achristianbeliever

funny. I used it because the opening post did.

What do you want me to do lie? You have to appreciate my honesty.

ding ding ding. We have a winner. Its why Romans says all have sinned and fallen short of the kingdom of God. So answer? GRACE ALONE!!!

so then he doesn't do exactly this. Because you have to do something to get to Heaven. For God to let anyone in no matter what would mean even if you don't accept Jesus you get in. So how exactly does God do exactly this?

And I don't understand how you why you can't see it as the greatest form of justice out there. So we're even.

steamer

You can do whatever you like and go to heaven provided you don't die at the wrong time. Feel like killing your neighbor? Go ahead! This god won't punish anyone no matter how much they deserve if they jump on one foot and say god is great or something equally arbitrary such as asking Jesus to be their saviour.

In what way is it at all just? If you die tommorow in your current state, you probably think you are going to heaven. If you have a sudden epiphany and suddenly come to believe this god does not exist then suddenly you deserve eternal torment, yet your actions haven't changed a bit.

It is very similar to punishing those with blue eyes or black skin but not brown-eyed whites. Christians just think they deserve better treatmnent and can escape justice. It is not justice that Christians pretend they will recieve, it is an escape from justice.

gwastad.prydydd

That's a fair question ; but I do.

The word used in both passages is the Hebrew יךע; which is translatable as 'to make one's self known, ranging in intensity from mere acquaintance to relational intimacy - including sexual relations'.

gwastad.prydydd

I agree: the definition is only one of many; but it is no more contingent and arbitrary than even a humanitarian definition. God might have been otherwise (for all we know); then, "good" should have meant something entirely other than what we use it to mean to-day. Similarly, the human species might have been something other (for all we know) than it is to-day; then, "good" should have meant something entirely other than that which you use it to mean to-day. Each of us has to base our definitions of "good" and "evil" upon something. As re: well-defined, theistic belief has (because of its many unprovable claims) a greater possibility of unchanging definition. If God is all that Christian theists claim He is, then, He may reveal Himself to be even more - but not other - than that. Conversely, a system of morality founded upon humanity is subject to one bipartite caveat: that the human species is (1) constantly discovering itself as it (2) constantly changes. Because of the nature of God as He is claimed ('the same: yesterday, to-day, and forever') as opposed to the nature of humanity as it is claimed (constantly in flux), a morality based upon God (while susceptible to more greatly-scaled evidence (i.e., Christian theists claim that one must look outside one's self for morality; whilst naturalists claim that one need only look among one's collective self) is more clearly-defined in what it was, is, and will be than is a conception of morality that is inextricably founded upon human concerns.

Mmph...sorry I didn't clarify this. It's not that God is "God and not God"; rather, God alone is competent to interact with that which is not Himself without danger of becoming ungodly. We who are created in His image are meant to interact with all that bears his image and can still be godly; but we are not meant to confront ungodliness in our own power. It is too dangerous for us; but it is not too dangerous for God.

achristianbeliever

so? I said God doesn't let everyone in. You said God does this exactly when mentioning he'll let everyone in. How can you say he does this if there is an action that needs to be taken? I'm not arguing with anything in this above quote. I'm arguing with "he does this exactly". Meaning there is no selection. But if you have to accept Jesus then it means there is a selection. He does not let everyone in if it means people who don't accept Jesus don't get in. Everyone means everyone. So tell me again. Does God let everyone no matter what whether they've killed, raped, don't accept Jesus or does he not let everyone in? Which one is it?

I deserve Hell. If God changes his mind and decides to send me to Hell he is completely just to do so. Giving me a possible escape plan from Hell is completely unfair. He should send everyone Christian or not to Hell. But what can I say I'm selfish. I want my sins erased and God made a way to do that I'm taking it. If you are willing to keep your sins and accept the consequences maybe your better than I am in that respect. I'd rather you were selfish so I could see you in the afterlife but it is your choice.

I just said I deserve Hell so your wrong on this one. In fact Christians deserve Hell more than atheists in my personal opinion.

It is a pardon I'll give you that. And it is selfish I'll give you that. I'm asking an innocent man to die for my crimes. That is terribly selfish. But Hell is not the selfish part it is asking an innocent man to erase my sins.

gwastad.prydydd

I agree with your analysis of Christianity as it is often presented; but I am not sure that it has always been presented well. May I have a go?

A great many people feel that Christianity somehow "lets people off the hook": that it replaces justice with triviality. To 'ask Jesus to be one's saviour' seems an arbitrary thing: the blackmail of a God Who wants praise and glory and will go to any length to get it - even threatening with the torment of Hell those who might deny Him His wish (much like the forced confessions we used to hear about in the Soviet Union - don't you think?).

I am not sure that this is not an accurate representation of God's true interest in the matter; but I am no more sure that the alternative I am going to present will seem any more palatable to you than the "love Me or burn!" God in Whom so many among us seem to believe.

God's interest in the whole concern of human ungodliness/forgiveness is not simply that human beings swear some oath of fealty. In trade for our souls, he wants our lives.

Think back to Eve's and Adam's initial ungodliness. What was it? Many people will tell you that it was disobedience; but that has nothing at all to do with it. Rather, their sin was self-pride: self-centredness in a creature that was not God. The pride that made them aspire to the throne - to the position/capacity - of God was the same pride that made them unusable to God. They chose not-God to replace in their shared life the place that, until then, God had filled.

When a Christian acts in an ungodly fashion, it seems wrong, somehow - and it is. God wishes that all will become godly; and ungodly actions are not conducive to that end.

However, the greatest threat to the spread of godliness is not ungodly action - but, rather, ungodly disposition. Remember the parable that Jesus told of the two sons, both requested by their Father to perform a particular task? The first son acquiesced - but refused to actually obey. The second son refused - but chose obedience nevertheless. The point, of course, is that lip service to God may fool men: but it will not fool God. It is certainly not what He wishes.

When a non-Christian lives what appears to be a moral life - yet rejects the God claimed by Christian theists - we wonder why Christian doctrine condemns him for rejecting God. We especially wonder this when a Christian lives a much less worthy life than a non-Christian: but clings to Jesus as his salvation. Doesn't Christian doctrine say that 'our faith is shown by our deeds' - that 'whoever does the will of My Father in Heaven: he is of my own'?

Yes, it does. However, our deeds do not prove our faith; rather, if we have faith, we will, also, have deeds. Our faith is sufficient for our deeds; but our deeds are only necessary for our faith. Many things can produce deeds; but (according to the Christian God) we must have faith. If, then, we have faith: we will also have deeds.

So much for faith and deeds! Now: what interest has God in all this?

God's interest in the matter is that there be more godliness in the world. This is achieved by the submission of individual, ungodly wills to God's perfect, holy (unto Himself) will: the relinquishing of power by incompetents to the only competent. God is not so much concerned with deeds as He is with the disposition to allow Him to counteract some deeds and encourage others. Because of this, He will trade (as it were) ungodly human deeds for an increasing submission of their perpetrator to His will. Ultimately, the deeds will cease. It is not deeds by human power that He wants; it is the human will itself for His complete influence. If He is given the will, the rest of the life will follow; indeed, the submission of the will is the only deed by human power that God requires of any human for her salvation. After that, one has enrolled in a programme - headed by God - by which one will become more like God. Of course, one can opt out; in this case, it is the loss of the will to God's influence that means damnation - not any (possible) change in deeds.

Now: you know that Christians concern themselves with a posited life beyond death. This is God's ultimate concern in the matter.

When a non-Christian "lets Jesus into her life" on her death-bed - when an apostate "accepts Jesus as his personal Lord and Saviour" with his last breath - it may appear that justice has been thwarted by a pointless mercy. If the salvation of God is a salvation by which its recipients may 'do the will of Him Who sent Me', then God has got a very poor bargain in His death-bed conversions.

This should be true - were it not for the "life after death" upon which Christians place their hopes. God is playing for larger stakes than simply the influence toward godliness of human souls in this life. Indeed, He means to influence them in eternity.

We may think conversion - 'accepting Jesus as one's Saviour' - a cheap thing; but it is a very dread thing, indeed. It is the first step toward perfect submission to an other than ourselves. We are trading our lives for our souls.

[edit: That's why I don't really talking about "being saved" or "accepting Jesus"; such terminology is nearly as useless as there is. It is much more accurate to talk about submitting one's will to the will of God.]

Quetzalcoatl

Sj you are just quoting back books to me. You are making no attempt to answer my questions.
The concept of grace is a Pauline idea and is not present in the Torah. Please stop telling the Jews what their book means.


This is simple a set of meaningless words.

Let’s take this slowly. You say that the story in genesis is an allegory. In the book everything was perfect. What time in earth’s history does this represent?

If the story is actually consistent with evolution at what point did mankind get a soul?

If god is eventually going to save everybody why not forgive mankind instead of going through the phase where we have to millions of children starving to death?

Quetzalcoatl

Exactly. This is why I find this so amusing. We both know that the story is simply a creation myth. Do you see people looking for the deeper message in the Aztec and Inca creation myths?

Fundamentalist I can understand trying to make the story fit but when it is simply astonishing to see liberal Christians torturing the story to try and get it to fit their theology.

No matter how some liberals claim that the bible is just another book with stories about god it is clear that they consider it more than that. They do believe the book is inerrant and must be defended even it means rewriting the stories in their image.

The answer to the question is simple god did not forgive Adam because that was not the point the author was trying and make.

Stacey Melissa

Soooo, they wouldn't have interacted with both good and evil... unless they ate that bit of fruit? Wow. And here I always thought good and evil were totally unrelated to eating fruit.

gwastad.prydydd

I guess you could say that their fruit-eating was a sufficient condition for ungodliness - but no more. They could have acted in other, ungodly ways. Since to eat the fruit was to disobey God, their fruit-eating was ungodly . . . or "evil". Ungodly action need not involve eating fruit. When to eat fruit is to oppose God, then, to eat fruit is ungodly: is evil; but, when God has levied no prohibition upon fruit-eating, to do so is not ungodly.