares, and the cad has shown by his lifestyle that these concerns mean little or nothing. But if all we have is our three score and ten, why waste it being good? The worms won't care when you are dead and you won't be around for others to care or not. Besides, all that morality stuff just panders to some meaningless conditioning that we have that tells us that it is important for some reason when it really isn't.

You speak as if one must be bribed to be ethical and moral and good -- or more precisely, as if one will not be ethical, moral or good except under constant threat of horrific punishments. This is the pessimistic Christian view of the human condition -- all our righteousness is as filthy rags, and it is only god deigning to impute his righteousness to us that gives us any actual dignity, nobility or morality.

 

I never felt I was wasting my time being good. I did feel as if I was wasting my time looking to god for validation, approval or appreciation, but I was fortunate enough to have an earthly father who was a man of quiet integrity and I noticed that he was that way before he himself became a Christian so I never identified his core essence with Christianity. I felt, rightly, that it was simply who he was. I always knew that I could choose to do well and that it could be my identity, despite Christianity trying to constantly tell me how unworthy and inadequate I was. My father, just be being himself, unwittingly inoculated me against that.

 

Every day that passes I am more and more grateful to my Dad for leaving me that legacy. He was not a perfect man -- but he was a good man, and I was never unsure of his love. I know far too many people who can't say that about their parents and I wonder how they manage. I don't wonder though that they tolerate a "sky father" whose attention they so desperately want that they will hope against hope for it -- will credit him with any crumb or scrap that falls from the table into their lap.

 

Now as to this other implicit thesis of yours, that everyone left to themselves is a juvenile delinquent at heart -- I've already disposed of that, but I want to address that a little further because it's so easy to look at all the hue and cry on the evening news and imagine the world is a cesspool and that mankind teeters on the brink of anarchy and animal, "red in tooth and claw" opportunism. I think we forget the hole we as a race are digging ourselves out of. It is no less than climbing up from mere animal instinct, and we've only been doing it for a relatively short time in the evolutionary scheme of things.

 

If we were to go back just 500 years, we might know nothing but the existence of a serf living a life of backbreaking toil, barely able to live long enough to reproduce and having no higher ambition than to survive the day. Then, as now, one could look at the suffering and misery and hopelessness in the world and see no way out but to displace all of one's innate hopes and dreams and aspirations into an afterlife. But there have always been a few -- 500 years ago, it might have been the likes of Spinoza -- with a vision for human hope and progress grounded in empirical reality. I submit that our ability to have this conversation by inconveniencing electrons has little to do with Christianity and everything to do with man's will to act within the scope of his powers to make meaning and purpose for himself and improve his lot.

 

There was a time when I actually bought the idea that Christianity stands between us and the howling wilderness of total degeneracy. What I now feel is that Christianity sometimes is a vehicle for mankind's nobler aspirations -- the "better angels of our nature", to borrow from Jefferson -- but that the vital, core attribute that moves us forward with or without Christianity or religion or belief in a higher power, is inherent within us. Some would call it a divine spark, some would say that man is the one animal who knows discontent and genuine curiosity. Whatever it is, Christianity has often taken credit for it, but isn't the cause of it.

[Mister Pappy]

Now as to this other implicit thesis of yours, that everyone left to themselves is a juvenile delinquent at heart -- I've already disposed of that, but I want to address that a little further because it's so easy to look at all the hue and cry on the evening news and imagine the world is a cesspool and that mankind teeters on the brink of anarchy and animal, "red in tooth and claw" opportunism. I think we forget the hole we as a race are digging ourselves out of. It is no less than climbing up from mere animal instinct, and we've only been doing it for a relatively short time in the evolutionary scheme of things.

Holy shit Bob! What a tour de force! The whole post was beautiful. I get so much from what you write. Amazing thoughts. Thank you for taking the time to share them with us.

[oddbird1963]

My thinking was that so many on this forum know the religion very well and I took your words to be intended to all of us. You have explained that they were intended for one individual who claimed not to understand the gospel.

 

 

Overcame Faith,

 

I am tempted to call b.s. on LNC on this point.

 

I went back through the trail of postings. No one claimed to not understand the gospel. The only place he could have gotten that notion from is the delusional dreamland of preconceived notions and prejudices about non-believers. He may have taken it upon himself to (ahem!) "correct" what he thinks is flawed ideas about the gospel, but I don't see anything in this thread that indicates that a person claimed not to know or understand the gospel. I don't know where LNC could have gotten that idea, other than trying to make himself look less condescending and prejudiced.

 

OB '63

[DesertBob]

Holy shit Bob! What a tour de force!

My Dad was, in person, a man of few words -- almost no words, really -- and then he'd turn around and write a three page letter that would leave you in tears for its eloquence. And he had a sixth grade education. So I think whatever writing chops I have came from him. Thanks, Dad! :-)

 

You would be less impressed if you saw how slowly I think on my feet face to face. Funny how compartmentalized ability is sometimes. Anyway, thanks for your kind words, Pappy. I know we all appreciate and enjoy your contributions here too.

[bdp]

LNC has been on this site for so long, trying to affect an intellectual basis, attempting to build from philosophical and scientific platforms, but in the end he's just another evangelist, no better than Justyna, with nothing better than 'the bible says so.'

 

bdp, I question how closely you have actually read my posts to make this assertion. Sounds like nothing better than a "bdp says so." claim.

 

 

LNC

 

 

I've read just about everything you've ever posted here. You HAVE tried to build from philosophical and intellectual platforms - physics and scientific theory. You were almost impressive at that, and might have been able to make a convincing case for "A" creator deity - but now you're just parroting the same tired old fundie cliches about rebellious children and the like. And that's all you've boiled down to, just throwing bible verses at us and questioning our level of faith in our old belief. Anyone else seeing this LNC's way? I'll cop to it if so.

[LNC]

The law did not stipulate that you had to lead a perfect life.

If it did, there would be no statutes in the law for atonement.

Jesus did not lead a perfect life.

He violated the law by undermining parts of it.

 

 

Really? Then what was atonement for if not to take away sins (imperfection of one's life in relationship to the Law) and restore relationship with God? Can you give some backing for your claim about Jesus? Where do you get the idea that he undermined the Law. Please quote chapter and verse.

 

 

The Bible says God’s works are perfect.

A perfect work cannot “fall”, rebel, or perform an imperfect action.

 

There is no logical reason that something created perfect could not become imperfect. You are confusing perfection as a necessary property (as with God) with perfection as a contingent property (as with man). God cannot violate his perfect nature as it is a necessary property (cannot be otherwise) whereas, man can violate his nature which was created perfect but is contingent (could have been otherwise) via his free will.

 

And you’ve preached the same faulty claims over and over again.

The free will myth is one of them.

The Bible undermines that claim in many verses.

A perfect work cannot make an imperfect decision, regardless of how much “free will” you think it has.

As soon as it performs an imperfect action, it shows that it wasn’t made perfect in the first place.

 

 

Are you claiming that man does not have free will? I will expect that you can back up this claim from the Bible since you claim that it teaches such. I have answered your logical flaw above and will not repeat it here.

 

It fulfilled no such thing.

There is no provision in the law for a human to serve as a sin sacrifice.

It’s illegal according to God’s law.

 

 

Again, please quote chapter and verse in support of your assertion. God told Abraham to go and offer Isaac as a sacrifice and Abraham followed through to the point of God staying his hand before making the final offering. Why God command it and Abraham take steps to carry it out? (Gen. 22) Granted, it was not to be a normalized practice, but Abraham and Isaac give a foretaste of what was to come. So again, you make assertions that don't square with Scripture and have not backing beyond your word.

 

There is no need for a human sacrifice to pay for sins.

It’s illegal according to God’s law.

God made it clear that each person could redeem themselves by repenting and keeping the law.

It’s also not a “free” offer or gift.

Various affirmative actions must be taken in order to qualify for the “free” gift.

 

 

I have shown the flaw in your first assertion. Your second assertion, that man can redeem himself by the keeping of the Law is also false. Paul made this clear in Gal. 3:11, "Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”

As for your claim about it not being a free gift, please consider what Paul said, "But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ." (Rom. 5:15-17) And again here, For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 6:23) As I count, that is six times Paul called it a free gift.

In regard to your last claim that certain actions are required, here is what Paul also said, "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" (Rom. 4:4-5)

Could I suggest that you simply reread Romans? I think it would clear up many of your misconceptions.

 

This is standard Christian mythology that replaces the rules set down in the Old Testament.

However, Jesus was not sinless.

Jesus also sinned and rebelled against God.

Nor can Jesus save anyone.

Salvation according to God's word in the OT doesn't have anything to do with believing in an invalid human sin sacrifice covering your sins with his blood.

Such a sacrifice isn't even legal according to God's standards.

 

 

Where do you find that Jesus sinned? Please quote chapter and verse to back your claim. This is what the Bible says, "This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:11-12)

Here is what it says about Abraham, "And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness." (Gen. 15:6) Abraham live 400 years before Moses received the Law and David lived after the giving of the Law, but here is what it says about him, " just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works" (Rom. 4:6). Here is what Paul said about the Law, "Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”" (Gal. 3:11) Please use evidence to back your claims.

 

Propaganda isn't reality, no matter how many times you preach it.

 

Apparently, it is you who has to give evidence that your claims are more than mere propaganda. I have shown that they certainly don't align with the Scriptures.

 

LNC

[Snakefoot]

Propaganda isn't reality, no matter how many times you preach it.

 

Apparently, it is you who has to give evidence that your claims are more than mere propaganda. I have shown that they certainly don't align with the Scriptures.

 

LNC

 

And "scriptures" don't align with reality, so whatever they say is meaningless and irrelevant.

[Ouroboros]

And "scriptures" don't align with reality, so whatever they say is meaningless and irrelevant.

What's even worse, scripture doesn't align with scripture.

[Mister Pappy]

I went back through the trail of postings. No one claimed to not understand the gospel. The only place he could have gotten that notion from is the delusional dreamland of preconceived notions and prejudices about non-believers. He may have taken it upon himself to (ahem!) "correct" what he thinks is flawed ideas about the gospel, but I don't see anything in this thread that indicates that a person claimed not to know or understand the gospel. I don't know where LNC could have gotten that idea, other than trying to make himself look less condescending and prejudiced.

You are dead on accurate OB. LNC, the word mechanic that he is, has implied that "someone" made a claim "not to understand the gospels", simply because he disagrees with their understanding of the gospels. He continues to show his dishonesty with increasing diligence and has lost all credibility from my perspective. Not only that, but he has purposely ignored the invitation to debate with Bob in a formal setting. It is obvious why he would refuse such an offer, but the appropriate action after such a refusal, would be to pack his Bible and go home. He has all but admitted that he cannot deal with focused analysis. What more could he have to say now?

 

And that's all you've boiled down to, just throwing bible verses at us and questioning our level of faith in our old belief. Anyone else seeing this LNC's way? I'll cop to it if so.

You have nailed it in a nutshell BDP, and this is the typical leap that all Christians must make at some point in their argument. Some are able to do it with more deception than others, but they all play the bait and switch game somewhere along the way. There really is no other alternative for them.

[Mister Pappy]

You would be less impressed if you saw how slowly I think on my feet face to face. Funny how compartmentalized ability is sometimes. Anyway, thanks for your kind words, Pappy. I know we all appreciate and enjoy your contributions here too.

Thanks Bob - your honest humility makes the eloquence of your writing all the more consumable.

[centauri]

centauri:

The law did not stipulate that you had to lead a perfect life.

If it did, there would be no statutes in the law for atonement.

Jesus did not lead a perfect life.

He violated the law by undermining parts of it.

 

LNC:

Really? Then what was atonement for if not to take away sins (imperfection of one's life in relationship to the Law) and restore relationship with God? Can you give some backing for your claim about Jesus? Where do you get the idea that he undermined the Law. Please quote chapter and verse.

Imperfection in life was acknowledged by the very existence of the atonement provisions used to reconcile imperfect behavior.

If a life of perfection was required by the law, then there would be no need for atonement.

You do not have to lead a perfect life according to the law because the law itself contains provisions to deal with imperfect behavior.

Jesus undermined the law in Mark 7:18-19, where he called into question the dietary restrictions laid down in Lev 11, which claims that all foods are not clean.

Undermining the law is a violation of God’s instructions to his people given in Deut 4:2.

 

The Bible says God’s works are perfect.

A perfect work cannot “fall”, rebel, or perform an imperfect action.

 

LNC:

There is no logical reason that something created perfect could not become imperfect. You are confusing perfection as a necessary property (as with God) with perfection as a contingent property (as with man). God cannot violate his perfect nature as it is a necessary property (cannot be otherwise) whereas, man can violate his nature which was created perfect but is contingent (could have been otherwise) via his free will.

 

As soon as it performs an imperfect action, it shows that it wasn’t made perfect.

Logically, if something is created perfect then it is without flaw.

As soon as it becomes flawed, it demonstrates that it wasn’t created perfect to begin with.

A perfect being cannot perform an imperfect action.

 

God’s works are perfect, which means without flaw.

Free will is an over hyped myth, which is undermined by numerous scriptures in the Bible.

And regardless of how much “free will” you think exists, a perfect being cannot make an imperfect decision.

As soon as it does, it demonstrates that it wasn’t made perfect to begin with.

 

And you’ve preached the same faulty claims over and over again.

The free will myth is one of them.

The Bible undermines that claim in many verses.

A perfect work cannot make an imperfect decision, regardless of how much “free will” you think it has.

As soon as it performs an imperfect action, it shows that it wasn’t made perfect in the first place.

 

LNC:

Are you claiming that man does not have free will? I will expect that you can back up this claim from the Bible since you claim that it teaches such. I have answered your logical flaw above and will not repeat it here.

You own the flaw in logic here.

This has been addressed over and over, and Christians like you just keep coming back with the same old preaching points.

But I understand, it’s your job to keep pumping Christian talking points regardless of how many times they’ve been addressed.

So…now we’ll do it all over again.

Free will is undermined in Exo 4:21, Deut 2:30, Rom 8, Rom 9, Eph 1:4-5-11

A God that predestines and manipulates human behavior is not compatible with claims of universal “free will”.

[centauri]

centauri:

It fulfilled no such thing.

There is no provision in the law for a human to serve as a sin sacrifice.

It’s illegal according to God’s law.

 

LNC:

Again, please quote chapter and verse in support of your assertion.

So again, you make assertions that don't square with Scripture and have not backing beyond your word.

The regulations for animal sin sacrifices are laid down in the Book of Leviticus, specifically in chapter 4.

Rather than my pasting the whole chapter as support that humans are not valid sin sacrifices, all you need to do is show me where Lev 4 does include humans as valid animal sacrifices for sin.

You’ve denied what the law says and haven’t provided proof from the law to the contrary.

 

centauri:

There is no need for a human sacrifice to pay for sins.

It’s illegal according to God’s law.

God made it clear that each person could redeem themselves by repenting and keeping the law.

It’s also not a “free” offer or gift.

Various affirmative actions must be taken in order to qualify for the “free” gift.

 

LNC:

I have shown the flaw in your first assertion. Your second assertion, that man can redeem himself by the keeping of the Law is also false. Paul made this clear in Gal. 3:11, "Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”

As for your claim about it not being a free gift, please consider what Paul said, "But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ." (Rom. 5:15-17) And again here, For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 6:23) As I count, that is six times Paul called it a free gift.

In regard to your last claim that certain actions are required, here is what Paul also said, "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" (Rom. 4:4-5)

Could I suggest that you simply reread Romans? I think it would clear up many of your misconceptions.

You have shown nothing of the sort.

You own the flaws here, because you deny any scripture that runs counter to your theological propaganda.

Ezek 18:20-27 shows your flaw quite clearly.

There is no need for a human sacrifice to pay for your sins.

Your second assertion, that man cannot redeem himself by keeping the Law is soundly refuted by Ezek 18:20-27 as well.

The Hebrew scriptures show Paul to be a liar, and you’ve chosen to worship his heretical theological whims.

Uh huh…because Paul said "free gift" six times it must be true.

Paul was a liar and an apostate.

Just because a liar says something six times doesn’t make it true.

Christian salvation requires many things, including belief, repenting, public confession, water baptism, maintaining belief, and the performance of some good works.

If you don’t perform the tasks, you don’t get the gift.

Truly free gifts require nothing in return.

Yes, I have a terrible misconception that “free gifts” aren’t free when they are in fact conditional, based on the performance of certain affirmative actions.

If actions are required to receive the gift, then it isn’t free, it’s based on proper performance.

Free means without charge.

Christian salvation is not a free gift when it requires a proper set of responses in order to receive the gift.

It’s actually a barter exchange, where salvation is exchanged for worship and works.

 

 

centauri:

This is standard Christian mythology that replaces the rules set down in the Old Testament.

However, Jesus was not sinless.

Jesus also sinned and rebelled against God.

Nor can Jesus save anyone.

Salvation according to God's word in the OT doesn't have anything to do with believing in an invalid human sin sacrifice covering your sins with his blood.

Such a sacrifice isn't even legal according to God's standards.

 

LNC:

Where do you find that Jesus sinned? Please quote chapter and verse to back your claim. This is what the Bible says, "This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:11-12)

Here is what it says about Abraham, "And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness." (Gen. 15:6) Abraham live 400 years before Moses received the Law and David lived after the giving of the Law, but here is what it says about him, " just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works" (Rom. 4:6). Here is what Paul said about the Law, "Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”" (Gal. 3:11) Please use evidence to back your claims.

Already covered this in Mark 7:18-19, where Jesus undermined the dietary law in Lev 11.

All foods are not clean as Jesus, and later Paul, taught.

Show me from the Hebrew scriptures where God voided the regulations in Lev 11.

There is no salvation in Jesus, as Jesus is not God’s name.

Show me where God included humans as valid sin sacrifices in Lev 4, or anywhere else in the law as handed down by Moses.

Paul conveniently ignored that Abraham was justified by keeping the commands, which included laws, of God, and not by faith alone. (Gen 26:4-5)

Paul denies that people can be justified by the law because it interferes with his new religion.

Ezek 18:20-27 refutes Paul in no uncertain manner.

A person saves themselves by repenting and keeping the law.

Paul makes Yahweh/Jehovah out to be a liar.

 

 

centauri:

Propaganda isn't reality, no matter how many times you preach it.

 

LNC:

Apparently, it is you who has to give evidence that your claims are more than mere propaganda. I have shown that they certainly don't align with the Scriptures.

You’ve certainly shown nothing of the sort because you only selectively cite the Bible as evidence for your pet doctrines.

You even contradict what the New Testament says in relation to “free will”.

The New Testament contradicts the Hebrew scriptures, which the last time I looked, are part of the Holy Bible.

You don’t line align with the teachings from “God” that existed long before Christianity came along and usurped them in favor of a new religion.

I’ve given plenty of evidence over the past few years here, which you repeatedly deny and ignore.

Again, I understand why you do this because your mission is to preach Christian talking points.

That’s what this is really all about, you pumping the same old propaganda over and over, playing your game of robo-preaching.

[Deva]

...Just because a liar says something six times doesn’t make it true.

Christian salvation requires many things, including belief, repenting, public confession, water baptism, maintaining belief, and the performance of some good works.

If you don’t perform the tasks, you don’t get the gift.

Truly free gifts require nothing in return.

Yes, I have a terrible misconception that “free gifts” aren’t free when they are in fact conditional, based on the performance of certain affirmative actions.

If actions are required to receive the gift, then it isn’t free, it’s based on proper performance.

Free means without charge.

Christian salvation is not a free gift when it requires a proper set of responses in order to receive the gift.

It’s actually a barter exchange, where salvation is exchanged for worship and works.

 

 

Excellent, centauri. It amounts to some kind of severe intellectual block that Christians can't see the fact that this "free gift" isn't free. Seems self evident to us.

[LNC]

Technically the part that is supposed to save is not Jesus' death and resurrection as such, but the fact that he took upon himself the wrath of God -- it's always depicted as a transaction, using words translated like "reckoned" or "imputed": God treats innocent Jesus as if he were guilty, and therefore can transfer Jesus' innocence to, in theory, were they all to accept it, all of humanity.

 

If this infusion of innocence were able to handle the entire human race, past present and future, why artificially limit it to those who hear about, comprehend, and accept the offer? The answer is usually couched in terms of respect for our free will -- believe it or not, god is actually being courteous!

 

But is he? Suppose that one of those Hollywood movie scenarios were playing out, and all of humanity were being wiped out or turned to zombies or whatever by some super virus. I develop an antidote that is capable of 100% protecting (or if need be, curing) everyone who receives it. It could be delivered in drinking water, dispersed in the air, but I'm very concerned about being disrespectful of people's autonomy, so instead I set up inoculation centers and start an ad campaign that says, "Drink the Kool-Aid! For Bob so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten vaccine, that whosoever drinketh of it shall not become a zombie, but shall live a normal life!" All people would have to do is ask for it by saying a little prayer to me.

 

Of course some people, inexplicably, would be suspicious of the offer ... some would never get the message, or it would be unavailable in their obscure dialect ... others would misunderstand or have their own brand of Kool-Aid to market. Even in this scenario where the Kool-Aid is at least empirically verifiable and not just a concept being hawked, would it not be self-centered and foolish of me -- indeed, downright evil -- to set up this bizarro scheme instead of just getting it out there for everyone ASAP? Could I really claim to care about people and love them and not want to see them suffer if I did not act with the urgency appropriate to my claim that I am "not willing that any should perish"? Could anyone claim with a straight face that this was a moral scheme?

 

It gets even more monstrous if you consider that the message of the gospel went into the world thousands of years after the first sinner fell short of the glory of god (there are complex tap dances about this, where the pre-resurrection faithful get to accept the sacrifice of the Messiah retroactively, but it feels like a bolted-on fix to me) and also, the gospel went into the world at a time where the vast majority of the populace was functionally or totally illiterate, where the only source of this crucial information would have been first hand experience, word of mouth, or a few tattered manuscripts -- the fact is, most of humanity, for most of human history, have not had the printing press, much less mass media and the Internet and the other trappings of the information age, so the fact that the gospel message existed was ineffectual and beside the point for most of the human race anyway.

 

No, inserting a requirement for a personal acceptance ritual is immoral on its face. Maybe a little less so in the 21st century, but not by much. If god so loved the world, let him act loving. Put up or shut up.

 

If God was to offer you the opportunity to spend eternity with him in his presence, would you take him up on it?

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

If God was to offer you the opportunity to spend eternity with him in his presence, would you take him up on it?

I know your question was to DesertBob, but I wonder...

 

Which God? What's the catch to the offer? How would God go about offering his deal? Through prophets or directly to the person?

 

Also, if God is nontemporal, how can someone spend an "eternity" with him? Eternity suggests a sequence of time, which wouldn't apply in a nontemporal state.

[Snakefoot]

If God was to offer you the opportunity to spend eternity with him in his presence, would you take him up on it?

I know your question was to DesertBob, but I wonder...

 

Which God? What's the catch to the offer? How would God go about offering his deal? Through prophets or directly to the person?

 

Also, if God is nontemporal, how can someone spend an "eternity" with him? Eternity suggests a sequence of time, which wouldn't apply in a nontemporal state.

I had similar thoughts: "Eternity" doing what? Kissing your ass? No thanks. Better to rule in hell, and all that.

[Ouroboros]

I had similar thoughts: "Eternity" doing what? Kissing your ass? No thanks. Better to rule in hell, and all that.

That too. Too much of something makes it meaningless. An infinite amount of time becomes a drag eventually.

 

Even though my concern was more philosophical. The assumption is that God is outside of time, non-temporal, and how the heck does that work together with experiencing an "eternity"? There's no "eternity" where there's no time. I can't see it at least. It's like saying that there is an infinite number of pickles in an empty barrel.

 

It reminds me of The Whitest Kids You Know skit about "Hell's Kitchen."

 

 

People in Hell get so used to the disgusting food to the point that it has no effect. And Satan decides to serve good food instead.

[Mister Pappy]

If God was to offer you the opportunity to spend eternity with him in his presence, would you take him up on it?

If you are referring to the petty, angry, malicious, jealous, thieving, lying, barbaric, homophobic, egomaniacal, genocidal, overly-sensitive, disease-inflicting, child-raping, baby-bashing, slave-keeper that the Christian church worships as a deity, the answer is not just no but HELL NO. I wouldn't spend one second in the presence of such a monster.

[LNC]

You think that because god created the world, he is entitled to make rules that his creations can't follow, so that he can burn them in hell?

 

Sure, why wouldn't he? If I buy or build something, then I have the right to do with that item as I please. I can use it for its intended purpose or use it in a manner other than what its intended use. It is mine to do with as I please. Can you give me a reason why God cannot do with his creation as he pleases and a justification for that belief?

 

If 'god' was an all powerful, all knowing, Rottweiler named Virgil, who created the universe, and decided that his creation (us) would be subject to a rule that said "If my creation doesn't learn how to fly by flapping their arms, and perform this feat every tuesday at four am, they will burn in hell for eternity" that would be okay by you?

 

First, that wouldn't be God by the standard definition of God (a perfect being). Second, if this being was all powerful and all knowing, what choice would we have but to do as it wished or choose to suffer the consequences? The choice would be up to me as to whether I thought that standard was too burdensome. Interestingly enough, the God of the universe doesn't impose such a standard draconian standards on us. He simply asks us to trust in him. It is he that took on the draconian punishment on himself on our behalf. However, even after doing all of that for us and simply asking us to trust him, people choose to go to hell instead. Why is that?

 

That god is allowed to create rules that are specifically designed to be unfollowable for his creation, so he can use that as an excuse to burn them in hell for eternity for a minor infraction, is truly sick. I don't know how you sleep at night. You are just trying to rationalise something that is obviously horrible by making excuses for your god's disgusting behaviour. I don't know what's worse, you or him. Really, look back at what you wrote, and replace "god" with "Zeus" and maybe you'll see how messed up that is.

 

Why is trusting in Jesus a standard that is too hard to follow? Again, the rules were to show us our need for him, which is why they are the way they are. God never meant for us to get to be saved by keeping the Law perfectly. He meant for us to be saved by trusting in him. That goes all the way back to Adam. Also, no one goes to hell for minor infractions. There has never been a human who has only committed minor infractions. God and Zeus are of different natures. God is a reality while Zeus is a Greek myth. The reason that you think that the Law is horrible is simply because you misunderstand its purpose.

 

God didn't make people sin? Come on, god INVENTED sin. He is the creator of the universe, who engineered every human being knowing beforehand exactly what every action and thought would be that they performed throughout their lives. He was in total control. You have the illusion of freewill, but if you believe that god is the all knowing, all powerful creator of the universe, there can be no free will, because every action is predetermined. OTherwise, god would not have made us like that. He would have made us differently so that we didn't perform those actions.

 

Did the U.S. Congress invent crime? I mean, they write the laws, so surely they are guilty when every crime is committed. If they hadn't have written the Laws, there would be no crimes being committed. So, by your reasoning, Congress invented crime in the U.S.

 

Actually, your reasoning is flawed. God didn't make people sin, he made people free creatures with the choice to live according to the Law or according to desires that are opposed to the Law. We can either love and serve him, or we can rebel against him. You confuse the ideas of omniscience with determinism. Just because God knows the future, doesn't mean that he determines every event in the future. There is simply no logical reason why there cannot coexist free will and God's foreknowledge of future events.

 

You seem not to believe that free will exists. Does that mean that your posting of this message was determined by God? Do you believe that you could have chosen not to post this message or that you could have chosen other words to write? It seems strange that you ask how I sleep at night as if I could choose my beliefs otherwise, but also seem to think that we are completely determined beings. I am curious how you resolve this dilemma?

 

God put that tree in the garden of eden in the first place. WHY did he do that? WHY was it necessary? If he didn't want to burn us all in hell, he would not have placed that tree there. It was totally unnecessary. It would be like digging a big hole and filling it with battery acid at a daycare centre and then telling little children not to go near the big hole. Do you have kids? Would you do that to your kids? Deliberately place something so unbelievably dangerous near them, and then tell them not to touch it? If a human being did that, it would be abhorrent. If god does something like that (placing the tree in the Garden of Eden) you just brush it off with "Oh, it's god's creation, he can make whatever rules he likes."

 

Would you prefer that we live in a universe that has no rules, no morality or do you like having rules like don't murder, don't steal, etc? The tree, although a reality, represented the fact that even given a simple standard to keep, man rebelled against it. However, it was not the only standard that Adam and Eve had. They were told to keep the garden, they were told to tend to the animals, they were told to help each other. Eventually, if it wasn't the fruit from the tree, it would have been some other standard that was challenged. The other option is as you seem to believe, that we become God's automotons, glorified robots that do whatever God programs us to do. However, that was not of interest to God as he desired his creation to have a personal relationship with us and, as complex as machines can get or will get in the future, we will not have real personal relationships with them.

 

I do have two kids whom my wife and I adopted. We chose to bring them into our family with the foreknowledge that they would disobey us and potentially reject us at some point in the future (it is not uncommon for adopted kids to abandon their adoptive parents), yet, we still chose to bring them into our family. They have disobeyed us and even said hateful things to us, yet, we still love them and desire to have relationship with them. We have rules for our kids, which is not an evil thing, but instead, a loving thing for them. Rules are not meant to be evil, but loving. God's rule for them not to eat from that tree was also loving in that they had the knowledge of good, but lacked the knowledge of evil. By choosing to eat from that tree they acquired that part of knowledge that they lacked. However, I wish that they would have chosen otherwise as I wish that I would do when I choose evil.

 

God is supposed to be the most powerful being in the universe, endowed with qualities we can only dream of. Yet you compare him to a cranky monarch who executes people for rebelling against him. If god really was all he was cracked up to be, the minor rebellion (if that's waht you call failing to uphold laws which you yourself admit only jesus, who was part god, was capable of following) of an individual would be nothing to him. He wouldn't care. Jesus, I don't like it when my rabbit chews holes in things, but I don't burn her to death in a ten gallon drum in the backyard to punish her. I just accept that she is a rabbit, who is incapable of realising what she is doing, and treat her accordingly. You can't punish something or someone for doing something that is a natural impulse (like breathing). And why eternal punishment? Hell is not rehabilitiative. It is not to make us 'better' people. It is just to punish us forever for some minor infraction. God doesn't want what's best for us, for us to grow and mature, and become closer to him. He wants us to burn in hell. His behaviour demonstrates this.

 

Your god created human beings, but expects them to act like gods, with godlike abilities. You yourself admit this by your admission that only jesus was able to follow those laws. He has unreasonable expectations of creation he knows will be unable to follow those laws. Being the all powerful, all knowing creator of the universe, he knew we'd be unable to follow those laws, but created and enforced them anyway, because he actually WANTS to send people to hell. If he didn't, he wouldn't send people to hell. Belief in jesus as to help you avoid this horrible torture is a fickle afterthought, relying on something (belief) you have very little control over. DOn't believe me? Great, try believing in Santa Claus for five minutes. Once you know it's bullshit, you CAN'T believe in jesus, just like you can't believe in Santa Claus.

 

Your god created an obviously rigged game, with unrealistic expectations of his creation. He then punishes them for not being able to follow rules that only someone who is part god can follow. Then he creates an 'out', which is based on something uncontrollable, like belief. I can't choose to believe in something, no matter how much I want to. I can't choose to believe in Santa Claus, and I can't choose to believe in jesus. I just don't believe. I wanted to believe, and tried everything I could to make myself believe, but it doesn't work that way. There is no control over belief.

 

Don't come here and tell us that god rigged the game in our favour, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, which I have just outlined. You are turning things in knots to try to support your position, and asserting that if god made the universe, he gets to make the rules does NOT absolve him of guilt if the rules he made were blatantly unfair and designed to harm others. It does not change the fact that the rules your god made are inherently unfair and designed for us to fail.

 

The part of the story that you leave out is that we have the freedom to choose and God is completely just in his condemnation of rebellious sinners (which you underplay), yet, God has sent his own son to die in our place, to pay the penalty that we owed, not him, and gives us the free gift of forgiveness if we will simply trust in him. It is not a hard standard and many still choose to reject it and go to hell rather than to accept the gift and spend eternity with him. The truth is that many don't want to spend eternity with God, so what should God do, force them? That wouldn't be loving or fair.

 

God doesn't expect us to act like gods, he simply asks us to trust in the one true God. You have simply focused on the rules rather than the relationship. When my kids do that they get angry with me. I have to remind them that when I correct them I am not punishing them, but trying to help them to be in right relationship with me and the rest of the family. It is a hard concept for them to grasp, but it is worth working through. They need to obey the rules of the house, but when they break them, they get mad at the rule rather than realizing that the rules are good and meant to help them, it is their hearts and minds that rebel and need to be changed. However, that rebellion brings division in the family and that is the place where I start with them in reconciling them in relationship, then talking about the reason that they broke the rule.

 

You are focused on the rules and not the relationship with God. The rules are for our good, but God knows that we cannot keep them perfectly, that is why he sent Jesus to restore relationship and to take the punishment that we deserved in restoring that relationship.

 

LNC

[LNC]

nothing will save those who choose to reject Jesus.

This assumption comes up all too often. Now, stop and consider . . .

 

I doubt that anyone here, or anyone who is not a Christian, has "chosen to reject Jesus." That assumes we have the ability to believe the story in the first place and then have the will to reject what we know to be true. That is not the case.

 

We cannot "reject" something that doesn't exist. I can no more "reject" Jesus than you can "reject" Zeus.

 

There is too much evidence for Jesus' existence to conclude otherwise. Even the Jesus Seminar people didn't question Jesus' existence. So, by claiming that Jesus didn't exist, you are either being willfully uninformed, or you have rejected the overwhelming evidence for Jesus' existence. Either way, you have made a choice and that choice will, in the case that the evidence bears out, have consequences.

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

There is too much evidence for Jesus' existence to conclude otherwise. Even the Jesus Seminar people didn't question Jesus' existence. So, by claiming that Jesus didn't exist, you are either being willfully uninformed, or you have rejected the overwhelming evidence for Jesus' existence. Either way, you have made a choice and that choice will, in the case that the evidence bears out, have consequences.

 

LNC

There's more evidence for Evolution.

[Legion]

There's more evidence for Evolution.

You capitalized the word evolution Hans.

[LNC]

Jesus said that people stand condemned because they have not believed in him (John3:18).

 

You said the bible does not say or indicate that a person is condemned for not believing in him.

 

The character Jesus contradicts you word for word (". . . because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son").

 

Your quote of D.A. Carson is extraneous and irrelevant. It does not deal with the "because. . ." phrase used by the character Jesus in John 3:18.

 

So, you have demonstrated nothing. You are still calling an infidel meme that which the Jesus of the fourth gospel affirms word for word. You are refusing to deal with the fact that the Jesus of John's gospel directly contradicts your theological biases.

 

If you read closely, they are already condemned and by not trusting in Jesus they remained in that state or condition. It says, they are condemned already (John 3:18). Carson's quote says, "Already in need of a Savior before God's Son comes on his saving mission, the person compounds his or her guilt by not believing in the name of that Son." They were condemned before Jesus came, otherwise, why send Jesus? If the people were simply condemned for not believing in Jesus as you claim, then sending Jesus was unnecessary. That doesn't make logical sense or fit with the totality of the Bible. You have not refuted the infidel meme claim, you have merely reinforced it. John's depiction of Jesus supports this understanding completely, even if we limit our understanding to chapter 3. There is no contradiction whatsoever as I have shown time and again.

LNC

[Ouroboros]

There's more evidence for Evolution.

You capitalized the word evolution Hans.

Yes. I do that sometimes.

 

Evolution is the only begotten son of Nature. And Reality is the holy spirit.

[Antlerman]

There's more evidence for Evolution.

You capitalized the word evolution Hans.

Yes. I do that sometimes.

 

Evolution is the only begotten son of Nature. And Reality is the holy spirit.

Actually nature is the begotten son of Evolution. Get your myths straight or you'll go to hell.