Gamera

Good question. Here's the answer, or at least my stab at the answer:

1 Corinthians 1:29 - so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.

1 Corinthians 1:31 - therefore, as it is written, "Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord."

Ephesians 2:9 - not because of works, lest any man should boast.

If accepting the gospel (i.e. accepting the transformational power of God's love which I take to be the essence of the gospel message) were dependent on imperical proof, then rational logical people could boast that they are better than those who aren't smart enough to understand the proof, defeating the purpose of the gospel, which is the transformation into a loving person. The gospel isn't about beleiving in truth statements about God, it's about transforming who we are. Once you realize that, then the purpose of faith comes into focus

Hence Paul's wonderful statement:

Galatians 6:15 - For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

Corinthians 5:17 - Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.

Gamera

Well, I think arguing over whether I fit into a traditional denomination is a gross waste of time. If you want to discuss the texts that make up the gospel and their commentary, happy to do so. If that raises questions of historiography and hence poststructural critiques of traditional historiography, then I'm going to mention those critiques.

If, on the other hand, you want to argue with a straw man that you call Christianity, I'm not going to go there with you. We got texts, not an abstraction called Christianity.

Gamera

I don't run away from them. I reject them as contrary to the texts we have in front of us. And I say why. Do you want to discuss the texts or historical Christianity. Make up your mind.

Gamera

I just don't really want to follow you into a straw man argument where you invent a perspective on God and then attack it. I think you've done a good job showing the god you've constructed makes no sense.

Fortunately, that's not the god I'm interesting in.

aa5874

Let's hear about the god you have constructed. You know that all Gods are the construct of Man. Isn't Saul/Paul one of the men to construct your god?

Johnny Skeptic

You have made up a God who appeals to your emotions, and who contradicts many Scriptures. You have basically said that there is not a good case that can be made that heaven and an afterlife exist, but Jesus, Paul, and Peter said on many occasions that heaven and an afterlife exist. You said that all that matters is a personal relationship with God, a relationship that you call an exciting trip. What is exciting about it? What is exciting about it that the followers of others religions do not enjoy? Would it still be exciting for you if you were quadriplegic, blind, and mute? The late Vincent Humbert was quadriplegic, blind, and mute. He lived in France. He wanted to die. He asked then President Chirac for an exemption to the French law that prohibits physician assisted suicide. Chirac refused, and an unknown person mercifully killed Humbert at his own request, something that your merciless God would not have done for Humbert. Now are you going to tell us that if you were in Humbert's condition that you would want to go on living?

Since God has allowed hundreds of millions of people to die without telling them about the Gospel message, your claim that he wants to have a personal relationship with people is obviously false. In addition, God's usual refusal to have a personal relationship with the children of most Muslim parents is further evidence that your claim is false. Further, as Kosmin and Lachman show in their well-documented book that is titled 'One Nation Under God', in the U.S., the chief factors that determine religious beliefs, or in your own words who gets to have an exciting trip by having a personal relationship with God, are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age, which are entirely SECULAR factors, which is EXACTLY what rational minded people expect would be the case if God does not exist, or if God exists and has gone out of his way to make it appear that he does not exist.

What benefits does God derive from refusing to clearly reveal his existence and will to everyone? What benefits does mankind derive from this detestable behavior?

The Bible obviously disagrees with you. Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Johnny: The NIV translates the word "works" as "miracles".

Acts 14:3 So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.

Johnny: Now lest you claim that today, we have the Holy Spirit as evidence, Acts 14:3 refers to tangible evidence that was provided AFTER the Holy Spirit came to the church, which I find to be quite odd since there were supposedly thousands of eyewitnesses still around who saw Jesus perform many miracles, and hundreds of people still around who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead.

If empirical evidence can sometimes help a person become loving, what is wrong with that? Who says that skeptics and the followers of other religions are not loving? What is your definition of the word "loving"?

If God clearly revealed himself to everyone, tangibly, in person, no one would have to be smart in order to know that he exists, right?

Doug Shaver

You parrot two writers who lived 2,000 years ago, and you call it your stab at an answer?

Your argument assumes its conclusion, but let's set that aside for the moment.

Is a loving person better than an unloving person, or not? If he is, what will keep a person who believes without evidence from boasting that he is better than one who requires evidence? If he is not, what will motivate a person who believes on the basis of reason to boast about anything?

jakejonesiv

Hi Gamera,

Satan, whoever he is? Since you are a professed Christian, why do you run away from 2 Cor. 14:11, 1 Peter 5:8, Rev. 12:9; 20:2? Do you lack the necessary faith to believe these verses?

I just don't see how you can eliminate Satan from the gospel message.

Acts 26:17-18 (New International Version)
17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them
18 to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'

Jesus is reported as describing his death as a ransom payment. Mark 10:45, Matt. 20;28.

To whom was Jesus' death a ransom payment? Was it not the opinion of the Church Fathers (e.g. Irenaeus of Lyons, Augustine) and many heretics (Marcion) that Jesus' death was a ransom to the Devil(aka Satan Demiurge) for the souls of believers?

It wasn't until a thousand years later that anyone (Anselm of Canterbury) came up with the idea that the ransom was paid to God. Besides being ludicrous (God paying himself off), it made no sense; God could simply forgive the sinners out of his own sovereignty (1 Kings 8:46-50) without having to kill an innocent man, (or Himself or whatever). So Gamera, I am sure you will reject this theory as speculative theology.

Which leaves you eye to eye with Satan. :devil2:

Jake Jones IV

Gamera

[QUOTE=Doug Shaver;3868487]Well, yeah, because I take those texts seriously. Just like you take certain texts seriously. What's the difference how old they are.

I'm not sure what you mean by "better," but it's not relevant anyway since the issue is not is a loving person better, but rather are they better because of their own efforts or worth. The point of the gospel is, they aren't.

Gamera

[QUOTE=jakejonesiv;3869248]Hi Gamera,

Not running away from these passages, just dispute the meaning and significance you attribute to them. What "Satan" meant to a first century Jew is not really relevant to modern Christianity. They used the language and terms they had. We have different terms. Peter thought the world was flat. So what? Paul used an axiology of sin and forgiveness. That's what he had to work with. Hermeneutics is never stuck with the historical meanings of texts, but must decontruct the texts. I would point out that your interpretation isn't even Paul's interpretation; it's an historical interpretation that you inherited from 2000 years of Christian theology.

Because he isn't mentioned in the gospel message. You've cited commentary on the message -- the epistles and Revelation. The commentary is useful, but not the message. The gospel existed before the NT and would exist even if NT texts vanished. The commentary was directed at a specific audience that had specific cultural concepts. That's what the authors had to work with. But we aren't constrained by those concepts and must reinterpret and make them meaningful. Christianity isn't handed to you on a platter. It requires thinking about one's life in a critical way.

Yep, I wonder what he meant by "Satan". You've just assumed a conclusion (not even based on 1st century concepts, but mediaeval European concepts of what Satan is.

I rather doubt your interpretation (I think he was refering not to Satan but the sacrificial system where the sacrifice is owed to God). But leaving that aside, who cares? Let's say we never figure out what Jesus meant? How does that effect the gospel message, which in fact doesn't invovle references to ransom, as we see from the various examples of it in the NT. Jesus is talking to a Jewish audience. He used concepts they understood. Big deal.

Like I say, based on common sense and your own admission, it appears to be an ambiguous comment. There's a whole lot of them in these texts, which is the nature of commentary -- it can never be consistent or authorative as language and culture changes. So it clearly isn't central to the gospel message, which is pretty simple. A 14 year old without any theological training can understand it.

Do you want to talk about the gospel message or the vast and bloated theological discussions that attach to them.