seebs

I have to say, it's funny to me to see the "never a true Christian" providing stronger Biblical support for his claims than the "true Christian". Ah, well.

I think my definition stands.

Buffman

Hi seebs,

...it's good that they can be saved anyway, because that grace is what I'm relying on, too.

Saved for what? Saved from what? Saved by what?

Have you ever wondered what would happen if verifiable evidence were to be presented that proved the Judeo-Christian biblical writings were merely an early form of advertising propaganda and not divinely inspired any more than the Greek/Babylonian/Summarian/Celtic/Norse/etc. mythology were divinely inspired?

What if the books selected, by mortal men, to be placed in the first Holy Bible were merely a collection of campfire tales used to educate, socialize and terrify into compliance, the masses of uneducated people living just at the edge of survival un order to prevent them from rebelling against those currently in power, or aspiring to power/wealth/the "good" life?

Here are two URLs that offer some insights into the real reasons for the spread of the Christian, supernatural, faith beliefs.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/donatconst.html

seebs

Well, within my theology, people are inherently flawed, such that they will, left to their own devices and unaided, be divided from God, which is seen as a bad thing.

Not really; you'd have to start by proving them false.

Then they did a piss-poor job of it for a very long time, and I could have written a much better set of stories for that purpose.

Sorry, not in a mood to be proselytized right now. I've seen claims about "the real reason". I buy your claims about "the real reasons" about as much as I buy the fundy argument that atheists are "really only denying God because they want a license to do anything they want and never worry about morality".

Buffman

seebs,

Well, within my theology, people are inherently flawed, such that they will, left to their own devices and unaided, be divided from God, which is seen as a bad thing.

So, within your theological beliefs in the supernatural you selectively pick and choose what is right(good) and wrong(bad). Is that correct? I believe that it is safe for me to say that you don't practice all the edicts contained in the basic document of your theological beliefs.

Not really; you'd have to start by proving them false.

Au contraire! You are the one claiming that they are valid without offering any verifiable evidence. (You are the one claiming that the world is flat.) I am the one saying the verifiable evidence proves otherwise. I am the one who has read your Holy Bible and challenged the claims made within it and requested your proof that it is all accurate...without error. I am the one who has studied the additional so-called sacred books found here:

http://www.innvista.com/scriptures/pseudep/default.htm

....and asked why they were excluded (by men) from the final edition of the Holy Bible (Western Edition). Therefore it is your claim that the writings, found in the Holy Bible, were divinely inspired that is really at issue. What "verifiable" proof do you offer that they were? Just because "you" (and others) have chosen, or been conditioned, to believe that fairy tales are divinely inspired does not automatically make it so. You, not I, are the one making the outrageous claims about the supernatural. You must prove their validity.

Then they did a piss-poor job of it for a very long time, and I could have written a much better set of stories for that purpose.

Evidently they did well enough for you to believe them.

Sorry, not in a mood to be proselytized right now.

Nor am I with words like "saved."

I've seen claims about "the real reason". I buy your claims about "the real reasons" about as much as I buy the fundy argument that atheists are "really only denying God because they want a license to do anything they want and never worry about morality".

OK. If you are unwilling to read what the Catholic Church has to say about it, I certainly can not force knowledge on you. However, neither will I stand idly by and continue to read the mind conditioned, religiously inspired, drivel that I have on the "blondgoddess" pages and here. This is not the Christian Web. Please understand, I have no special enmity for your personal beliefs beyond your apparent reluctance to analyze them with the same yard-stick (critical reasoning process) and self-honesty by which you attempt to measure the statements of non-believers.

seebs

Indeed. I constantly try to sort out which ones are actually inspired text, and which ones are human mutterings.

You seem not to understand: I'm not trying to convince you. If you want me to change my mind, you have to convince *me*. If I want you to change your mind, I must convince *you*. If neither of us cares to expend the effort, than things stay as they are, and we go our merry ways.

First, I don't make either the claim that the Bible is all divinely inspired, or the claim that nothing outside it is. I have several different Bibles, which include different sets of books. I consider them all the same; they are words that holy men thought would help me reach God.

But not well enough to control me, make me sign up for anything, or anything of the sort; the early history of the church suggests a great deal of behavior that flies in the face of your claims about
control.

Feel free to ignore them.

I periodically read up on Catholic teachings, because I think they've got some very good ideas.

However, it seems to me that the problem here is mostly that, having applied the critical reasoning process to a lot of Christian claims, I have not yet been convinced of them. My understanding is that Catholic teachings on the issue do not use the whole "saved" concept, and I think they're probably right - I think that "salvation" is an ongoing process, and I don't buy all the crap about "a true Christian can't...", because it seems likely to me that true Christians can do all sorts of things... I think it's mostly an excuse to attack outsiders, and as such, I reject it. It's possible that the "once saved always saved" model is a true one, but it doesn't seem likely, and I'm unconvinced.

That was my response to the original post by Celsus, and I'm still not sure I see the problem.

Radorth

Ah no, unlike you, I said "I suspect." You merely assert. Oops Hezekiah is here, predicting the outcome. I guess the trial is over already.

I know. He's just "being honest."

Oh no. I didn't say that at all. I said IF (hello!) they were Chrisitians, they cannot stop being Christians. That means you totally misrepresented me, doesn't it Joel?

They can go out into the world and declare they are atheists (as I said) but they will not lose their salvation. You don't think God would save someone and then lose them, do you? Jesus claimed he was charged with not losing any one. But I can see how you turned away form God if you believe people are saved one day and lost the next.

I never said all ex-Christians were not truly Christians. That's total bull. As a matter of fact, I said if they were, they still are.

Like I said, you can't remember anything I said, nor can you quote me correctly, so you were just wasting time posting off-thread tendentious nonsense. I think you should apologize, as I do whenever I misquote (or even misread) someone.

Rad

Yellum Notnef

I have to say that I can`t read Seeb`s posts any longer. The bizarre logic sprinkled with "I dunno`s" when he`s asked pointed questions makes my brain twitch.
You seem like a real nice guy Seebs but whenever you talk about your religious beliefs you make no sense at all.

And Radorth,
I occasionally catch a post of yours here and there. I can`t say I`ve read them all (who could?) but from what I`ve seen you`re still an ass.

seebs

Well, there's lots of stuff I don't know, and I suspect that a lot of our premises are *very* different. It turns out to be very hard, for me anyway, to distinguish between bad logic and good logic from weird premises.

Most of the big confusion comes when people try to "corner" me using doctrines I don't believe; the results are confusing, as I find myself trying to figure out what people are talking about.

beyelzu

now radorth i am just a poor dumb atheist

but saying that if someone is true christian they will always be christian, is equivalent to saying that an atheist could never have been a true christian.


postulate 1
a=a and this has always been true and can neve change

postulate2
b used to equal a


both of the statements can not be true at the same time. they are mutually exclusive.

furthermore when you argue we cant know their hearts but if they are atheists they were never true christians, are you arguing you can know someone's heart last year but just not at the present?

Buffman

seebs

Indeed. I constantly try to sort out which ones are actually inspired text, and which ones are human mutterings.

And you don't see the hypocrisy of that methodology? Aren't you establishing yourself as your own mortal god? Why not do as Thomas Jefferson did? Just cut out the miracles and other pure dogma/propaganda parts and keep only the philosophically and socially valid remarks made by the person called Jesus?

You seem not to understand: I'm not trying to convince you. If you want me to change my mind, you have to convince *me*. If I want you to change your mind, I must convince *you*. If neither of us cares to expend the effort, than things stay as they are, and we go our merry ways.

I believe that I understand far more than you are giving me credit for understanding. You are certainly entitled to your belief system. You are entitled to post it in these forums as long as it is within the official rules. So am I. I challenge some of your statements because I consider them to be based on faulty logic/knowledge, not because I am attempting to, or interest in, convincing you of anything. I'm attempting to expose your less than reliable remarks to anyone who reads them for what they are...the "human mutterings" of a Christian believer in the supernatural. All I am doing is asking you to amplify on your own remarks with some verifiable evidence to support your contentions/allegations. I opened my post to you with three questions that you dodged. That, too, helps to expose the comment to which those questions were directed as being beyond your ability to answer candidly and as accurately as you are able.---Beyond that, you are entitled to believe whatever you wish.

First, I don't make either the claim that the Bible is all divinely inspired, or the claim that nothing outside it is. I have several different Bibles, which include different sets of books. I consider them all the same; they are words that holy men thought would help me reach God.

That's fine. I have seven different books that are called holy books. The people who have and do worship the words in them all believe that they are given/written by "holy" men. What makes anyone "holy?" I suspect it is because all those people wish to believe in some manner of supernatural God(s) that can bring a seeming order out of an apparent chaos. A supernatural God(s) that can answer all the curiosities of the human mind and bring an identical order to it. Why would anyone wish to reach a supernatural God? To what end?

But not well enough to control me, make me sign up for anything, or anything of the sort; the early history of the church suggests a great deal of behavior that flies in the face of your claims about control.

Perhaps you have not read the histories that I have; or we are simply placing different interpretations on the available evidence based on our own education and experiences.

Feel free to ignore them.

Sorry! I have always had a problem with ignoring error.

I periodically read up on Catholic teachings, because I think they've got some very good ideas.

One would certainly hope so after 2,000 years of existence....with approximately 1, 200 of them in total collusion with the governments of the various lands in which only Catholicism was allowed to be worshipped without harrassment.

I think that "salvation" is an ongoing process, and I don't buy all the crap about "a true Christian can't...", because it seems likely to me that true Christians can do all sorts of things... I think it's mostly an excuse to attack outsiders, and as such, I reject it. It's possible that the "once saved always saved" model is a true one, but it doesn't seem likely, and I'm unconvinced.

I'll try again! Saved for what? Saved from what? Saved by what?

That was my response to the original post by Celsus, and I'm still not sure I see the problem.

Try to answer those three questions and I am confident that you will see the problem. However, if you are still blind to it, I have great confidence in the abilities of many folks in these forums to reveal it to you...if you are sincere in your desire to see it.