The Simplicity Of The Christian Message

[LogicalFallacy]

On 3/30/2017 at 9:31 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

On 3/29/2017 at 9:02 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

IH, do you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God?

 

If yes, you believe the virgin birth is central to Christ being the "son of God"?

 

If yes, the Virgin birth hinges on a single prophesy in Isaiah. Do you believe the prophesy accurately foretells Jesus birth?

 

If yes, how do you solve the issue of the prophesy, when read in context, being to King Ahaz regarding the troubles at the time, and the fact Jesus was not named Immanuel?

 

[Edit - this was my original line but presupposes the conversation. "One that can quite easily be shown to be quote mined by Matthew out of context."]

 

Considering Christ hinges on original sin being fact, prophesies fulfilled etc, and considering all these can be shown to be false, your message might not be as simple as claimed.

 

You can believe in Christ, but your claim of simplicity fails.

 

IH you seem to want to isolate John 3:16 as a simple message as if that verse stands on its own in a vacuum. News flash: It doesn't. Please answer my questions above. I have assumed your replies, but you might actually have different answers and surprise us. 

 

 

Ironhorse, please answer the questions above.

 

I have reworded them so I am not forcing a conclusion upon you, but rather asking how you solve difficulties in the bible.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

On 3/29/2017 at 4:39 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

What about sins (known or unknown) which are committed after the moment of conversion?  Are they also covered by the conversion experience?  Or are they dealt with on a sin-by-sin basis?  Keep in mind, whichever answer you choose, you're going to open the Calvinist/Armenian can of worms.

?

[ironhorse]

 

Sins, known or unknown....past, present or future, at the moment of conversion...they are forgiven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[nutrichuckles93]

4 minutes ago, ironhorse said:

 

Sins, known or unknown....past, present or future, at the moment of conversion...they are forgiven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah, so this is what drive-by evangelism is. 

[ironhorse]

No, if you will take time to read I have been here for awhile.

 

 

 

 

[sdelsolray]

52 minutes ago, ironhorse said:

 

Sins, known or unknown....past, present or future, at the moment of conversion...they are forgiven.

Pure religious dogma.

 

Who has standing to grant forgiveness?  Obviously, in the case of an immoral and harmful act by one human against another, the recipient of that harm has standing.  Other humans have it too, although that is secondary to the person who experienced the harm.

 

Whether or not the causer of that harm has a "moment of conversion" into your particular religion is not relevant to whether the recipient of that harm will, or will not, offer forgiveness.  They may do so.  They may not.

 

Your statement, besides being pure religious dogma, is quite wrong.  You have left out the humans affected by immoral and harmful acts.  Once again, you demonstrate shallow, narrow and myopic thinking.

[ironhorse]

"Who has standing to grant forgiveness?"

 

I believe it was God who became a human being.

[sdelsolray]

14 minutes ago, ironhorse said:

"Who has standing to grant forgiveness?"

 

I believe it was God who became a human being.

No one else?  Do you believe the the human recipient of that harm has standing?

[ironhorse]

No one else. In Christ alone.

I'm a believer. 

[duderonomy]

1 hour ago, ironhorse said:

 

Sins, known or unknown....past, present or future, at the moment of conversion...they are forgiven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I used to be a Christian, and no one can pluck me from His hand, so we're all good here, Ironhorse. All of us Ex-Christians are saved from our sins. Your job is done here. When you die, you will get an extra jewel in your crown.

 

Good job!!

[sdelsolray]

1 hour ago, ironhorse said:

No one else [has standing to provide foregiveness, including the person who was harmed by an immoral and harmful act of another human]. In Christ alone.

I'm a believer. 

 

The actual evidence demonstrates otherwise.  Human societal norms provides for forgiveness of wrongful acts, either on the individual level or the community level.  Accordingly, reality differs from your belief.

[bornagainathiest]

Ironhorse,

 

Your beliefs are based upon hearsay.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/76569-disciplesapostles-martyrdom-question/

 

See post # 13.

[bornagainathiest]

5 hours ago, ironhorse said:

No, if you will take time to read I have been here for awhile.

 

 

 

 

 

Nutrichuckles,

 

If you take the time to read, you'll find that for most of that time Ironhorse has avoided answering simple questions that put his faith in jeopardy.

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

5 hours ago, ironhorse said:

 

Sins, known or unknown....past, present or future, at the moment of conversion...they are forgiven.

 

 

But only if a person has knowledge that their sins are forgiven only by Jesus.

 

Therefore, billions of people who lived and died without that knowledge cannot seek that forgiveness, despite what Romans 1 says.

 

Your belief that God's hand is seen in creation comes after the fact of your belief in Jesus, Ironhorse.

 

But Romans 1 shows the reverse - that seeing God's hand in creation leads to a saving belief in Jesus.

 

So please tell us how a 1st century Maori could know the person of Jesus Christ by looking at God's creation?

[bornagainathiest]

4 hours ago, ironhorse said:

"Who has standing to grant forgiveness?"

 

I believe it was God who became a human being.

 

In 1st century Israel.

 

So how does this save a 1st century Maori (in new Zealand) from eternal hellfire?

[bornagainathiest]

4 hours ago, ironhorse said:

No one else. In Christ alone.

I'm a believer. 

 

So how can a 1st century Maori believe in Christ alone and be saved, Ironhorse?

[bornagainathiest]

On 4/5/2017 at 9:10 PM, bornagainathiest said:

 

Since Ironhorse will not defend himself and since I will no longer press him for any further input, this message could well be the closing one of this thread.

I won't be pressing him any further because what he has written here is more than enough to demonstrate his confusion and/or dishonesty.  As I will now show.

 

His two answers to my questions (see above) clearly and unambiguously assert that a person is saved by faith alone.

Yet, just a few keystrokes later he undoes the certainty of that assertion by stating that Jesus, Paul and Peter hold repentance to be necessary for a saving faith.  These two assertions are mutually exclusive and totally contradictory.  They cannot both be true.  It cannot be true that a person is saved by faith alone - if repentance is necessary for a saving faith.  Either it is faith alone and repentance is unnecessary or it is faith and repentance together that saves a person.

 

From Ironhorse's contradictory response I conclude that he is either confused or putting his personal spin the words of the Bible.  Perhaps both.  Either way, I cannot bring myself to trust him and I therefore recommend that anyone reading this thread declines to trust him too.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[pratt]

ironhorse must be reading from a different bible, and plucking verses from his ass

 

known n unknown sins?

past, present & future sins all forgiven at time of conversion?

 

totally rubbish

[L.B.]

4It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

 

Future sins forgiven? Bullshit. Even a fallible human judge would re-commit someone to jail if they had been pardoned once and gone out committing crime again. The totally just 'god' of the universe would just let cosmic sin against his holiness slide because... why? When someone learned that their sin necessitated the death of a man-god, then they went out after being forgiven and did the same things that killed Jesus in the first place, wouldn't that mean that if they were FORGIVEN in the first place, according to the above verses, they COULD NOT be forgiven?

[midniterider]

On 4/23/2017 at 6:22 PM, ironhorse said:

 

Sins, known or unknown....past, present or future, at the moment of conversion...they are forgiven.

 

Yes, I remember two guys discussing this on the Christian radio station. They said there was no provision for future sin once you are saved. In which case would be really short-sighted on God's part. I decided John 3:16 trumped their BS and adopted your past, present and future sin cleansing idea. Then I just dropped the whole thing after a while. It's sad that people spend time causing people to worry about imaginary friends not liking you. I got tired of the control mechanism in my mind making me afraid to think 'unauthorized' thoughts. What seems even more terrible is those people who were born and raised as Christians and have a BIG fear of hell fire and God's wrath should they question him or turn away from Jesus. At least I had a foundation of skepticism and agnosticism as a fallback, a home base, so to speak. My deconversion was relatively painless. I can't imagine the devastation of deconverting when Christianity was your base mental and emotional foundation. And that's an indicator that Christianity is evil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[midniterider]

On 4/23/2017 at 7:04 PM, sdelsolray said:

Pure religious dogma.

 

Who has standing to grant forgiveness?  Obviously, in the case of an immoral and harmful act by one human against another, the recipient of that harm has standing.  Other humans have it too, although that is secondary to the person who experienced the harm.

 

 

Nah, Jesus is the thought police. He doesn't deal with actual crime.

[readyforchange]

On ‎4‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 9:22 PM, ironhorse said:

 

Sins, known or unknown....past, present or future, at the moment of conversion...they are forgiven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So how does this work for blasphemy against the holy spirit?  Jesus stated that blasphemy against the holy spirit would never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come.  (Matthew 12:31-32) 

[mwc]

On 4/23/2017 at 6:22 PM, ironhorse said:

 

Sins, known or unknown....past, present or future, at the moment of conversion...they are forgiven.

     Sin?  Like how we're all simply born tainted with an sticky coating of "original sin" that just won't wash off?  That sort of thing?

 

     Or sin like in Genesis 4 " ⁷ If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it."?  Where god actually defines it as something that people can overcome on their own?  Unless god is lying here?  And people can't ever rule over do right or overcome sin since "original sin" simply prevents it and this warning is effectively useless barring a human-form sacrifice of himself?

 

     Maybe sin is more like what we see in James? " ¹⁴ but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. ¹⁵ Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."  He doesn't seem to believe that sin is something we simply have but something we create.  It's similar to what god says in Genesis.  Cain has evil desires but he hasn't yet crossed the line to sin and god warns him away.  James says the same sort of thing here.

 

     At this point it's hard to figure out exactly what is a sin and what is not.  If death is the only way to know then that's not a good system.  No amount of belief in forgiveness has prevented a single death to date.   If conversion fixes all this then I have to ask, conversion to what?  What specifically does this conversion entail?

 

          mwc

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

8 hours ago, mwc said:

     Sin?  Like how we're all simply born tainted with an sticky coating of "original sin" that just won't wash off?  That sort of thing?

 

     Or sin like in Genesis 4 " ⁷ If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it."?  Where god actually defines it as something that people can overcome on their own?  Unless god is lying here?  And people can't ever rule over do right or overcome sin since "original sin" simply prevents it and this warning is effectively useless barring a human-form sacrifice of himself?

 

     Maybe sin is more like what we see in James? " ¹⁴ but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. ¹⁵ Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."  He doesn't seem to believe that sin is something we simply have but something we create.  It's similar to what god says in Genesis.  Cain has evil desires but he hasn't yet crossed the line to sin and god warns him away.  James says the same sort of thing here.

 

     At this point it's hard to figure out exactly what is a sin and what is not.  If death is the only way to know then that's not a good system.  No amount of belief in forgiveness has prevented a single death to date.   If conversion fixes all this then I have to ask, conversion to what?  What specifically does this conversion entail?

 

          mwc

 

 

 

But that's how Bible God arranges things, mwc.  That's HIS system.

 

Genesis 2 : 16 & 17.

 

¹⁶ And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 

¹⁷ but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

 

Death didn't exist before Adam and Eve sinned and neither of them knew or understood what good and evil were.

Did God explain these three things to them, so that they could properly understand his warning and make an informed choice about the fruit of that tree?  No.  Instead, he made them unable to understand good and evil until after they had sinned.  

 

Also, they didn't find out what death was until God punished them with it.  

Not a good system, huh?  First, God tricks a pair of innocents into disobeying him.  Then he punishes them with death, then he curses Adam with a lifetime of painful toil,  then he curses Eve with terrible pain in childbirth, then he curses them both with disease and decrepitude, then he inflicts the same curses on their unborn children and every subsequent generation and adds in birth defects for good measure.  Oh... and he also cursed every other living thing on the planet in the same way.  

 

Then, he made a big show of delivering only those who believe in him from this mess by becoming a Galilean carpenter.

But while he was busy getting the nation of Israel ready for his arrival, thousands of years pass and hundred of millions of humans in other countries have to suffer his curses and die without hope of escaping the everlasting, fiery punishment he's prepared for those who don't believe in him.  They live and die, never hearing about how God became Jesus and so they cannot believe in him and be saved.

 

No.  Not a good system.  Not at all.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

On 4/11/2017 at 11:36 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

On 3/30/2017 at 9:31 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

On 3/29/2017 at 9:02 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

IH, do you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God?

 

If yes, you believe the virgin birth is central to Christ being the "son of God"?

 

If yes, the Virgin birth hinges on a single prophesy in Isaiah. Do you believe the prophesy accurately foretells Jesus birth?

 

If yes, how do you solve the issue of the prophesy, when read in context, being to King Ahaz regarding the troubles at the time, and the fact Jesus was not named Immanuel?

 

[Edit - this was my original line but presupposes the conversation. "One that can quite easily be shown to be quote mined by Matthew out of context."]

 

Considering Christ hinges on original sin being fact, prophesies fulfilled etc, and considering all these can be shown to be false, your message might not be as simple as claimed.

 

You can believe in Christ, but your claim of simplicity fails.

 

IH you seem to want to isolate John 3:16 as a simple message as if that verse stands on its own in a vacuum. News flash: It doesn't. Please answer my questions above. I have assumed your replies, but you might actually have different answers and surprise us. 

 

 

Ironhorse, please answer the questions above.

 

I have reworded them so I am not forcing a conclusion upon you, but rather asking how you solve difficulties in the bible.

 

@ironhorse Again, since you have decided to grace us with your presence again, please answer the questions in blue above.