Your God Is Too Small

[♦ ficino ♦]

sdelsolray did not bring up, or made known, what he read as logical fallacies in the book.

He only stated it contained these fallacies. 

 [snip]

 

And then I asked:

Can you elaborate on one?

 

I'm willing to discuss.

Quoted by IH from Phillips, above:

 

"but it is surely more fitting as well as more sensible for us to study what God does do and what He does not do as He works in and through the complex fabric of this disintegrated world ..."

 

The people whom Phillips is attacking are declining to believe in Phillips' God because they observe that the things the NT promises about that God do not occur. So they reasonably doubt that said God exists or, at least, that said God is as represented in the NT.

 

Phillips' rejoinder simply begs the question. The question to be confronted is, does the God of the Bible exist? Phillips assumes that this God exists and then goes on to tell us that the more fitting and sensible course is to study what this God does.

 

As I've said before, it's circular reasoning all the way down. That is fallacy #1. One fallacy is sufficient to undermine the soundness of Phillips' argument.

[ironhorse]

 

sdelsolray did not bring up, or made known, what he read as logical fallacies in the book.

He only stated it contained these fallacies. 

 [snip]

 

And then I asked:

Can you elaborate on one?

 

I'm willing to discuss.

Quoted by IH from Phillips, above:

 

"but it is surely more fitting as well as more sensible for us to study what God does do and what He does not do as He works in and through the complex fabric of this disintegrated world ..."

 

The people whom Phillips is attacking are declining to believe in Phillips' God because they observe that the things the NT promises about that God do not occur. So they reasonably doubt that said God exists or, at least, that said God is as represented in the NT.

 

Phillips' rejoinder simply begs the question. The question to be confronted is, does the God of the Bible exist? Phillips assumes that this God exists and then goes on to tell us that the more fitting and sensible course is to study what this God does.

 

As I've said before, it's circular reasoning all the way down. That is fallacy #1. One fallacy is sufficient to undermine the soundness of Phillips' argument.

 

 

 

The people whom Phillips is attacking are declining to believe in Phillips' God because they observe that the things the NT promises about that God do not occur. So they reasonably doubt that said God exists or, at least, that said God is as represented in the NT.

Phillips' rejoinder simply begs the question.

 

 

I disagree. Phillips is not attacking anyone. The book is not about the promises of God or doubting the existence of God.

 

It is about misconceptions of God. The "small" images of God people have formed.

 

"It is the purpose of this book to attempt two things: first to expose the

inadequate conceptions of God which still linger unconsciously in many minds,

and which prevent our catching a glimpse of the true God; and secondly to

suggest ways in which we can find the real God for ourselves."

 

 

 Phillips assumes that this God exists and then goes on to tell us that the more fitting and sensible course is to study what this God does.

 

Again, the book is about perceptions of God. It is not about what God does. 

[pratt]

oh fuck yeah

[bornagainathiest]

Should the members of this forum and the lurkers take what Ironhorse writes seriously?

 

If he is... 'woefully inadequate in a lot of things' (his own words) ...this admission must be weighed in the context of what we know about him.

He's told us that he had access to his parents library of books, that he was encouraged to read by them, encouraged to question by them and that he's always tried to seek out the truth of things.  So, despite having a considerable resource of knowledge and learning at his immediate disposal while he was growing up and despite having supportive and learned parents and despite having had access to the internet for the past few decades and despite his claim to be a reader, why is it that his understanding of scientific matters is so woefully inadequate? 

 

As demonstrated here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/72329-some-notes-about-me/page-3#.VzXLP_krJD8(post # 50) ...where he claims to agree with Big Bang cosmology, but doesn't understand why it can't be reconciled with the Christian belief system.  Where he doesn't understand the purpose, function and limits of science and the scientific method.  Where he confuses Abiogenesis with Evolution and where he appears to have no knowledge of transitional forms from the fossil record, despite the fact that even a quick search on the Internet will reveal a great deal of information about them.

 

If he is... 'utterly incapable' (his own words again) ...then all of the above factors in his favor won't make any difference.

His parents library, his desire to seek out the truth, his declaration of being a reader and his access to the full resources of the Internet would all be wasted on him.  He would be utterly incapable of performing a skeptical appraisal of the Bible, utterly incapable of identifying formal and informal logical fallacies and utterly incapable of framing coherent arguments for why his beliefs should be taken seriously.  Despite having an inner urge to seek the truth he would utterly incapable of acting practically upon that urge and equally utterly incapable of communicating his findings to anyone.

 

Please note that in this post I have given Ironhorse the benefit of the doubt and assumed that he's always been completely honest with us, has never ducked an issue and has always answered every single one of our questions.  However, even if he has a perfect track-record in his dealings with us, should we take what he writes seriously?  The answer is 'Yes' if we are prepared to overlook his woeful inadequacy and/or his utter incapability.  But if we are not prepared to overlook these things, then our answer must be 'No'.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[sdelsolray]

 

sdelsolray did not bring up, or made known, what he read as logical fallacies in the book.

He only stated it contained these fallacies. 

 [snip]

 

And then I asked:

Can you elaborate on one?

 

I'm willing to discuss.

Quoted by IH from Phillips, above:

 

"but it is surely more fitting as well as more sensible for us to study what God does do and what He does not do as He works in and through the complex fabric of this disintegrated world ..."

 

The people whom Phillips is attacking are declining to believe in Phillips' God because they observe that the things the NT promises about that God do not occur. So they reasonably doubt that said God exists or, at least, that said God is as represented in the NT.

 

Phillips' rejoinder simply begs the question. The question to be confronted is, does the God of the Bible exist? Phillips assumes that this God exists and then goes on to tell us that the more fitting and sensible course is to study what this God does.

 

As I've said before, it's circular reasoning all the way down. That is fallacy #1. One fallacy is sufficient to undermine the soundness of Phillips' argument.

 

 

 

 

Heck, the first sentence of Phillip's paper is a mere assertion/false premise with an implied strawman (which is attacked several times later in the paper):

 

"No one is ever really at ease in facing what we call “life” and “death” without a religious faith."

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

sdelsolray did not bring up, or made known, what he read as logical fallacies in the book.

He only stated it contained these fallacies. 

 [snip]

 

And then I asked:

Can you elaborate on one?

 

I'm willing to discuss.

Quoted by IH from Phillips, above:

 

"but it is surely more fitting as well as more sensible for us to study what God does do and what He does not do as He works in and through the complex fabric of this disintegrated world ..."

 

The people whom Phillips is attacking are declining to believe in Phillips' God because they observe that the things the NT promises about that God do not occur. So they reasonably doubt that said God exists or, at least, that said God is as represented in the NT.

 

Phillips' rejoinder simply begs the question. The question to be confronted is, does the God of the Bible exist? Phillips assumes that this God exists and then goes on to tell us that the more fitting and sensible course is to study what this God does.

 

As I've said before, it's circular reasoning all the way down. That is fallacy #1. One fallacy is sufficient to undermine the soundness of Phillips' argument.

 

 

 

The people whom Phillips is attacking are declining to believe in Phillips' God because they observe that the things the NT promises about that God do not occur. So they reasonably doubt that said God exists or, at least, that said God is as represented in the NT.

Phillips' rejoinder simply begs the question.

 

 

I disagree. Phillips is not attacking anyone. The book is not about the promises of God or doubting the existence of God.

 

It is about misconceptions of God. The "small" images of God people have formed.

 

"It is the purpose of this book to attempt two things: first to expose the

inadequate conceptions of God which still linger unconsciously in many minds,

and which prevent our catching a glimpse of the true God; and secondly to

suggest ways in which we can find the real God for ourselves."

 

 

 Phillips assumes that this God exists and then goes on to tell us that the more fitting and sensible course is to study what this God does.

 

Again, the book is about perceptions of God. It is not about what God does.

 

I'm not going to read the stinking book. But from the quotations you have provided, your assertion above is proved false. Phillips' book is NOT simply about people's perceptions of God. Sociology of religion or something would be its focus if it were that. Your own quotations have Phillips talking about what God does: it is sensible for us to study what God does, blah blah. Then in the very quotation you just gave, Phillips talks about "finding the real God for ourselves." So what I said holds. Phillips assumes that Biblegod exists and goes from there.

 

If he disagrees with someone else's position, he attacks that person for that position. That's what you do in argument. So don't try to fudge words and say Phillips isn't attacking anyone.

 

I don't know why I was so stupid as not to listen to BAA. I'm done with the troll.

[bornagainathiest]

Well, Ficino may be done with the troll Ironhorse, but I have some time to kill, so I'll bite.

J.B. Phillips' second sentence.  "The trouble with many people today is that they have not found a God big enough for modern needs."   Ok, so for Phillips' God to be big enough to satisfy the needs of modern cosmological science he'd have to be equal to the following scenario.  

 

The Big Bang isn't a one-off event but appears to be part of an on-going process known as Inflation.

Inflation originates with space inflating exponentially and superluminally (faster than the speed of light) from a quantum-sized region.  However, the energy field powering inflation is inherently unstable. So after 60 to 100 doublings of the volume of space, that energy field explosively decays into what we observe as the Hot Big Bang.  Regions of space-time with typically a thousand times the volume of our observable universe drop out of the inflationary process and then experience their own hot Big Bangs.  But the inflationary process itself carries on inflating other volumes of space-time in an exponentially-accelerating and never-ending fashion.  Like our own region, these volumes also drop out of the inflationary process when their inflating energy field becomes unstable and decays. Once begun, the inflationary process never ends and continues to inflate regions like our universe in an ever-accelerating flood of universe creation.  The overall term used in cosmology for the zillions and zillions of universes that inflation creates is the... Multiverse.

 

In cosmology, the Copernican Principle explicitly requires that no observed physical phenomenon (like inflation or it's product, the Multiverse) can be taken to be unique to any particular location, like here on Earth.  All physical phenomena are assumed to be the observable in the same way for all observers, no matter their location within the Multiverse.  (The status of all observers is relative to each other and not absolute.)  Therefore, the inflationary process cannot be assumed to have begun 13.7 billion years ago, in our particular region of space.  All we can reasonably say is that the inflationary process must been running for at least 13.7 billion years.  We can also reasonably assume that the inflationary process has actually been running much, much longer than that.  But how long, we cannot know and can probably never know.

 

It's impossible to compute, calculate or even estimate the number of universes created by inflation, for the following reason.

To do that we'd have to know how long the inflationary process has been running.  If we knew that then we could multiply the number of universes it creates by the exponential rate at which it creates them, yielding the true number of universes created up to that moment.  But since the Copernican Principle requires us to assume that our universe wasn't the very first one created, we therefore cannot say how long inflation had been running when it created ours.

 

Now let us look at what can happen in any given universe within the Multiverse.

The number of possible ways matter and energy can be organized and arranged is finite and not infinite.  For example, there is no possible way (within a sensible definition of the laws of physics) that a moon can follow a square orbit around a planet.  So a truly infinite number of possible ways in which that moon can complete it's orbit is reasonably, logically and rationally impossible.  The number of possible ways it can orbit it's host planet in elliptical or circular paths is very, very high indeed - but not infinitely so.  Therefore, with the number of moons and planets in the Multiverse being incalculably high and the number of them also doubling at an incalculably high rate, it's inevitable that some moons will orbit their planets in... exactly the same way as others.  

 

Given sufficient time and sufficient opportunity (the Multiverse has no shortage of either) the patterns of moons, planets, stars, galaxies and living things will begin to repeat themselves.

That's because there is a limited (finite) number of ways in which these things can exist.  There will be exact copies of every possible combination of everything and anything.  Including the Earth.  Including you and me.  In a truly infinite Multiverse anything that can possibly happen will happen again and again and again.  Infinitely often, in fact.  Such a Multiverse would be awash with an infinite number of exact duplicates of every part of itself, repeating endlessly into the future.  

 

 

Which means that if J.B. Phillips' God is equal to this scenario, then he'd have to contend with the following.

 

 

1.

An infinite number of past Adams and Eves have already been tempted by an infinite number of Satans in an infinite number of past Edens on an infinite number of past Earths that are identical to this one.

 

2.

An infinite number of present Adams and Eves are currently being tempted by an infinite number of Satans in an infinite number of Edens on an infinite number of Earths that are identical to this one.

 

3.

An infinite number of future Adams and Eves will be tempted in the future by an infinite number of future Satans in an infinite number of future Edens on an infinite number of identical future Earths.

 

 

Which means that...

 

 

4.

An infinite number of Christs have already been crucified an infinite number of times on an infinite number of identical past Earths to deliver an infinite number of past humans from the wages of sin.

 

5. 

An infinite number of Christs are currently being crucified an infinite number of times on an infinite number of identical present Earths to deliver an infinite number of present humans from the wages of sin.

 

6.

An infinite number of future Christs will be crucified an infinite number of times on an infinite number of identical future Earths to deliver their future humans from the wages of sin.

 

 

Which means that...

 

 

7.

Heaven is already populated by an infinite number of identical copies of every person who was saved by Christ's infinitely-repeated sacrifice on an infinite number of crosses.

 

8.

Heaven is currently being populated by an infinite number of identical copies of every person who are currently being saved by Christ's infinitely-repeated sacrifice on an infinite number of crosses.

 

9.

Heaven will be populated by an infinite number of identical copies of every person who will be saved by Christ's infinitely-repeated sacrifice on an infinite number of crosses.

 

 

Which means that...

 

 

10.

J. B. Phillips' God is too small for the inflationary Multiverse of modern cosmology.

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I tip my hat to you, BAA.  You are truly a gentleman, a scholar, and a fine judge of whisky.

[bornagainathiest]

I tip my hat to you, BAA.  You are truly a gentleman, a scholar, and a fine judge of whisky.

 

 

Can't find an emoticon for whisky, so beer'll have to do Prof.  

.

.

.

Btw, apparently St. Augustine argued that life must be unique to Earth.  Or else the crucifixion would have to have occurred on other worlds as well.  Kudos to him for thinking logically about the implications of a truly infinite universe.  

[ironhorse]

 

I tip my hat to you, BAA.  You are truly a gentleman, a scholar, and a fine judge of whisky.

 

 

Can't find an emoticon for whisky, so beer'll have to do Prof.  

.

.

.

Btw, apparently St. Augustine argued that life must be unique to Earth.  Or else the crucifixion would have to have occurred on other worlds as well.  Kudos to him for thinking logically about the implications of a truly infinite universe.  

 

 

 

 

Also, BAA, my complements for your ability to express your thoughts

concerning cosmology and all things science.

 

I would have to read a copy of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity for Dummies a few times to even attempt to go into a detailed discussion on the points you brought up.

 

Our universe might be really, really big — but finite. Or it might be infinitely big. What is the answer? I don’t know.

I do know (from what I have read) that there is disagreement and debate within the physics community on the multiverse hypothesis. Some prominent physicists disagree about whether the multiverse exists. There is also criticism concerning inflation. 

 

Your conclusion:

J. B. Phillips' God is too small for the inflationary Multiverse of modern cosmology.

Is your opinion and your reason for dismissal of Phillip’s book.

 

I just disagree. 

 

 

 

Note: Concerning life must be unique to Earth. As far as humans, I would say yes. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I tip my hat to you, BAA.  You are truly a gentleman, a scholar, and a fine judge of whisky.

 

 

Can't find an emoticon for whisky, so beer'll have to do Prof.  

.

.

.

Btw, apparently St. Augustine argued that life must be unique to Earth.  Or else the crucifixion would have to have occurred on other worlds as well.  Kudos to him for thinking logically about the implications of a truly infinite universe.  

 

 

 

 

Also, BAA, my complements for your ability to express your thoughts

concerning cosmology and all things science.

 

I would have to read a copy of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity for Dummies a few times to even attempt to go into a detailed discussion on the points you brought up.

 

Our universe might be really, really big — but finite. Or it might be infinitely big. What is the answer? I don’t know.

I do know (from what I have read) that there is disagreement and debate within the physics community on the multiverse hypothesis. Some prominent physicists disagree about whether the multiverse exists. There is also criticism concerning inflation. 

 

Your conclusion:

J. B. Phillips' God is too small for the inflationary Multiverse of modern cosmology.

Is your opinion and your reason for dismissal of Phillip’s book.

 

I just disagree. 

 

 

 

Note: Concerning life must be unique to Earth. As far as humans, I would say yes. 

 

 

No Ironhorse.  

 

You are quite wrong.

When two scientists disagree, one doesn't say to the other, "That's just your opinion" and then dismiss what the other is presenting.  That isn't how science works.  Instead they check each others data, each others methods and each others conclusions.  So, if you want to disagree with me, you cannot use the fact that scientists disagree to do so.  There will always be disagreement in scientific circles.  That is how science works.  The only valid way you can counter my argument and my conclusion is if you actually tackle the points I make and demonstrate that they are flawed or false.  Then your disagreement will be valid.  

 

Now, what I described in post # 34 is known as the Infinite Replication Paradox (IPR) and I've used Inflation to achieve it.  

However, I needn't invoke inflation to achieve the IPR.  Even if inflation is wrong, the IPR would still apply in any infinitely-large universe.  And my conclusion would still hold.  Any infinitely-large universe would be too big for J.B. Phillip's God.  For exactly the same reasons I've described earlier.  If you disagree with this conclusion, then it falls to you to dismantle my argument on a point-by-point basis.  Remember!  Relying on disagreement among scientists to give you the dismissal you desire is invalid.

 

Ok, even if you won't tackle my argument - you can still disagree with my conclusion.

But then it must be recorded that you have no reasoned or rational basis for doing so.  You are just disagreeing because it suits you to do so.  

.

.

.

Guess what, Ironhorse?

 

The following sentence of yours is an... opinion.  

 

"Note: Concerning life must be unique to Earth. As far as humans, I would say yes."   

 

And I dismiss it because it is just that.  

 

An opinion unsupported by any facts, data, evidence or logical argument.  

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[ironhorse]

 

“The trouble with people today is that they have not found a god big enough for modern needs.”

 

 

 

 

-It seems to me that people today have found a god big enough for their modern needs. According to modern evangelism, god can and will meet the modern needs of people such as god will heal their finances, marriage, anxieties, drug addiction, answers to life and death etc. etc. etc. the list goes on. 

 

 

 

 

These "modern Christians" you describe are the very ones he mentions in the book.

 

"There are undoubtedly professing Christians with childish conceptions of God which

could not stand up to the winds of real life for five minutes."

 

The "Heath and Wealth" teachings we see today do not stand up to real life experiences.

[ironhorse]

I skimmed through the first 20 pages (will read it more thoroughly later) and I must say this guy is making some sense if one were to accept the premise. As far as I can tell, he's making the case that people shouldn't be all too worried about being "perfect", and instead accept that they're not, which is actually a rather sympathetic view when contrasted with the neurotic OCD-like behaviour many religious people tend to exhibit.

 

 

I totally agree with you on the “OCD-like behaviour many religious people tend to exhibit” concerning not be perfect and committing sins. I agree with Phillips, we should just accept that we are not perfect.

 

The scriptures teach that anyone who say they are without sin is a liar and the truth is not in them.

 

So what about what Jesus said?

 

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.  ~ Matthew 5:48 (KJV)

 

Well, for starters, what was he supposed to say? “Be ye 45 percent perfect or 75 percent?"

 

We are made perfect before God by Christ, not ourselves.

This is what sets us free.

 

There is not a sin a believer can commit that would cause God to cast her or him away.

We will suffer the consequences sin. For example we we drank a case of beer a day and smoked three packs of Lucky Strikes, we would suffer health problems. Our life might even be shortened. This behavior would also trouble our spirit and cause a host of other problems.

 

The scriptures teach the eternal security of the believer. Our salvation is secure in God’s grace, not our good behavior.

 

This does not mean a believer has a license to sin.

 

Why would a believer want to hurt the one they love? We will sin, we will miss the mark of perfection but we will keep pressing on. When we fail, we confess and keep on...

 

Not all believers are at the same point in the road. Some are behind, some ahead.

 

"Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ."

 

~ Ephesians 4:13 (KJV)

[florduh]

They still make Lucky Strikes?

[Jeff]

"There is not a sin a believer can commit that would cause God to cast her or him away." -IH

 

You are just making it up as you go. Sorry but your bible disagrees with you.

IH, you are the author of your own special brand of Christianity with your own special set if rules.

 

It seems funny that you feel the need to hang out here since you don't represent anything more than a cherry picked set of rules that you like. But I'm glad you do. You do as much to help people deconvert as anything we offer them. We all make a good team for the lurkers.

[florduh]

You do as much to help people deconvert as anything we offer them.

 

I know this to be true, and I love the irony.

[ironhorse]

"There is not a sin a believer can commit that would cause God to cast her or him away." -IH

 

You are just making it up as you go. Sorry but your bible disagrees with you.

IH, you are the author of your own special brand of Christianity with your own special set if rules.

 

It seems funny that you feel the need to hang out here since you don't represent anything more than a cherry picked set of rules that you like. But I'm glad you do. You do as much to help people deconvert as anything we offer them. We all make a good team for the lurkers.

 

 

First, to answer florduh's question: Yes, they still make unfiltered Lucky Strikes. In certain regions of the country they might be hard to find but they still made. Luckies were my brand when I smoked years ago. 

 

Jeff's comments:

 

You are just making it up as you go. Sorry but your bible disagrees with you.

 

What verse in the scriptures refutes what I posted about the security of the believer?

IH, you are the author of your own special brand of Christianity with your own special set if rules.

 

If you think that, then you misunderstand how I view God. If I have done anything like that, I pray for forgiveness. 

 

It seems funny that you feel the need to hang out here since you don't represent anything more than a cherry picked set of rules that you like. But I'm glad you do. You do as much to help people deconvert as anything we offer them. We all make a good team for the lurkers.

 

I'm here to represent, the best I can what the scriptures teach and what Christianity is about, not what others have "cherry picked"  in the scriptures or formed on their own minds.

 

I'm glad to be here. I'm glad I can express my viewpoints.

I'm glad I can read what you and others post and think. 

[Margee]

Just my 2 cents here but if the bible was absolutely clear about 'god being small or big enough', we should not need the millions of christian bookstores all over the world trying to decipher the bible. The bible itself should contain nice, simple answers from the god who created the whole universe. Plus 'he' could reveal himself every now and again.

 

If I had white magical powers, (Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent) I would 'show' my children...I wouldn't force them to live on faith alone. Kinda' like Bewitched when she would wiggle her nose?? An all powerful god who created the whole universe should be able to do this????

[Margee]

 

 

 

There is not a sin a believer can commit that would cause God to cast her or him away.

 

 

 

 

 

So ironhorse, the bible does say that you will lose your standing if you commit the 'unpardonable sin' which most interpret as casting out the holy spirit and saying it's not real. Most of us have done this. So are we still going to get in the pearly gates? And those who rape children or commit murder and torture can say the sinner's prayer while in jail and get saved? Who really gets saved? Why then, the need for hell?????

[Jeff]

"There is not a sin a believer can commit that would cause God to cast her or him away." -IH

 

...

Jeff's comments:

 

You are just making it up as you go. Sorry but your bible disagrees with you.

 

What verse in the scriptures refutes what I posted about the security of the believer? (IH)

...

 

In Matthew 12:31-32

 

“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come”

 

This scripture is no revelation to you. You have apparently found a way to cherry pick around it.

[ironhorse]

 

"There is not a sin a believer can commit that would cause God to cast her or him away." -IH

 

...

Jeff's comments:

 

You are just making it up as you go. Sorry but your bible disagrees with you.

 

What verse in the scriptures refutes what I posted about the security of the believer? (IH)

...

In Matthew 12:31-32

 

“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come”

 

This scripture is no revelation to you. You have apparently found a way to cherry pick around it.

 

 

 

About a year after I accepted Christ the youth director of my father’s church was invited to bring us to a youth crusade being held in a nearby city. I was 13 and churches from around the area had been invited by the crusade’s promoters to bring their youth to the event.

 

So he packed us in his station wagon and off we went.  It was a week-long crusade and I think we attended the second night.

It took place in a high school football stadium. The home side was packed. After a few hymns and prayers and welcomes, the evangelists (I can’t recall his name) came forward and announced his topic for the message:  The Unpardonable Sin.

 

And for next 45 minutes or so this guy scares the living daylights out of me. He spews out questions: Have you committed blasphemy against Jesus? Has your heart turned cold and filled with hate against the gentle calling of the Holy Ghost?

 

And then he goes off warning that if you feel that calling and reject it tonight, it is a sin God cannot and will never forgive. You will be eternally damned to hell. Those are not his exact words but they are close. I can't remember it all but he said a lot.

 

The message upset me at the stadium. I thought about all the way home.

 

When I got home I guess I was really showing my stress and my mom asked me what was wrong. I told her what the sermon was about and she went ballistic. She said stuff like that caused her a lot of hell when she was young and called my father to come to the room.

 

He told me to get it out of my thought what that “jack rabbit preacher” said. A term he liked to use when talking a crazy preachers who teach stupid stuff. He would talk to the youth director and we would not be going back to the rest of the meetings. He would also make sure the other teenagers in our group would hear the truth about this.

 

First, it is not saying bad things about Jesus or any sin. You can curse Jesus; shake spit at him, shake your fists at him, do whatever for years and you can be forgiven.

 

Jesus said: “Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him” ~ Matthew 13:32

 

The Unpardonable Sin is a person’s ultimate and final rejection of the spirit calling them to Christ. This occurs at the time of death. The one exception, some scholars think, is it also refers to the religious leaders, at the time of Jesus, who declared the works of Jesus satanic.

 

God will and can forgive any of our sins, but when a soul starts the journey from this life to the next, it is either yes or no.

I have never liked hearing Christians making judgements about a deceased person’s final destination. I remember a few days after John Lennon was murdered a radio preacher came on screaming, “Well bless God, John Lennon is burning in hell now. Gods gonna show him who is more popular!” That is so sick.

 

We don’t know what goes through a person’s mind during the time of death.

 

This view I accept as the correct view. You can Google search and find this view expressed along what some of what the “jack rabbit” preachers and false teachers say if you like.

 

This is my 2 cents on the subject. 

[bornagainathiest]

Just my 2 cents here but if the bible was absolutely clear about 'god being small or big enough', we should not need the millions of christian bookstores all over the world trying to decipher the bible. The bible itself should contain nice, simple answers from the god who created the whole universe. Plus 'he' could reveal himself every now and again.

 

If I had white magical powers, (Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent) I would 'show' my children...I wouldn't force them to live on faith alone. Kinda' like Bewitched when she would wiggle her nose?? An all powerful god who created the whole universe should be able to do this????

 

God didn't force Adam and Eve to live by faith, Margee.  

 

Faith was totally absent from the garden of Eden.  

 

The Prof and myself are currently explaining this to End3 in the thread where Ironhorse fears to tread.

 

Here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/72646-how-to-make-a-christian-absolutely-livid/page-2#.V0Sy9vkrJD8

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

"There is not a sin a believer can commit that would cause God to cast her or him away." -IH

 

...

Jeff's comments:

 

You are just making it up as you go. Sorry but your bible disagrees with you.

 

What verse in the scriptures refutes what I posted about the security of the believer? (IH)

...

In Matthew 12:31-32

 

“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come”

 

This scripture is no revelation to you. You have apparently found a way to cherry pick around it.

 

 

 

About a year after I accepted Christ the youth director of my father’s church was invited to bring us to a youth crusade being held in a nearby city. I was 13 and churches from around the area had been invited by the crusade’s promoters to bring their youth to the event.

 

So he packed us in his station wagon and off we went.  It was a week-long crusade and I think we attended the second night.

It took place in a high school football stadium. The home side was packed. After a few hymns and prayers and welcomes, the evangelists (I can’t recall his name) came forward and announced his topic for the message:  The Unpardonable Sin.

 

And for next 45 minutes or so this guy scares the living daylights out of me. He spews out questions: Have you committed blasphemy against Jesus? Has your heart turned cold and filled with hate against the gentle calling of the Holy Ghost?

 

And then he goes off warning that if you feel that calling and reject it tonight, it is a sin God cannot and will never forgive. You will be eternally damned to hell. Those are not his exact words but they are close. I can't remember it all but he said a lot.

 

The message upset me at the stadium. I thought about all the way home.

 

When I got home I guess I was really showing my stress and my mom asked me what was wrong. I told her what the sermon was about and she went ballistic. She said stuff like that caused her a lot of hell when she was young and called my father to come to the room.

 

He told me to get it out of my thought what that “jack rabbit preacher” said. A term he liked to use when talking a crazy preachers who teach stupid stuff. He would talk to the youth director and we would not be going back to the rest of the meetings. He would also make sure the other teenagers in our group would hear the truth about this.

 

First, it is not saying bad things about Jesus or any sin. You can curse Jesus; shake spit at him, shake your fists at him, do whatever for years and you can be forgiven.

 

Jesus said: “Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him” ~ Matthew 13:32

 

The Unpardonable Sin is a person’s ultimate and final rejection of the spirit calling them to Christ. This occurs at the time of death. The one exception, some scholars think, is it also refers to the religious leaders, at the time of Jesus, who declared the works of Jesus satanic.

 

God will and can forgive any of our sins, but when a soul starts the journey from this life to the next, it is either yes or no.

I have never liked hearing Christians making judgements about a deceased person’s final destination. I remember a few days after John Lennon was murdered a radio preacher came on screaming, “Well bless God, John Lennon is burning in hell now. Gods gonna show him who is more popular!” That is so sick.

 

We don’t know what goes through a person’s mind during the time of death.

 

This view I accept as the correct view. You can Google search and find this view expressed along what some of what the “jack rabbit” preachers and false teachers say.

 

 

So why is there no armor for a Christian's back in the panoplia, Ironhorse?

 

http://biblehub.com/greek/3833.htm

 

Please note that if you refuse to answer this question ...I'll do it for you and explain how the answer applies to you.

 

Answer please!

[sdelsolray]

Apologist wannabe fails again.

[Jeff]

...Jesus said: “Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him” ~ Matthew 13:32

 

The Unpardonable Sin is a person’s ultimate and final rejection of the spirit calling them to Christ...

 

...This is my 2 cents on the subject.

Yes I knew you had it worked out, except you failed to address the actual part of the scripture that tells you exactly what that unpardonable sin is. Oh and it's Matthew 12:32 BTW. You forgot this part ...

"; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come”

 

You cherry pick beautifully I might add. The long personal irrelevant story was a nice touch too.

But maybe you should read the part you ignored again.

 

"; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come”

 

Christians don't even like their own bible enough to actually beleive it when it clearly states its position on a matter.