Christian Discussion Thread IV

[Neutraligon]

I edited. Since there is no clear definition of consciousness there is no reason to think it exists. Similarly if there is no clear definition for god there is no reason to think it exists. In order for me to think something exists there must first be a clear definition. Until then you could be saying afh[erh;d exists.

So, what you're saying is that you don't believe in consciousness?
So how are we even able to argue?

Since there is no definition how can I say it exists? To claim that in order to argue I must be conscious is to have a definition for consciousness. On the other-hand using that definition i am able to provide evidence that consciousness exists simply because I can and am arguing. Either way the original point is shown to be mistaken.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

So, what you're saying is that you don't believe in consciousness?
So how are we even able to argue?

Since there is no definition how can I say it exists? To claim that in order to argue I must be conscious is to have a definition for consciousness. On the other-hand using that definition i am able to provide evidence that consciousness exists simply because I can and am arguing. Either way the original point is shown to be mistaken.

Je penc, donc je suis.

[Aelex]

Since there is no definition how can I say it exists? To claim that in order to argue I must be conscious is to have a definition for consciousness. On the other-hand using that definition i am able to provide evidence that consciousness exists simply because I can and am arguing. Either way the original point is shown to be mistaken.

How can you be sure that you really are doing so?
How can you be sure the floor is really under your feets?
How are you really sure you're even alive?

It's the little problem here. I if you don't start to suppose things are true, you can't even live.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

That's not how I'd define it. Those given the gift of faith and all it encompasses from God certainly has some level of understanding. For those without such it is another thing entirely, but I doubt we'd ever get to the point where human instruments can gauge God's presence or such.

If faith is a gift (I don't see it that way but I will go with it) from god, and god chooses whom to give it to, then why would god blame those of us who have not received that gift?

If hell is a place of torture that seems like a pretty mean thing to do
If hell is separation from god, aren't those of us without faith already separate from god?

Faith is a gift of the holy spirit, I guess talent is a sort of interchangeable.

From scripture the Oder of operations of faith I can see is

1 Hears the Gospel-> One (truly) believes in God and Christ -> The Holy Spirit comes upon them -> They receive the gift of Faith.

Don't be confused by Calvinism. Calvinism is hardly true Christianity. (IMHO)

[Herskerstad]

That's not how I'd define it. Those given the gift of faith and all it encompasses from God certainly has some level of understanding. For those without such it is another thing entirely, but I doubt we'd ever get to the point where human instruments can gauge God's presence or such.

If faith is a gift (I don't see it that way but I will go with it) from god, and god chooses whom to give it to, then why would god blame those of us who have not received that gift?

If hell is a place of torture that seems like a pretty mean thing to do
If hell is separation from god, aren't those of us without faith already separate from god?

Faith is a gift, and Christ himself speaks of those the father has given to him. And that's exactly the thing, we are not 'better' than others. We were not chosen because of our traits and skills, and without the gift of faith from God, we would be dead in our sins, the scripture would feel like foolishness, and one would be at worst openly hostile, and at best rejecting of God. I should know, I was an adherent anti-theist and was not brought forward by a preacher or a congregation, I was influenced by God, pulled towards the scripture which transformed me. I saw and I still see my own disgusting substance worthy of any number of interpretations of hell. Me, an imperfect being, committing perfect sins against the only perfect being, myself and others to which no mercy is due to me. Without God and what he has given me, I could no more come to him in any meaningful fashion than a dead man could rise from his grave on his own. There is no ointment or medicine for those that are dead in their sins, it requires the resurrection which only God can bring to get that to life. Yet, until one stand united with him, one will still be influenced by corruption. Every bad deed done ensuring one worthy of hell, and every good deed done, which again requires God, to be of no value that can grant salvation. It is the perfect God we are talking about, and even if I were to do something so noble as to throw myself in front of a truck, only to push a child away from certain doom and perish, that would be as filthy rags compared to what Christ did to us, the only act that can grant salvation. I could have lived my entire life, waking up only to save people from certain doom at great risk for one hundred years, and still perfected the sacrifice Christ has done no more than it already is, nor rivaled it, nor expanded on it. It would, indeed, be as filthy rags in comparison. We are not brought to God because of our own merit, as only his nature can turn us away from the sins that so chain our human nature and would see us all justly condemned. God is under no obligation to save anyone, he would stand wholesomely righteous if he had condemned everyone. Yet in his eternal love, he has chosen to save many, and none of those saved can boast, but in God.

Even in our best moments of wholesome repentance before God, which in a true fashion requires God to work through us to achieve. Have you noticed how quickly sin comes creeping back? Be it as little as a thought however short, be it a desire to murder or wish harm on someone, fornicate against another person, commit blasphemy against God, or perhaps even an action? We are not saved because of any inner beauty, on our own, we have none, yet brought to regeneration are those whom God touches as God never fails to save those he please, and all mankind in their imperfection deserves hell and glory it is to God to judge the unregenerate sinner who will go there in some level of hatred of God which is their nature, be it for exhalation of self, worship of ones own desires or any number of other issues that they have nor truly seek Christ to alter, just as it is glory to God to save those who never on their own deserved such or any his actions. All glory be unto God and it is for our love of him, not for some vain notion of adding weights to a moral scale, that we seek to be transformed by him. We must be ready to pay whatever price asked for, be it our money, our comforts, yay, even our family, health and life if so required. Not because we do not have love for such things, but because compared to the love we have for God, we love these not at all. Yet in our failing nature and endless depravity, we are reminded of the power of sin which grows all the more aggressive when we seek to distance ourselves from it, and as such, while judicial and matters of discipline may be another matter, that we do not see ourselves as superior because sin works in a far more infiltrating way, than our mind is able to comprehend. So we grow together, but should we be alone like John the Baptist walking the sands, we fear not, for we stand not really alone, and that will be needed seeing how the world, so in love with itself, it's subjects and it's depravity will at best ignore, and at worst, fight us. Come what may, we must stand ready for the trials that lay ahead, but we do not stand embarrassed over the majesty or power of God.

[Nordengrund]

If faith is a gift (I don't see it that way but I will go with it) from god, and god chooses whom to give it to, then why would god blame those of us who have not received that gift?

If hell is a place of torture that seems like a pretty mean thing to do
If hell is separation from god, aren't those of us without faith already separate from god?

Faith is a gift of the holy spirit, I guess talent is a sort of interchangeable.

From scripture the Oder of operations of faith I can see is

1 Hears the Gospel-> One (truly) believes in God and Christ -> The Holy Spirit comes upon them -> They receive the gift of Faith.

Don't be confused by Calvinism. Calvinism is hardly true Christianity. (IMHO)

Why is Calvinism not true Christianity?

[Mostrov]

I if I can recommend you a good old tv show which I watched when I was a kid, there is Les Rois Maudits/The Accursed Kings.
The books (and the T.V show) both inspired really much G.R.R Martin for his own "Song of Ice and Fire"'s books.

I highly approve.

He was a wildly unpopular pope and the first to resign in a great long time. officially he resigned on his own terms. and while i have no proof i suspect there was a lot of internal pressure for him to step aside.

Which I think was a pity, despite my rather anti-catholic feelings as he was an excellent theologian. He was certainly a better pope in those terms than the current ones, it just so happens that the perception matters despite this being such a flawed basis for leadership of faith.
Of course given the problems that he was facing internally regarding corruption and the like, I don't find unbelievable that he simply found it too great a stress.

As Augustine noted, (since this question has been around for thousands of years) the term all powerful, or omnipotent, is a mischaracterization of the word Almighty.

God is certainly Almighty, and one could even ascribe that as all powerful, but even the scope of omnipotence would be subject to semblance of logic an reason. Could God make himself not exist? I would imagine so. But could God create a triangle in which the sum of the angles equals more than 180 degrees? No, because that's nonsense.

Perhaps I am a poor logician, but I've always taken a degree of umbrage with this particular concept - that either mathematics is a fundamental property of the universe, as opposed to a man-made concept and that even if it isn't it is fundamental beyond that of the physical universe. If we were to be in another universe I see no reason why mathematics should be necessarily applicable as we currently understand it; in the same sense that Time or Cause and Effect are quite likely local to our own Universe.
God being supernatural by definition is constrained by this and so I don't see it as a category error for him to do so. I do think many of these paradoxes are category errors, but not this particular one.

[Luminesa]

Faith is a gift of the holy spirit, I guess talent is a sort of interchangeable.

From scripture the Oder of operations of faith I can see is

1 Hears the Gospel-> One (truly) believes in God and Christ -> The Holy Spirit comes upon them -> They receive the gift of Faith.

Don't be confused by Calvinism. Calvinism is hardly true Christianity. (IMHO)

Why is Calvinism not true Christianity?

It basically says that all of humanity is totally depraved.

If we were inherently depraved as a species, God would not have created us. According to Aquinas, God is the Creator of all things good.

Also, the idea that only a few people have received the gift of salvation. God died for everyone on the cross, and while we have indeed been redeemed by His pure and everlasting sacrificial love, we must cooperate with His grace, if we want to reach Heaven.

Prayer and sacrifice!

[Herskerstad]

Why is Calvinism not true Christianity?

It basically says that all of humanity is totally depraved.

If we were inherently depraved as a species, God would not have created us. According to Aquinas, God is the Creator of all things good.

Also, the idea that only a few people have received the gift of salvation. God died for everyone on the cross, and while we have indeed been redeemed by His pure and everlasting sacrificial love, we must cooperate with His grace, if we want to reach Heaven.

Prayer and sacrifice!

We were not 'created' depraved, but we are born with original sin, there is no original anti sin to come with that as there is nothing man can do alone to elevate himself closer to God.

I do not see either to be numbered as the sand on the beach to be a few either, but I guess that's open to interpretation. While the cross is sufficient for all sins, it is not efficient in the sense that those graces will expand to those who would in catholic theology end up the enemies of God, and in biblical theology be deniers, haters and enemies of God long before that day comes.

It's a question of essentially Pelagianism, Semi - Pelagianism or Anti - Pelagianism. One stating that man is not born with original sin, another stating that man is born 'wounded' by original sin and the last stating that man is born dead in said original sin. As far as myself goes, I have already one sacrifice that atones for my deeds past and present, nothing I can add or take away from that most perfect sacrifice that covers all sins including mine, numerous as they may be, and indeed, trying to add to said sacrifice would be denial of it's power which is blasphemy most high, but with the doctrine of the mass adding numerous more issues, which is a doctrine best refuted at length by Knox.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps5RtMoZy20

[Nordengrund]

Why is Calvinism not true Christianity?

It basically says that all of humanity is totally depraved.

If we were inherently depraved as a species, God would not have created us. According to Aquinas, God is the Creator of all things good.

Also, the idea that only a few people have received the gift of salvation. God died for everyone on the cross, and while we have indeed been redeemed by His pure and everlasting sacrificial love, we must cooperate with His grace, if we want to reach Heaven.

Prayer and sacrifice!

I am neutral with the Calvinist- Arminian debate as I think both sides are right about some things but neither side is completely right.

I agree with the Calvinists on the security of the believer (that you cannot lose your salvation), and that salvation is through faith alone, and that man cannot do anything to earn salvation other than believing and accepting Jesus. You cannot lose your salvation since you did not have to do anything to earn it.

I agree with Arminians on conditional election and that Christ died for all people, but you must choose to come to Him in order to be saved. However, Arminians believe you can lose your salvation by not living a Christian life and you have to keep it by doing good works. I disagree with this as it implies that good works can get you into heaven, and the logic conclusion is that you can lose your salvation.

[Luminesa]

It basically says that all of humanity is totally depraved.

If we were inherently depraved as a species, God would not have created us. According to Aquinas, God is the Creator of all things good.

Also, the idea that only a few people have received the gift of salvation. God died for everyone on the cross, and while we have indeed been redeemed by His pure and everlasting sacrificial love, we must cooperate with His grace, if we want to reach Heaven.

Prayer and sacrifice!

I am neutral with the Calvinist- Arminian debate as I think both sides are right about some things but neither side is completely right.

I agree with the Calvinists on the security of the believer (that you cannot lose your salvation), and that salvation is through faith alone, and that man cannot do anything to earn salvation other than believing and accepting Jesus. You cannot lose your salvation since you did not have to do anything to earn it.

I agree with Arminians on conditional election and that Christ died for all people, but you must choose to come to Him in order to be saved. However, Arminians believe you can lose your salvation by not living a Christian life and you have to keep it by doing good works. I disagree with this as it implies that good works can get you into heaven, and the logic conclusion is that you can lose your salvation.

I agree that You have to cooperate with Christ, in order to be saved. At the same time, though, think of this example:
So, Kanye West wrote a song called "Jesus Walks", right? Cool. Christ died for him, because He died and rose for all people, so all people could come to Him in love and peace. However, can Kanye do bad stuff? Yes. He can star in videos where he does stupid stuff with Kim Kardashian, and post them all over the internet. He can lose his salvation by not repenting and truly living a Christian life. Of course, only God knows his struggles and his sufferings, so while I don't agree with Kanye's actions and overall ridiculousness, I'm not going to judge him and say, "Oh, you're going to Hell!" At the same time, however, the Book of James tells us that faith without works is dead. So, sure Kanye can write songs about Jesus, but they mean nothing if he doesn't live a life that shows that He loves Jesus Christ with all his heart, mind, body, and soul.

You know what I mean?

[Herskerstad]

It basically says that all of humanity is totally depraved.

If we were inherently depraved as a species, God would not have created us. According to Aquinas, God is the Creator of all things good.

Also, the idea that only a few people have received the gift of salvation. God died for everyone on the cross, and while we have indeed been redeemed by His pure and everlasting sacrificial love, we must cooperate with His grace, if we want to reach Heaven.

Prayer and sacrifice!

I am neutral with the Calvinist- Arminian debate as I think both sides are right about some things but neither side is completely right.

I agree with the Calvinists on the security of the believer (that you cannot lose your salvation), and that salvation is through faith alone, and that man cannot do anything to earn salvation other than believing and accepting Jesus. You cannot lose your salvation since you did not have to do anything to earn it.

I agree with Arminians on conditional election and that Christ died for all people, but you must choose to come to Him in order to be saved. However, Arminians believe you can lose your salvation by not living a Christian life and you have to keep it by doing good works. I disagree with this as it implies that good works can get you into heaven, and the logic conclusion is that you can lose your salvation.

Forget not the doctrine of irresistible grace in Calvinism. That those influenced by God will not be able to ultimately deny God. Overcoming their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to faith in Christ.

We Calvinists believe that ultimately it is God who saves and ultimately only he who can do such. Whereas others believe that there is a synergistic approach, that God does his and then man must do his for salvation to be achieved. Whereas Calvinists do believe that God changes man who otherwise would be dead in his sins and causes them to spiritually rise like Lazarus, unable to say no to the grace of God because it is greater than what we know. In sober understanding of our own depraved nature and in repentance of such coming naturally, and while life offers both trials and failings, the one thing that does not fail is God, nor does God pick erroneously. It's a monergistic outlook that gives man no part, nor any glory in the salvation which is entirely due to the glory of God.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

I wonder what a Pope is thinking when he is first elected. Is he excited? Or is he terrified? It would be a surprise, no matter the case. There's no predicting the result of a Conclave.

[Luminesa]

I wonder what a Pope is thinking when he is first elected. Is he excited? Or is he terrified? It would be a surprise, no matter the case. There's no predicting the result of a Conclave.

They say Pope Francis was completely shocked and terrified by it.

I LOVE PAPA FRANCISCO!!! :3

[Narland]

That's not how I'd define it. Those given the gift of faith and all it encompasses from God certainly has some level of understanding. For those without such it is another thing entirely, but I doubt we'd ever get to the point where human instruments can gauge God's presence or such.

If faith is a gift (I don't see it that way but I will go with it) from god, and god chooses whom to give it to, then why would god blame those of us who have not received that gift?

If hell is a place of torture that seems like a pretty mean thing to do
If hell is separation from god, aren't those of us without faith already separate from god?

why would god blame those of us who have not received that gift?
Romans 1:18-21 ...the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
If hell is a place of torture that seems like a pretty mean thing to do
God is just and does not give people more than they deserve. Technically it is a place of torment brought about by our own wickedness--our conscience is our greatest condemner which if you remember the angst of puberty can be very tortuous indeed. However it is not God who tortures us. Jesus describes hell as a place where the fire and worm do not die, a place where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, and a place reserved for the Slanderer and his messengers (the Devil and his angels). (Mat 5:22, Mat 10:28, 2 Pet 2:4, Rev 20:13, Rev 20:14)
If hell is separation from god, aren't those of us without faith already separate from god?
This is why Jesus Christ came into this world. We were dead to God but His gift of salvation reconciles us to Him. He saves us by His grace upon our trusting Jesus for our salvation. Our state when we die seals our fate. (John 3:16-21, Romans 5, especially 5:8, Ephesians 2:8-9, Hebrews 9:26b-28, Romans 10:9-13, 1 John 1:9; 5:1-5, Hebrews 9:27-28).

[Neutraligon]

Since there is no definition how can I say it exists? To claim that in order to argue I must be conscious is to have a definition for consciousness. On the other-hand using that definition i am able to provide evidence that consciousness exists simply because I can and am arguing. Either way the original point is shown to be mistaken.

How can you be sure that you really are doing so?
How can you be sure the floor is really under your feets?
How are you really sure you're even alive?

It's the little problem here. I if you don't start to suppose things are true, you can't even live.

Really arguing, well there are the words on the screen from me and from you, which constitutes physical evidence.
Because I can touch the floor I can figure out it;s composition. I can see the floor, etc.
We have a articular definition of alive and I fulfill that definition.

[Neutraligon]

If faith is a gift (I don't see it that way but I will go with it) from god, and god chooses whom to give it to, then why would god blame those of us who have not received that gift?

If hell is a place of torture that seems like a pretty mean thing to do
If hell is separation from god, aren't those of us without faith already separate from god?

why would god blame those of us who have not received that gift?
Romans 1:18-21 ...the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
If hell is a place of torture that seems like a pretty mean thing to do
God is just and does not give people more than they deserve. Technically it is a place of torment brought about by our own wickedness--our conscience is our greatest condemner which if you remember the angst of puberty can be very tortuous indeed. However it is not God who tortures us. Jesus describes hell as a place where the fire and worm do not die, a place where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, and a place reserved for the Slanderer and his messengers (the Devil and his angels). (Mat 5:22, Mat 10:28, 2 Pet 2:4, Rev 20:13, Rev 20:14)
If hell is separation from god, aren't those of us without faith already separate from god?
This is why Jesus Christ came into this world. We were dead to God but His gift of salvation reconciles us to Him. He saves us by His grace upon our trusting Jesus for our salvation. Our state when we die seals our fate. (John 3:16-21, Romans 5, especially 5:8, Ephesians 2:8-9, Hebrews 9:26b-28, Romans 10:9-13, 1 John 1:9; 5:1-5, Hebrews 9:27-28).

Clearly if I say I have seen no evidence then claiming I have is not going to make me agree with you. Claiming I am suppressing it, when I have no reason to do so Is ridiculous to the extreme.

You know I would experience absolutely no torment for not believing in a god, thus there is no problem. Did god not make the rules for who goes to hell, does god not pass judgement, did god not create hell ? If he did those things then he is also responsible for the torture.

If we were dead to god then according to you we were also dead to Jesus, thus Jesus coming to earth would have no affect. Explain to me why god is so incapable of forgiveness without a blood sacrifice, especially when all he was dong was sacrificing himself to himself.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I don't know if y'all are into house of Cards, but the bishops speech at the end of season 3 episode 4 is bad ass.

[Angleter]

He was a wildly unpopular pope and the first to resign in a great long time. officially he resigned on his own terms. and while i have no proof i suspect there was a lot of internal pressure for him to step aside.

Which I think was a pity, despite my rather anti-catholic feelings as he was an excellent theologian. He was certainly a better pope in those terms than the current ones, it just so happens that the perception matters despite this being such a flawed basis for leadership of faith.
Of course given the problems that he was facing internally regarding corruption and the like, I don't find unbelievable that he simply found it too great a stress.

I think that's what happened. One can say a lot of things about the Curia, but 'receptive to public opinion' isn't one of them. However, the corruption, complacency, insubordination, and factional backbiting was probably too much for Benedict to deal with.

And lo and behold, it hasn't gone away.

[Aelex]

Really arguing, well there are the words on the screen from me and from you, which constitutes physical evidence.
Because I can touch the floor I can figure out it;s composition. I can see the floor, etc.
We have a articular definition of alive and I fulfill that definition.

How can you be sure that this physical evidence is really an evidence?
How can you be sure that touching or seeing a think forcefully make it be real?
How can you be sure that the definition you're talking about isn't erroneous?

[Constantinopolis]

I'm just going to re-post this because it relates directly to a discussion about salvation on the previous page:

How do you get saved in Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Well, as it just so happens, yesterday I ran across a YouTube video of Bishop Kallistos Ware answering that exact question! Here it is:

"Are you saved?"

[Benuty]

By the way Const, what do you think of the fact that the Old Testament allows for profit incentive?

It would be alarming if the religion was non-prophet...

So does that mean it would be for guru?

[Benuty]

By the way Const, what do you think of the fact that the Old Testament allows for profit incentive?

The Old Testament often takes a pragmatic approach to social relations, allowing practices that were common in the time and place where ancient Hebrews lived, and seeking only to mitigate or regulate them rather than ban them outright. There are many examples of polygamy in the Old Testament, for instance, yet neither Judaism nor Christianity allow polygamy today.

I should also point out that Marxists are very much aware that socialism and communism are only possible after a certain point in human history (specifically, after the industrial revolution). If you transported me to 700 B.C. - or even to A.D. 1700, for that matter - I would not advocate communism, because it was not possible at that time.

Communism is not supposed to be an ahistorical, atemporal goal to be pusued by anyone at any time in any place.

http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewis ... e-polygamy

Well most of them do.

[Benuty]

Hi I'm back.
Just wanted to say hi and hope you folks are willing to take me seriously, because I am now.
I'm done screwing around.

So...... Sorry bout the way I acted. Forgive me?

I would hope you would be.

[Benuty]

In terms of honest debate (in other words, religious beliefs aside) we can't assume there is a higher power than God because God lies outside the confines of the Universe, of which our perceptions are bound to. Beyond that, omnipotence gives the capabilities of both self-creation as well as simply existing forever.

If god is so powerful, that must mean he is capable of anything right??

So does that mean he is capable of not existing?
Is he capable of creating a boulder so massive he can't lift it?


And if he exists outside what our perceptions are bound to, how do you have any clue or indication of him existing?

The boulder fallacy really?