The Christian Discussion Thread VI

[Gim]

Also, I know this is a Christian Discussion Thread, but for those whom it may apply. Please pray for France. This is in direct relations to the recent/ongoing catastrophe.

Thank you.

I thank the Lord for making me safe from the kinds of shootings that occurred in France.

[Diopolis]

Also, I know this is a Christian Discussion Thread, but for those whom it may apply. Please pray for France. This is in direct relations to the recent/ongoing catastrophe.

Thank you.

Notre Dame de Paris, priez pour les victimes.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Predestination as an insult to the spirit of humanity.

How many are saved by this spirit of humanity again?

As for the one who frequently seem to insult it, well.

Romans 8:29–30 “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. ”

the predestined here referring to Christianity as a whole, I.e from the beginning of time, it was predestined that people would find salvation from the cross. Christians were predestined for salvation, but people weren't predestined to become Christians.

as for the spirit of humanity, it amazes me how you reformed despise humanity so much to the point that all you see religion is as an escape from it. By robbing humans of free will you rob humans of any divine purpose.

[Conscentia]

Also, I know this is a Christian Discussion Thread, but for those whom it may apply. Please pray for France. This is in direct relations to the recent/ongoing catastrophe.
Thank you.

I thank the Lord for making me safe from the kinds of shootings that occurred in France.

That's a rather selfish thought.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I thank the Lord for making me safe from the kinds of shootings that occurred in France.

That's a rather selfish thought.

It's really not

[Gim]

That's a rather selfish thought.

It's really not

Thank you.

[Conscentia]

That's a rather selfish thought.

It's really not

To first comment of one's own safety after others are attacked suggests to me a lack consideration for others. I mean, that's where your mind goes? Really?

Not to mention it raises the question of why the Lord would make Gim safe, but not those that were killed or injured. Did the French deserve it? Or is the truth here that God had nothing to do with the fact Gim wasn't attacked?

[Kainesia]

It's really not

To first comment of one's own safety after others are attacked suggests to me a lack consideration for others. I mean, that's where your mind goes? Really?

Not to mention it raises the question of why the Lord would make Gim safe, but not those that were killed or injured. Did the French deserve it? Or is the truth here that God had nothing to do with the fact Gim wasn't attacked?

Well, my argument would be that the judeo-christian god does not exist, and thus cannot protect anyone from anything.

[New Waterford]

My prayers are with those affected by the attacks in Paris.

[Salus Maior]

To first comment of one's own safety after others are attacked suggests to me a lack consideration for others. I mean, that's where your mind goes? Really?

Not to mention it raises the question of why the Lord would make Gim safe, but not those that were killed or injured. Did the French deserve it? Or is the truth here that God had nothing to do with the fact Gim wasn't attacked?

Well, my argument would be that the judeo-christian god does not exist, and thus cannot protect anyone from anything.

Great, so why are you here and responding to this comment?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

It's really not

To first comment of one's own safety after others are attacked suggests to me a lack consideration for others. I mean, that's where your mind goes? Really?

Not to mention it raises the question of why the Lord would make Gim safe, but not those that were killed or injured. Did the French deserve it? Or is the truth here that God had nothing to do with the fact Gim wasn't attacked?

It is not selfish to be appreciative of the blessings one has received. It severs no higher purpose to be ashamed of ones own good fortune.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Synod of Dort: God predestines some to damnation from birth; nothing they can do will change this.

Isn't this the logical corollary and outcome of predestination reasoning? It is all an assault upon free will.

As for me, I side with the Wife of Bath.

If one is to go by the concept of Libertarian Free Will, then the amount of times God himself alters or at times even violates it in the bible is rather hard to count. Be it by the removal of traits/blessings, due punishments be them direct or from natural disasters, and should Free Will be that which justification partially relies on, then anyone who'd be damned after a direct action of God would essentially be reprobates whom's free will chance was cut short by the almighty one himself. Likewise, the ones whom he brings to Christ to which is a requirement to coming to him in the first place seems indicative of how far free will can carry one.

Me think thou dost not understand the concept of free will

[Diopolis]

If one is to go by the concept of Libertarian Free Will, then the amount of times God himself alters or at times even violates it in the bible is rather hard to count. Be it by the removal of traits/blessings, due punishments be them direct or from natural disasters, and should Free Will be that which justification partially relies on, then anyone who'd be damned after a direct action of God would essentially be reprobates whom's free will chance was cut short by the almighty one himself. Likewise, the ones whom he brings to Christ to which is a requirement to coming to him in the first place seems indicative of how far free will can carry one.

Me think thou dost not understand the concept of free will

Technically, it's "I thinke thou do not understand". Subjunctive, you see.

[Herskerstad]

How many are saved by this spirit of humanity again?

As for the one who frequently seem to insult it, well.

the predestined here referring to Christianity as a whole, I.e from the beginning of time, it was predestined that people would find salvation from the cross. Christians were predestined for salvation, but people weren't predestined to become Christians.

as for the spirit of humanity, it amazes me how you reformed despise humanity so much to the point that all you see religion is as an escape from it. By robbing humans of free will you rob humans of any divine purpose.

While the category of the elect stands as a whole, yes, but he also foreknew and predestined them to which call, justification and glorification follows. This is closely followed up by Romans 9's. The hardened heart of Pharaoh's predestined purpose, God's mercy on those whom he will and hardens those whom he wants to harden. The potter and the clay. Jacob being loved and Eisau being hated. Not by works, but by the call. That man cannot put a charge against God's justice. List goes on. It's impossible to simply dilute God's election as some kind of category that is only authorized by man's free willed acceptance and may fail and still remain on a biblical footing.

And then we move on to your next argument which makes a few fundamental errors which, to be frank, you should have learned by now. Reformed does not see religion as an escape from being human. If someone converted from hard-line atheist into full blown Shinto-practitioner, he'd no more have escaped his bondage of sin than if he had done nothing at all. That we see God rescuing mankind from sin is another thing, to which point, yes, we very much see the Spirit of God as something that regenerates and changes us. We do not see ourselves as the authors or partial architects to our salvation, God very much took care of that on the cross.

Should such be countered, a few questions naturally come up.

Apart from God, can mankind do good?

Can two people given equally of the Holy Spirit end up to which one is condemned and another glorified?

Can a hardened heart on it's own merit find God?

[Herskerstad]

If one is to go by the concept of Libertarian Free Will, then the amount of times God himself alters or at times even violates it in the bible is rather hard to count. Be it by the removal of traits/blessings, due punishments be them direct or from natural disasters, and should Free Will be that which justification partially relies on, then anyone who'd be damned after a direct action of God would essentially be reprobates whom's free will chance was cut short by the almighty one himself. Likewise, the ones whom he brings to Christ to which is a requirement to coming to him in the first place seems indicative of how far free will can carry one.

Me think thou dost not understand the concept of free will

If you are to speak like that at least get the words right. Me buy bread? I don't think so. I bought bread.

But in classical fashion you make a statement without really addressing beyond you finding it erroneous. You now have a chance to demonstrate.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Me think thou dost not understand the concept of free will

If you are to speak like that at least get the words right. Me buy bread? I don't think so. I bought bread.

But in classical fashion you make a statement without really addressing beyond you finding it erroneous. You now have a chance to demonstrate.

You're conflating free will with self determination.

[Tmutarakhan]

Me think thou dost not understand the concept of free will

Technically, it's "I thinke thou do not understand". Subjunctive, you see.

No, it's "methinks" (single-word adverb, an unusual construction that did not long survive after Shakespeare's time for reasons that must be obvious) "thou understandest not" (the -st ending was correct where "do not" was quite erroneous; but breaking it up with an auxiliary verb "dost not understand" is a very post-Elizabethan usage).

[Diopolis]

Technically, it's "I thinke thou do not understand". Subjunctive, you see.

No, it's "methinks" (single-word adverb, an unusual construction that did not long survive after Shakespeare's time for reasons that must be obvious) "thou understandest not" (the -st ending was correct where "do not" was quite erroneous; but breaking it up with an auxiliary verb "dost not understand" is a very post-Elizabethan usage).

The -st ending was specific to the indicative mood. The bare stem of the verb indicates subjunctive. You may have a point on methinks, although I thinke is probably an equally valid construction.

[New confederate ramenia]

Daily Reminder

The modern world, which denies personal guilt and admits only social crimes, which has no place for personal repentance but only public reforms, has divorced Christ from His Cross; the Bridegroom and Bride have been pulled apart. What God hath joined together, men have torn asunder. As a result, to the left is the Cross; to the right is Christ. Each has awaited new partners who will pick them up in a kind of second and adulterous union. Communism comes along and picks up the meaningless Cross; Western post-Christian civilization chooses the unscarred Christ.

Communism has chosen the Cross in the sense that it has brought back to an egotistic world a sense of discipline, self-abnegation, surrender, hard work, study, and dedication to supra-individual goals. But the Cross without Christ is sacrifice without love. Hence, Communism has produced a society that is authoritarian, cruel, oppressive of human freedom, filled with concentration camps, firing squads, and brain-washings.

The Western post-Christian civilization has picked up the Christ without His Cross. But a Christ without a sacrifice that reconciles the world to God is a cheap, feminized, colourless, itinerant preacher who deserves to be popular for His great Sermon on the Mount, but also merits unpopularity for what He said about His Divinity on the one hand, and divorce, judgment, and hell on the other. This sentimental Christ is patched together with a thousand commonplaces, sustained sometimes by academic etymologists who cannot see the Word for the letters, or distorted beyond personal recognition by a dogmatic principle that anything which is Divine must necessarily be a myth. Without His Cross, He becomes nothing more than a sultry precursor of democracy or a humanitarian who taught brotherhood without tears.

[Diopolis]

Daily Reminder

The modern world, which denies personal guilt and admits only social crimes, which has no place for personal repentance but only public reforms, has divorced Christ from His Cross; the Bridegroom and Bride have been pulled apart. What God hath joined together, men have torn asunder. As a result, to the left is the Cross; to the right is Christ. Each has awaited new partners who will pick them up in a kind of second and adulterous union. Communism comes along and picks up the meaningless Cross; Western post-Christian civilization chooses the unscarred Christ.

Communism has chosen the Cross in the sense that it has brought back to an egotistic world a sense of discipline, self-abnegation, surrender, hard work, study, and dedication to supra-individual goals. But the Cross without Christ is sacrifice without love. Hence, Communism has produced a society that is authoritarian, cruel, oppressive of human freedom, filled with concentration camps, firing squads, and brain-washings.

The Western post-Christian civilization has picked up the Christ without His Cross. But a Christ without a sacrifice that reconciles the world to God is a cheap, feminized, colourless, itinerant preacher who deserves to be popular for His great Sermon on the Mount, but also merits unpopularity for what He said about His Divinity on the one hand, and divorce, judgment, and hell on the other. This sentimental Christ is patched together with a thousand commonplaces, sustained sometimes by academic etymologists who cannot see the Word for the letters, or distorted beyond personal recognition by a dogmatic principle that anything which is Divine must necessarily be a myth. Without His Cross, He becomes nothing more than a sultry precursor of democracy or a humanitarian who taught brotherhood without tears.

Quoting this because it's so well written.

[Grave_n_idle]

Daily Reminder

Quoting this because it's so well written.

It is well written. Unfortunately, it's also complete rubbish.

[Diopolis]

Quoting this because it's so well written.

It is well written. Unfortunately, it's also complete rubbish.

You mean the part about communism bringing in any of the stuff they're said to? That's certainly suspect.

[Salus Maior]

It is well written. Unfortunately, it's also complete rubbish.

You mean the part about communism bringing in any of the stuff they're said to? That's certainly suspect.

Touche

[Gim]

You mean the part about communism bringing in any of the stuff they're said to? That's certainly suspect.

Touche

[Constantinopolis]

Well, that's a nice-sounding quote and all, but, as Grave_n_idle said, it's complete rubbish. And not because of what it says about communism.

It's complete rubbish because it tries to interpret political ideologies as if they are theological stances. But politics is not religion. The quote begins by complaining that "the modern world" - by which it evidently means modern politics - "denies personal guilt and admits only social crimes, which has no place for personal repentance but only public reforms". But what else is politics supposed to do? Whether modern, medieval or ancient, politics has always been about... policy. Public reforms. Laws. Dealing with problems and crimes at the social level.

"Politics" means "the business of the city". Politics is inherently concerned with the social and the public, not the personal. It is not the job of politics to say anything about personal guilt or repentance. That is the job of the Church.

Politics is not religion, and the state is not the Church. It makes no sense to lament the fact that the state isn't doing the job of the Church. It's not supposed to.