Brainwashing? Christianity seems to be taking weird steps, here at least.

[pevergreen]

I attend, if you did not realise/care (:tongue:) a Lutheran School, as I have for my schooling life (For the next day, last day of school tomorrow!). However, I am agnostic, but I still sit and respect the religion, try to make the best of the good moral lessons that are taught. But lately, there has been a baptist surge in the group of friends at school. I don't have any strong feeling about it one way or the other, but when this youth group started inviting other christians in, then telling them their demoninations were wrong (speicifc incident, daughter of a Chaplain and a Pastor) that her boyfriend was evil, as he did not believe in christ (He's swinging between Aethiest and Agnostic) and they questioned her how she could handle that, it began to annoy me slightly. Then when the "alpha" female (a christian for only the past few months) went to her boyfriend of over a year and said she couldn't choose between him and god, he made the choice for her and left. That annoyed me more, but the sheer stupidity of some of the stuff there...I decided to investigate slightly. I started talking with the female in question, lying outragously. She, however, ate it up and today gave me a list of bible verses I should read and think about. The conversation from last night is in the spoiler (Warning: 6 pages in word)

Nick
we can talk here! its like msn
but without the program
8:25pmSuzanna
mmkay
but just letting you know, I can't stay long
8:26pmNick
ah ok, thats fine :p
8:28pmSuzanna
so what's been going on with you/
?*
8:28pmNick
nothing much really
8:29pmSuzanna
you know God offers a solution to the blackness
8:29pmNick
the bible...has always been there
a lot of parts give me comfort
but i just have trouble. the schools ive been too...all lutheran..it just never clicked
neither did my grandpa's catholic funeral
but the music. and the messages fit
i just...its like theres a missing piece to the puzzle. and i cant find it.
8:30pmSuzanna
what bit don't you understand?
or what bit is missing
8:31pmNick
i dont know whats missing
but theres that god complex thing
if he is omnopotent, why hasnt he wiped out non believers. why does he let cruelty into the world
and things that are just wrong.
child molesters...terrorists...:daisy: gay people.
i dont admit it to people
gays are just...wrong
lol. we were asked to give our opinion on gay marriage
and if it should be legal or not
in drama
i couldnt answer
because the others wouldnt understand
everyone paid me out
because i refused to put myself on the scale
where everyone else was
at the "allow" end
and i wanted to go to the "NO :daisy: OFF" section
8:34pmSuzanna
gay people themselves are not wrong - they are still God's creation just like you or I. but they're actions are very, very wrong. they're actions are evil and should not be condoned in anyway.
8:35pmNick
so...if i know someone thats gay...
8:35pmSuzanna
God speaks about it many times in the Bible - and sexual immorality, especially between two men or two women, is one of the worst sins.
you should love them as a person, but do not let yourself be influenced by their sinful ways. pray for them - ask God to show them the truth of their actions
8:37pmNick
mmm you're right.
but i dont want to keep you, do you need to go?
8:37pmSuzanna
I can stay a bit longer
8:38pmNick
ok. that would be nice, could you answer a question thats been plauging me?
8:39pmSuzanna
ask me, but I can't promise an answer
8:39pmNick
ok
what about thoughts of 'that' nature.
and what about kissing and stuff outside of a relationship? is that moral?
8:40pmSuzanna
hmm, that's a hard question, but it's an important one
God's pretty clear about one thing in the Bible - sex should be within marriage. but as for other things, like kissing/touching, he doesn't make direct reference to it
8:40pmNick
so thinking about doing something like that with a nice girl is ok?
and possibly doing it?
8:41pmSuzanna
The Bible says "everyone who looks at a women with lustful intent has already commited adultery with her in his heart."
so basically, if the girl is not yours, i.e. you're not married to her, you shouldn't be lusting after her.
8:41pmNick
hmm
8:42pmSuzanna
respect her all you will, be friends with her for sure, but don't lust after her
especially if she's with another guy. coz that's lust and covetousness
8:42pmNick
so, to be rightful, it must be a relationship before anything happens?
8:43pmSuzanna
its complicated.
even if you were in a relationship with a girl
she might not be the one you plan on spending the rest of your life with
in that case, she's probably not the girl that God has planned for you
therefore she is planned for another guy
8:44pmNick
that makes sense.
8:44pmSuzanna
so anything you do with her, is a part of her that she gives to you, and not to the guy that she is meant to be with
and the same goes for you: everything you give to her, is something less of yourself you can give to the woman you marry.
but the great thing is, nothing is impossible for God
8:45pmNick
so, we will always end up with the right person?
8:45pmSuzanna
only if you listen to God
coz God has a plan for you, but unless you listen to him, you might follow your own sinful desires.
8:46pmNick
how do i hear him?
8:46pmSuzanna
you pray to him. you read his word. you listen to his teachings
you talk to other Christians
but mostly you pray. ask him to give you wisdom.
8:47pmNick
what about things that i've done in the past.
should i just pray for forgiveness?
8:47pmSuzanna
well there's a few steps involved.
firstly, you have to acknowledge that you have sinned.
then you have to repent.
that doesn't just mean saying sorry
it's means saying sorry, and then turning away from your sin and towards righteousness.
you need to accept Jesus into your life, as your Saviour
8:49pmNick
seems like righteousness isnt easy to attain.
8:49pmSuzanna
that is very true
because we as humans are sinful
but God is perfect
and all powerful
and he can do anything
so if you ask for his strength
he will strengthen you and help you lead a righteous life
but first you must accept Jesus into your life: Romans 10:9 "because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
saved meaning not only eternal life, but also forgiveness for your sins
8:51pmNick
something that i would very much like.
alright, thank you so much for this, but two more questions, if i may
8:51pmSuzanna
sure
go ahead
8:51pmNick
did you ever have lustful intent with ****(Her boyfriend)?
and, is there a point to a relationship if its not the person you will marry? and what happens if you are too ignorant to read the signs?
im worried about that suzanna. i dont want to miss the signs.
8:53pmSuzanna
Nick, God wants your happiness.
he's not gonna let you marry the wrong girl without putting up a fight
look, do you want to have a chat at school tomorrow? there are a couple of verses in the Bible I'd like to show you
8:54pmNick
that would be great.
8:54pmSuzanna
awesome :D
8:54pmNick
ok, i should go finish off some work
you sleep well suzanna.

I would just like to assure everyone, that I, Nick, do not agree with any of the views that I "have" in this conversation.

I am going to attempt to find out more by attending the "bible study group".

My question is this, however, is the outright hostility they show towards not only other faiths, but other demoninations, and their overwhelming desire to CONVERT CONVERT CONVERT acceptable in this day and age and is it a true representation of other christian groups throughout the world?

pever.

Edit: Forgot to take the bad language out. Sorry for anyone who read and was offended. Thanks for covering Banquo. :no: silly pever.:no:

[HoreTore]

My question is this, however, is the outright hostility they show towards not only other faiths, but other demoninations, and their overwhelming desire to CONVERT CONVERT CONVERT acceptable in this day and age and is it a true representation of other christian groups throughout the world?

It's not acceptable to me at least. I can have a discussion, that's all fine, but I won't have any missionary stuff. Try that, and I'll ignore/ridicule/insult/try to make you cry.

As for whether other christian groups do the same around the world, the answer is clearly yes. While all/most christianity is missionary, there are certain churches who are completely and utterly engulfed in it, and they are completely desperate to convert everyone to their belief, with an extreme intolerance for any other beliefs. All means seem to justify the end. Most people point and laugh, though.

[CountArach]

It's not acceptable to me at least. I can have a discussion, that's all fine, but I won't have any missionary stuff. Try that, and I'll ignore/ridicule/insult/try to make you cry.
QFT

[Fragony]

It's not acceptable to me at least. I can have a discussion, that's all fine, but I won't have any missionary stuff. Try that, and I'll ignore/ridicule/insult/try to make you cry.


:yes:

[Rhyfelwyr]

I like how you're having a mini-reformation at your school. :laugh4:

The Baptists have always been nuts, ever since Munster. :wink:

Anyway, they're all wrong since in fact only 5-point Calvinism is correct and you must accept it now or you'll burn in hell! :clown:

Seriously though, people sometimes get confused into thinking that they are meant to actually save people, whereas they are instead meant only to preach, and the elect will be drawn. Therefore, if you're evangelising then you should try to preach at least once to the people you come across on your missionary project or whatever, but if people like HoreTore seem adamant then its best just to leave them alone before they start complaining and giving Christianity a bad name to everyone.

[Ronin]

I recommend you contact your local mental health intitutions....this seems like a job for them.

[CountArach]

if people like HoreTore seem adamant then its best just to leave them alone before they start complaining and giving Christianity a bad name to everyone.
It does a good enough job on its own.

/troll :wink:

EDIT 1: By the way pever I found your mistake that led to the entire conversation:
"i just...its like theres a missing piece to the puzzle. and i cant find it."

Wrong line completely if you don't want to be bible-bashed.

EDIT 2: Lol, this discussion is the gift that just keeps giving... she made up the word "covetousness"... awesome...

EDIT 3:but God is perfect
and all powerful
and he can do anything

Correct response: "Could he create a stone so heavy..."

[Rhyfelwyr]

It does a good enough job on its own.

/troll :wink:

So do the ban the bomb crew. I know, lets protest against big government abusing human rights and being violent and creating nuclear weapons... by rioting with USSR flags!!!111

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a troll for a troll :smash:

[CountArach]

So do the ban the bomb crew. I know, lets protest against big government abusing human rights and being violent and creating nuclear weapons... by rioting with USSR flags!!!111
When was the last time someone did that? 1988? :inquisitive:

[Rhyfelwyr]

When was the last time someone did that? 1988? :inquisitive:

My Uni had a similar protest last year, because some US gov't guy was visiting. In the end they cancelled it. :shrug:

[Sigurd]

[...]That annoyed me more, but the sheer stupidity of some of the stuff there...I decided to investigate slightly. I started talking with the female in question, lying outragously. She, however, ate it up and today gave me a list of bible verses I should read and think about.
[...]
I am going to attempt to find out more by attending the "bible study group".

So ... you are posing as a Christian, because ... ?
I am curious as to which verses she gave you.



My question is this, however, is the outright hostility they show towards not only other faiths, but other denominations, and their overwhelming desire to CONVERT CONVERT CONVERT acceptable in this day and age and is it a true representation of other Christian groups throughout the world?

If you knew Christianity, you would realize that despite being a doomsday sect of Judaism, Missionary work was important. Spreading the word and gaining followers has been adamant since its formation.
In fact what we know about the early church is CONVERT, CONVERT, CONVERT and EXPAND, EXPAND, EXPAND.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Seriously though, people sometimes get confused into thinking that they are meant to actually save people, whereas they are instead meant only to preach, and the elect will be drawn. Therefore, if you're evangelising then you should try to preach at least once to the people you come across on your missionary project or whatever, but if people like HoreTore seem adamant then its best just to leave them alone before they start complaining and giving Christianity a bad name to everyone.

Doctrine not Scripture, it's eliteist, and it absolves you of responsibility.

I live with an atheist, he's an intelligent chap, we have had a lot of discussions about the nature of faith. would I like to convert him, well actually I'd like to convert everyone because I believe I've got the right end of the stick.

HOWEVER, these people, and Rhyfelwyr, seem to think they have the whole stick. The only person with the whole stick in the Bible is God.

I could go on about different doctrinal issues and what I have reasoned from my own study, I could rank Churches according to how they tally with my beliefs but I think that would be impious because it would assume a primacy and accuracy to my views for which I have no support. If someone is a genuinely confessing Christian that's enough for me, be they baptist, Catholic, Anglican or Methodist.

HOWEVER, when I come across fanatics who claim the inerracy of a book they have never read then I will argue against them as strongly as I possibly can. We have such a group, the "Evangelical Christian Union" here in Exeter.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/6172852.stm

http://catholicactionuk.blogspot.com/2007/07/exeter-christian-union-told-muslims.html

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=48650

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/nov/17/highereducation.students

Some of this is 2 or three years old but just a couple of weeks ago they tried to get the SU's Equal-Ops policy changed to allow them to discriminate against students with different beliefs.

[Strike For The South]

We are coming to eat your children no use stopping us.

ESPECIALLY US BAPTISTS NO DRINKING NO DANCING

The girl should've told the "alpha" to jog on and shove it. Thats how this ends. Some of you are lol.

[Kongamato]

At your age, many kids are hungry for something to live and die for, and often follow the group or a leader. You have said that school is nearly over for you. At or near this stage in life one has to make a lot of decisions about one's future or career, and this can often result in confusion or stress. These kids have been presented with something that instantly provides answers for all of their questions along with a mission and purpose. You can expect their zealousness to fade after some time, after which they'll start acting more normal again.

[lars573]

^I've heard it said that new converts to a religion need about 5 years to calm down and be normal again. Now granted it was from a TV show and the character saying it was a muslim.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Doctrine not Scripture, it's eliteist, and it absolves you of responsibility.

Responsibility to preach or to save? There's a big difference. From my understanding of the scripture, it seems that only God can bring people to salvation. Christians are taught to preach to everyone and those who will accept God's grace will listen. Calvinists have often been accused of failing to spread the word and making people think that they cannot be saved but this is simply not true.

However, if I were to say that I brought someone to salvation purely by preaching to them, then that would be wrong. God should only ever have total credit for bringing people to salvation.


I live with an atheist, he's an intelligent chap, we have had a lot of discussions about the nature of faith. would I like to convert him, well actually I'd like to convert everyone because I believe I've got the right end of the stick.

I would like to convert everyone too, if you mean by this persuade another Christian of my specific beliefs? Although it wouldn't be vital, and I wouldn't push them over it. If an atheist were to accept my beliefs - then that would be excellent, although I don't think I would be in a position to take the credit.


HOWEVER, these people, and Rhyfelwyr, seem to think they have the whole stick. The only person with the whole stick in the Bible is God.

Of course, I have my interpretation of the Bible just as everyone else does. I believe it to be correct, as presumably everyone does with their beliefs. I could not say for sure though on the complicated doctrinal matters, only the basics that all Christians share.


I could go on about different doctrinal issues and what I have reasoned from my own study, I could rank Churches according to how they tally with my beliefs but I think that would be impious because it would assume a primacy and accuracy to my views for which I have no support. If someone is a genuinely confessing Christian that's enough for me, be they baptist, Catholic, Anglican or Methodist.

Of course, if you ask for forgiveness for your sins then it doesn't matter what you do afterwards. Of course, good works are a sign of salvation. If you believe they are necessary for salvation, well that's just adding stuff but it doesn't really matter when you're standing at the gates of Heaven I suppose.

[Husar]

Hmm, usually here churches try to work together, not run around telling the others that their slight variations of interpretation are completely wrong.
The goal of course is to show the love of god to as many people as possible, christians would be heartless bastards if they'd just watch how everybody goes to hell, of course they try to convert people because they are convinced that they know a better way to live life than the atheist way.

If they were not absolutely convinced of that, then they wouldn't be believers in the first place, simple as that. And of course intolerant atheists are annoyed by those conversion attempts because it's not like the media was advertising atheist agendas everywhere that christians might not like their kids to see or anything, but of course that is because atheists are convinced that their way of life is the correct/better one. :dizzy2:

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Pever, I have to say that the similarity to the end of my school life was similar (though not quite as drastic).

Basically I am an atheist, but I've no quarrel with people of a religious bent trying, and failing to persuade me, so long as they aren't fanatical about it (ie: You are going to burn in hell, listen to me or be eternally damned... etc.etc.).

Attending a Catholic school, most of the students were not actually all that religious, but I did notice that, at least among my religion class (it was compulsory...) towards the end of year twelve, a number of people were beginning to get sucked in. I mean our teacher was very devout, but also accepting of others opinions, many lessons disintegrated into debates about the nature of faith, me and one other girl taking the atheistic/agnostic side, and three others, and the teacher taking a Catholic viewpoint while everyone else just watched.

Essentially I agree with Kongamato. You're about to leave school, so there is going to be a lot of change in your life in a short period of time. People try to cling to something to keep as a comfort. They will get over it, eventually.

That said it is interesting, and somewhat scary, how people can so quickly espouse radical beliefs that they haven't held before. That can be somewhat dangerous, as you can't tell if they've actually thought through what they are saying and trying to get other people to say. Then again so long as the girl doesn't start abusing homosexuals it is all harmless.

I'd also be interested in what verses she gave you to read. While I don't believe, I'm always interested in what moral and ethical codes such 'reborn' people hold. (This isn't a criticism of such people, merely the only way I could think of putting it. Sorry to anyone of a religious background who may be offended...)

[pevergreen]

I was posing as a Christian to see if I could get into this bible study group, and to make the ex-boyfriend feel better.

The verses I was given:
Romans 1:20
Romans 3:22-24
Romans 5:8
Romans 6:22-23
Romans 8:1-2
Romans 10:9
Romans 12:1-2
1 John 5:4
Psalm 37:d
Ephesians 4:1-2
Ephesians 5:11
Colossians 3:5
Matthew 5:28
Matthew 7:13-14

@CA: I wanted this to happen, ever since the youth "pastor" came to our Lutheran Chapel as part of our Lutheran Faith Week, and tried to get us to realise Lutheran-ism was wrong, and convince us that jesus did not exist, I have just slowly come to loath them.

[AlexanderSextus]

"everyone who looks at a women with lustful intent has already commited adultery with her in his heart."
so basically, if the girl is not yours, i.e. you're not married to her, you shouldn't be lusting after her.


Fornication is NOT adultery. As a matter of fact, i really dont think that Fornication is what we say it is nowadays.

The etymolygy of fornication as a word is that it comes from the latin "fornix" meaning arch, because the Hookers would stand under the arches waiting for "customers"

Ergo, the prohibitions against "fornication" in the bible could be a prohibition against PROSTITUTION rather than sex with your girlfriend.

[AlexanderSextus]

they're actions are very, very wrong. they're actions are evil and should not be condoned in anyway.



I really wanna know how christians deal with pictures of male animals having sex with eachother. Do goats go to hell? Do Dogs? Penguins? Monkeys? Do we go to hell for thinking it's hilarious when we see it at the zoo?

It happens all the time. look it up on google.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Responsibility to preach or to save? There's a big difference. From my understanding of the scripture, it seems that only God can bring people to salvation. Christians are taught to preach to everyone and those who will accept God's grace will listen. Calvinists have often been accused of failing to spread the word and making people think that they cannot be saved but this is simply not true.

Responsibility to preach coherently and intelligently, not to say "Convert or burn" with a big megaphone and walk off.


However, if I were to say that I brought someone to salvation purely by preaching to them, then that would be wrong. God should only ever have total credit for bringing people to salvation.

He gets credit for everything, including your continued heartbeat and the electrical impulses in your brain. If you want scripture read Acts, particually the bit about Philip and the Eunauch.


I would like to convert everyone too, if you mean by this persuade another Christian of my specific beliefs? Although it wouldn't be vital, and I wouldn't push them over it. If an atheist were to accept my beliefs - then that would be excellent, although I don't think I would be in a position to take the credit.

I mean generally, my specific beliefs are something I am constantly developing, so I won't try to impress them on anyone else, though I am more than happy to share them.


Of course, I have my interpretation of the Bible just as everyone else does. I believe it to be correct, as presumably everyone does with their beliefs. I could not say for sure though on the complicated doctrinal matters, only the basics that all Christians share.

Look back particually at what I quoted before the concept of the "elect" is a minoriety one, at least in the way you use it. Traditionally it refers to those whom God has especially chosen, not the entirety of the Saved.


Of course, if you ask for forgiveness for your sins then it doesn't matter what you do afterwards. Of course, good works are a sign of salvation. If you believe they are necessary for salvation, well that's just adding stuff but it doesn't really matter when you're standing at the gates of Heaven I suppose.

Of course?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Responsibility to preach coherently and intelligently, not to say "Convert or burn" with a big megaphone and walk off.

True.


He gets credit for everything, including your continued heartbeat and the electrical impulses in your brain. If you want scripture read Acts, particually the bit about Philip and the Eunauch.

True.


I mean generally, my specific beliefs are something I am constantly developing, so I won't try to impress them on anyone else, though I am more than happy to share them.

OK.


Look back particually at what I quoted before the concept of the "elect" is a minoriety one, at least in the way you use it. Traditionally it refers to those whom God has especially chosen, not the entirety of the Saved.

I mean the elect as in the priesthood of all believers. Do you mean that not all those who are saved are predestined to that fate by God?


Of course?

???

Apart from the last couple of paragraphs, are we even arguing?

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Having looked up and read some of these Bible passages, in the main they seem to be supporting what she wants to say, ie:

1) Sex is evil. Colossians 3:5. Matthew 5:28.
So put to death your worldly impulses: sexual sin, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed (which is idolatry). Colossians 3:5.
But I say to you, anyone who stares at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:28.

2) We are all sinners. Romans 3:22-24. Matthew 7:13-14.
even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; Romans 3:22-24.
“Go in through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the road is spacious that leads to destruction, and many people are entering by it. How narrow is the gate and how constricted is the road that leads to life, and there aren’t many people who find it!” Matthew 7:13-14.

3) Her way is the only true salvation (unbelievers and heathens like me are doomed...) and this is manifestly obvious.
that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; Romans 10:9.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20.

In other words she has selcted particular sections with the aim of convincing you that she is right. Which is fine.

Now to counteract that find some verses that support her ex's/your side/ a different viewpoint to hers. Then you can get some discussion going. :beam:

Anyways much of what she told you to read is, in my opinion either wrong - even many of my Christian friends say that God is not 'clearly seen and understood': or more to the point out-dated or open to interpretation as Alexander Sextus points out above. I wouldn't pay overly much attention to it.

[Sigurd]

Her use of Romans is the standard born-again mini version of the gospel of Christ.

If you read them chronologically as they are in pever's post, it starts out with God exists, just look at all creations around you.
Then skipping chapter 2 which states that every man shall be judged according to his deeds and onto chapter 3 and the important "following the mosaic law will not save you, only faith in Christ's atonement will", adding chapter 5 as emphasis to 3.
From faith comes redemption from sin (skipping the baptism parts intentionally?) using 6:22-23 and adding emphasis with chapter 8.
The big one is 10:9 which is the "speak his name and you are saved".

Yes she is trying to convert you ...

About the fornication vs. adultery issue.
Yes the word is from the prostitutes soliciting their warez under the arches, but the semantics is traditionally held as sex between unmarried people. When married people have sex outside wedlock it becomes adultery.
At the time of the new testament, fornication was meant by unmarried women having sex with men. The men's marital status was not considered.

[rvg]

Can't we all just get along?.....

http://a278.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/18/l_6b1c9199899cc2d300ac35f0d27d8fed.jpg

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

True.



True.



OK.



I mean the elect as in the priesthood of all believers. Do you mean that not all those who are saved are predestined to that fate by God?



???

Apart from the last couple of paragraphs, are we even arguing?

We are agueing about predestination, but not much else. Mostly I want you to sit back and digest what your minister tells you slowly, because you clearly have the intelligence to do so.

--------

Romans is an interesting kettle of fish, because it can be seen in two seperate ways. If you believe the Bible is the WORD of God in it's entireity it has to be swallowed like the bitter pill that it is, if you believe the Bible is the best effort of 300 Bishops to sort out the mess of their religion then Paul is just the original Evangelical Bishop and his words can only be supportive of the Gospel, they cannot be used to prove doctrine.

[Sigurd]

We are arguing about predestination, but not much else.

Predestination ... that absurd doctrine about fate. Too Viking for my taste. :beam:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Predestination ... that absurd doctrine about fate. Too Viking for my taste. :beam:

Hah!

Seriously though, I know I said just last week I don't believe in it, certainly not in the "every man has a fate" way it appears in Calvinism or Islam.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hah!

Seriously though, I know I said just last week I don't believe in it, certainly not in the "every man has a fate" way it appears in Calvinism or Islam.

I have minimal knowledge regarding Islam, but I heard that Muslims believe that all people are created good, and are only corrupted by this world, and its up to the individual to 'stay true'. Whereas of course with Calvinism you believe all people are born sinners, and God saves those who He chooses without conditions, at least regarding what we do in this lifetime.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have minimal knowledge regarding Islam, but I heard that Muslims believe that all people are created good, and are only corrupted by this world, and its up to the individual to 'stay true'. Whereas of course with Calvinism you believe all people are born sinners, and God saves those who He chooses without conditions, at least regarding what we do in this lifetime.

Muslims believe that all proceedes acording to God's Will, as do Calvanists, i.e. God makes the choices.

Mainstream Christianity believes that God offers salvation to ALL regardless and that we make an active and very real choice, this is what I believe.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Muslims believe that all proceedes acording to God's Will, as do Calvanists, i.e. God makes the choices.

Mainstream Christianity believes that God offers salvation to ALL regardless and that we make an active and very real choice, this is what I believe.

Everyone could be saved, if they would allow themselves to be.

The idea of limited atonement stems from the fact that God has foreknowledge of who would or would not accept Him, therefore the atonement was suffered for the sins of the elect. If someone else was going to be saved, Christ would have suffered for their sins too, since God's mercy is endless. But since they won't accept God, as He knows to be the case, then Christ would not be punished on their behalf - otherwise their debts would have been paid, when they demand that they are not to be.

So, while some people cannot be saved, it is only since they refused to be saved, and would have refused to be saved regardless of Christ's suffering.

I've been thinking on the matter of unconditional election, and I think that it may be best taken as meaning that the salvation of the elect within their lifetime on earth is unconditional. Since of course no man could accept God without God's grace working through him first, God remains sovereign in salvation, and His grace remains irresistable.

However, all throughout the Bible, (even in the Psalms and other parts of the OT, not just the classic NT predestination quotes) people refer to God choosing them when He made them, long before they were born or conceived on this earth. God sees into the hearts of everyone, and He elects those who He will save based on what He sees, specifically whether they would accept Him. So He predestines those who He elects to accept Him within their lifetime. Coincidentally, this is why I don't agree with double predestination, as God does not work in people's lives to make sure they reject Him.

This is my current theory, my ideas change all the time...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Everyone could be saved, if they would allow themselves to be.

The idea of limited atonement stems from the fact that God has foreknowledge of who would or would not accept Him, therefore the atonement was suffered for the sins of the elect. If someone else was going to be saved, Christ would have suffered for their sins too, since God's mercy is endless. But since they won't accept God, as He knows to be the case, then Christ would not be punished on their behalf - otherwise their debts would have been paid, when they demand that they are not to be.

This arguement was rejected 1500 years ago by Boethius (sadly now little read). To suggest God has forknowledge restricts God temporally, because it requires him to have knowledge before he acts, since God is timeless there is no before and no after. Therefore God would not have forknowledge, because he acts as he knows, simultaneously.


So, while some people cannot be saved, it is only since they refused to be saved, and would have refused to be saved regardless of Christ's suffering.

If God is irrestistable then you cannot refuse to be saved. To suggest that God chooses based on those who would accept him is to sidestep the problem of those who would resist him. This is to limit Gods power, it's actually saying, "He knows he can't, so he won't try."


I've been thinking on the matter of unconditional election, and I think that it may be best taken as meaning that the salvation of the elect within their lifetime on earth is unconditional. Since of course no man could accept God without God's grace working through him first, God remains sovereign in salvation, and His grace remains irresistable.

However, all throughout the Bible, (even in the Psalms and other parts of the OT, not just the classic NT predestination quotes) people refer to God choosing them when He made them, long before they were born or conceived on this earth. God sees into the hearts of everyone, and He elects those who He will save based on what He sees, specifically whether they would accept Him. So He predestines those who He elects to accept Him within their lifetime. Coincidentally, this is why I don't agree with double predestination, as God does not work in people's lives to make sure they reject Him.

This is my current theory, my ideas change all the time...

I'd like to posit one more question to you regarding this. If the "elect" are God's chosen instruments, not merely those he saves, what effect does that have on those passages, if we take them as referring to those especially made to enact God's Will?

What I am asking you to do is to try to step outside Calvinism.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This arguement was rejected 1500 years ago by Boethius (sadly now little read). To suggest God has forknowledge restricts God temporally, because it requires him to have knowledge before he acts, since God is timeless there is no before and no after. Therefore God would not have forknowledge, because he acts as he knows, simultaneously.

I tend to think of time as a little line floating in space, with God himself filling that entire space; before the beginning of time, beyond the end of time, and all around it in every dimension, all at once. God clearly does have foreknowledge, what about the book of Revelation, all the prophecies of the Bible?

He knows how everything will end (or how it wont), and with everything we do (I believe) we are just carrying out the inevitable.

To us, what seems to be foreknowledge may simply be due to the fact that God is timeless. At all times, He knows all things, according to how they appeared at every point in what we regard as time.


If God is irrestistable then you cannot refuse to be saved. To suggest that God chooses based on those who would accept him is to sidestep the problem of those who would resist him. This is to limit Gods power, it's actually saying, "He knows he can't, so he won't try."

God could easily save us all if He wanted. But God chooses to act as the enabler in salvation - cutting us free from Satan's chains so that those who could have faith will have faith.

Salvation remains unconditional of what we do on this earth, God acts as the enabler for those chosen before they entered this lifetime.


I'd like to posit one more question to you regarding this. If the "elect" are God's chosen instruments, not merely those he saves, what effect does that have on those passages, if we take them as referring to those especially made to enact God's Will?

People can be elected by God for many things. Salvation is only one of them. Take for example Israel, it was chosen by God as a nation, yet not all Jews will be saved (at least not in the conventional way), as we are told precisely 144,000 will be saved at the time of the second coming.


What I am asking you to do is to try to step outside Calvinism.

Well I'm defending Calvinism here because it's currently what I believe in. That's not always been the case - I can't see how any Christian could at first hold Calvinist views, they take a lot of time to come to terms with and understand.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Crikey chaps, do you realise quite how barking that stuff reads? :shocked2:

Here I thought Catholicism was loopy, but "do good stuff, say sorry regular, and don't think too much" is at least an intelligible way to paradise. And you got pretty pictures, great music and the odd awesome cathedral.

:beam:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Crikey chaps, do you realise quite how barking that stuff reads? :shocked2:

Here I thought Catholicism was loopy, but "do good stuff, say sorry regular, and don't think too much" is at least an intelligible way to paradise. And you got pretty pictures, great music and the odd awesome cathedral.

:beam:

Hay, I live in exeter remember, we have the most elaborate facarde of any Cathedral in Northern Europe!

You're right though, I am a complete nut, it's very sad, I used to be a rational, sane human being.


I tend to think of time as a little line floating in space, with God himself filling that entire space; before the beginning of time, beyond the end of time, and all around it in every dimension, all at once. God clearly does have foreknowledge, what about the book of Revelation, all the prophecies of the Bible?

He knows how everything will end (or how it wont), and with everything we do (I believe) we are just carrying out the inevitable.

To us, what seems to be foreknowledge may simply be due to the fact that God is timeless. At all times, He knows all things, according to how they appeared at every point in what we regard as time.

You are still giving God himself a temporal aspect, because you are implying he does some things before others, makes some decisions before others.


God could easily save us all if He wanted. But God chooses to act as the enabler in salvation - cutting us free from Satan's chains so that those who could have faith will have faith.

Salvation remains unconditional of what we do on this earth, God acts as the enabler for those chosen before they entered this lifetime.

those two sentances don't run. If God's mercy is universal then everyone is saved, if not then he is unjust. you are saying we are not equal before God because some of us can be saved and some can't, or that, again, god makes a choice about beings he has created, based on the way he created them. If God is the enabler of salvation he must be a perfect enabler and therefore everyone must be saved.


People can be elected by God for many things. Salvation is only one of them. Take for example Israel, it was chosen by God as a nation, yet not all Jews will be saved (at least not in the conventional way), as we are told precisely 144,000 will be saved at the time of the second coming.

Revelations has already happened, or has started. Fall of the Roman Empire is the trigger, rise of the Church is the beggining of God's Kingdom on Earth, which makes Calvin the Anti-christ, since Luther wanted to work within the Church rather than outside it.

Or I could give you a completely different interpretation. Biblical prophecy is the same as any other flavour, it never comes about the way its written. As to the 144,000 I think you'll find that's all of the Chosen, which is why Calvin came up with his doctrine of predestination, because that's not very many people.


Well I'm defending Calvinism here because it's currently what I believe in. That's not always been the case - I can't see how any Christian could at first hold Calvinist views, they take a lot of time to come to terms with and understand.

My experience has been the reverse, often people embrace a determinist God whom they later reject.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hay, I live in exeter remember, we have the most elaborate facarde of any Cathedral in Northern Europe!

You're right though, I am a complete nut, it's very sad, I used to be a rational, sane human being.

Lets have a party! :beam:


You are still giving God himself a temporal aspect, because you are implying he does some things before others, makes some decisions before others.

To us, it may seem as if God is working within the limits of time, however in reality He is outwith time, but still working within this little time-line simultaneously. He must have chosen to create time, and to use it for His purpose. He isn't limiting Himself when we works within a time-frame, He's simply playing along.

If we acknowledge that time exists (if only within a timless void/whatever), then to say God would limit His powers by interfering within a time-frame would raise the question of how He sent Jesus to die on the cross for our sins, and How any divine revelations took place.

God's decisions were all made and certain before time existed. Now, He has created time and they're playing themselves out in this world He has created for us, all exactly as He planned, and how he envisaged with His foreknowledge (which is merely a term helpful for us bound by time, in reality its just as much current knoweldge and past experience to God, but not really any of those at all).


those two sentances don't run. If God's mercy is universal then everyone is saved, if not then he is unjust. you are saying we are not equal before God because some of us can be saved and some can't, or that, again, god makes a choice about beings he has created, based on the way he created them. If God is the enabler of salvation he must be a perfect enabler and therefore everyone must be saved.

In the flesh and in this world, we are all equally despicable before God. However, I do currently think that we are not all equal in the eyes of God before we are entered into this earth. We are told that He sees into our hearts - if He makes judgements based on that then our souls cannot all be equal.

It is based on what He sees in our hearts that He chooses to save us, to elect us for His grace in our lifetimes here, enabling us to overcome the flesh and the worldliness and to accept Him. Our salvation is not conditional on anything we do in this lifetime - since we can only do wickedness until God saves us.


Revelations has already happened, or has started. Fall of the Roman Empire is the trigger, rise of the Church is the beggining of God's Kingdom on Earth, which makes Calvin the Anti-christ, since Luther wanted to work within the Church rather than outside it.

Or I could give you a completely different interpretation. Biblical prophecy is the same as any other flavour, it never comes about the way its written. As to the 144,000 I think you'll find that's all of the Chosen, which is why Calvin came up with his doctrine of predestination, because that's not very many people.

It's unclear exactly who these 144,000, however I am very doubtful that it would be all those who are saved.


My experience has been the reverse, often people embrace a determinist God whom they later reject.

I suppose I could only really speak for myself, but then I'm not from the US Bible-belt so my situation may well be different from the usual.

[Sigurd]

There is a verse in Matthew which states:

For many are called, but few are chosen
(Matt 22:14)

It is taken out of context from a parable dealing with those that will be saved.
But the message is clear. The Judeo-Christian God invites all to attain salvation, but many will not (I am tossing free will in here) follow His invitation (he orders them killed). Only a few will follow the required steps that will eventually save them.
I must therefore, with free will in mind, call any doctrine that resembles fate a faulty doctrine.

I see you have brought up the 144 000 that will:


Be taken (12 000) from each of the tribes of Israel - Rev 7:3-8
Be with Christ when he appears on Mount Zion - Rev 14:1
Be virgins (not defiled themselves with women) and first fruits (not a final number) - Rev 14:3-5

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thankyou Sigurd, those are good examples.

For myself, I will not even treat with any doctrine which describes man as dispicable before God. A Father who despises his children?

No.

You are still limiting God though, unless you accept that God has created the majoriety of people for destruction. Follow, if God creates every man and woman we cannot be other than as God intended, because God is perfect and all-powerful. So, if we are what God intended and some of us are predetermined not to accept him then we have not been created to accept him.

So, either God has screwed up with hummanity or he has created people with the sole puropse of tempting the elect and then suffering for eternity in Hell.

Sorry, don't buy it. That triggers the Epicuran paradox if anything does, and hence God ceases to exist.

My conclusion is that Calvinism either limits God's power, his justice, his mercy, or his knowledge. Therefore it is bad doctrine.

[Cronos Impera]

That is the failings with Evanghelical Christianity.It fails to answer questions of common Christian sense.
1) So the reason we need a priesthood is?
Answer:
To keep us from jumping horses and throwing the first stone.
The first annointed priest was Aaron, brother of Moses, and he became priest because the Hebrews needed a buffer between them and the confused prophet. So Moses gave Aaron some teritory and proclaimed him a priest to conduct rituals on the behalf of the people. People needed a priest to moderate between a demanding prophet and their worldly views.

Just think what would have hapened ware not for Aaron with his judgement and mercy for his flock. either Moses would have been killed or the flock would have perished taking Moses's signs litteraly. Some stoning did occur, but it was prescribed only in times of crisis when crime itself was capital due to the precarious situation of the Hebrews. Adultery became a sin only after it lead to the loss of human life and the threating of another one. If the adulterers would have repented or gone to Moses than the whole episode wouldn't have occured.

Having a priesthood isn't like establishing a tyrany or establishing a status quo. Priests must exist so that the flock mentains its mundane pleasures while attaining salvation and the Kingdom of Heaven. The militant Orthodox Church of Romania has long abandoned quoting for the Bible to stop people having sex...and through work and discipline has managed to brace itself for the mesianic events of the 21st century, like poverty, corruption and deterirating health conditions among the general population.

Some brilliant Islamic judges have even gone as far as to create "sex marriage contracts" that allow the parties to enjoy sex without legal or moral consequences for either one of them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You are still limiting God though, unless you accept that God has created the majoriety of people for destruction. Follow, if God creates every man and woman we cannot be other than as God intended, because God is perfect and all-powerful. So, if we are what God intended and some of us are predetermined not to accept him then we have not been created to accept him.



When farmers plant their crops, are they looking to simply destroy them at harvest? The Crops are the vessels of growth, but the roots, stalk and dirt are seldom a part of the harvest.

Do you view destruction of crops as the end - and do you view the spoiling of the crops as the decision of the farmer?

People live and their bodies eventually die. They decide whether the fruit of their life will be spoiled or harvested.

[Rhyfelwyr]

For myself, I will not even treat with any doctrine which describes man as dispicable before God. A Father who despises his children?

No.

He doesn't despise our souls, He would love for everyone of us to come to Him. However, we are born as slaves to sin, and our actions must be pretty despicable to God.

Remember, God knows us before we ever come into this world. Those who are slaves to sin in their lifetime chose that fate. Those who are brought to salvation were elected because they would accept God. Salvation is unconditional on what happens in this lifetime, but God judges based on what He sees in our hearts before we are born. So really, all of history is simply the story of the elect being brought to salvation.


You are still limiting God though, unless you accept that God has created the majoriety of people for destruction. Follow, if God creates every man and woman we cannot be other than as God intended, because God is perfect and all-powerful. So, if we are what God intended and some of us are predetermined not to accept him then we have not been created to accept him.

So, either God has screwed up with hummanity or he has created people with the sole puropse of tempting the elect and then suffering for eternity in Hell.

My conclusion is that Calvinism either limits God's power, his justice, his mercy, or his knowledge. Therefore it is bad doctrine

God does not predestine anyone to damnation (I don't endorse double predestination, "those whom He did predestine..."). Yes, God has foreknowledge of everyone's fate, but their fates are not decided because of His foreknowledge (other than the affect His foreknowledge has on His decision not to elect them to salvation), because God's decision to leave them to their own devices is based on their choice. Of course when people are left to themselves, Satan is quick to enslave them.

Presuming we do not believe that every human will somehow get to Heaven, if you think that peoples fates beyond their lifetime on earth are based on their free-will, why would that make God anymore just than if He used them for His purpose (which is purely good in itself)? Either way, He must have known of their fate.

Unless you also believe that God cannot overrule the dimension of time that He created (to know the fate of all who He creates)? Yet time cannot have always existed, since God himself is timeless.

Never mind Calvinism, that is limiting God.

The arguments against Calvinism seem to be based on the belief that humans somehow deserve salvation. And yet we must acknowledge that without God we are slaves to sin, everything we do is evil, even if we appear to do something good it is for selfish purposes.

It is out of mercy that any are saved.

There is one good thing in existance, and it is God. The two are inseperable, God is good and any good stems from God. Everything He creates is good (in serving its function in God's triumph over evil), even if it does not always appear to us to be so. We know evil must exist. Because if it did not, then God would have to be limited as evil was overpowering Him in establishing itself. So clearly, evil must exist, even if only temporarily. Maybe if only to defeat the original sin, pride.

Which presumably arose out of a desire for free-will, to be independent of God. And still that is what theologians want when they interpret the scriptures - free-will, the root of all evil itself. They want to believe that if they come to God, it is on their terms. :shame:

Going back to the original point, God certaintly does not hate His children. He gave us the free-will we desired, and humanity on the whole reaped the consequences. However, those who God knows to have the potential to overcome pride (if we take it as the root of all sin), have with them the grace of God to ensure that they accept Him within their lifetime - that is what predestination is all about. A gift to those who would accept God. For a Christian, you can continue with the parent theme and recognise that suffering is simply God disciplining His children - and you can take confidence in the knowledge that God is guiding you towards Him.

Don't misinterpret me as suggesting that free-will does not exist - it is because of free-will that anyone ever had to endure suffering. However, that free-will exists before our lifetimes on earth - while we sit here everything we do is simply acting out the inevitable, knowing that those who accept God give Him their willing obedience.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

When farmers plant their crops, are they looking to simply destroy them at harvest? The Crops are the vessels of growth, but the roots, stalk and dirt are seldom a part of the harvest.

Do you view destruction of crops as the end - and do you view the spoiling of the crops as the decision of the farmer?

People live and their bodies eventually die. They decide whether the fruit of their life will be spoiled or harvested.

Yes, but that's not pre-deterministic. I am saying that if God is all powerful then, should he so wish he could create the exact situation in which everyone would accept God.

God is Good and God is limitless. My arguement is that Calvinism limits either his power or his mercy, either he cannot save or he will not.

As I said, both trigger the Epicuran paradox because one limits God's power, the other his goodness. Anything which limits the universally agreed and limitless attributes of God would have to be bad doctrine.

I'm not saying he actually saves everyone.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He doesn't despise our souls, He would love for everyone of us to come to Him. However, we are born as slaves to sin, and our actions must be pretty despicable to God.

Slaves to sin? Again, doctrine, not scripture. That's Protestant penitentialism, can you demonstrate we are enslaved to anything? Again I direct you to the book of Job, who never renounced God even as he raved at his fate.


Remember, God knows us before we ever come into this world. Those who are slaves to sin in their lifetime chose that fate. Those who are brought to salvation were elected because they would accept God. Salvation is unconditional on what happens in this lifetime, but God judges based on what He sees in our hearts before we are born. So really, all of history is simply the story of the elect being brought to salvation.

Once again you imply a temporal aspect to God because you give God a "before"


God does not predestine anyone to damnation (I don't endorse double predestination, "those whom He did predestine..."). Yes, God has foreknowledge of everyone's fate, but their fates are not decided because of His foreknowledge (other than the affect His foreknowledge has on His decision not to elect them to salvation), because God's decision to leave them to their own devices is based on their choice. Of course when people are left to themselves, Satan is quick to enslave them.

You have said previously that we cannot escape sin without God's help. If this is so then God's witholding of salvation is an act of damning. If you have the medicine to cure a man, sure to work, and you withold it you murder him. Further, you have said God's call is irresistable, in which case there is NO ONE who would resist when called.


Presuming we do not believe that every human will somehow get to Heaven, if you think that peoples fates beyond their lifetime on earth are based on their free-will, why would that make God anymore just than if He used them for His purpose (which is purely good in itself)? Either way, He must have known of their fate.

I don't believe in election to begin with. God makes no choices about our fate. Second, there are several contingencies wherin everyone can be damned and go to heaven as well. The best at the moment is multiple dimensions, where every choice for evey action is enacted. Leaving that aside, see after your next quote.


Unless you also believe that God cannot overrule the dimension of time that He created (to know the fate of all who He creates)? Yet time cannot have always existed, since God himself is timeless.

I believe God chooses not to be involved, we are not arbitarily created in the womb the way we were thought to be when Calvin was alive, we are the result of random biological processes. Since God is timeless there is no before and no after for him. So for him we do not exist before we were born, we will not have existed after we die. The simplest way of expalining it is to say that God doesn't look, rather than saying he looks and then does nothing. He allows us the choice, and he does not influence the outcome.


The arguments against Calvinism seem to be based on the belief that humans somehow deserve salvation. And yet we must acknowledge that without God we are slaves to sin, everything we do is evil, even if we appear to do something good it is for selfish purposes.

It is out of mercy that any are saved.

There is one good thing in existance, and it is God. The two are inseperable, God is good and any good stems from God. Everything He creates is good (in serving its function in God's triumph over evil), even if it does not always appear to us to be so. We know evil must exist. Because if it did not, then God would have to be limited as evil was overpowering Him in establishing itself. So clearly, evil must exist, even if only temporarily. Maybe if only to defeat the original sin, pride.

Which presumably arose out of a desire for free-will, to be independent of God. And still that is what theologians want when they interpret the scriptures - free-will, the root of all evil itself. They want to believe that if they come to God, it is on their terms. :shame:

God created Man, therfore Man must in some sense be good, or at least have a portion of good. You arguement about evil makes no sense to me, you say evil must exist because if it did not it would overpower God. If it didn't exist?

In any case, I would say evil is a state of mind, not a tangible thing. If it is a state of mind it is a result of our faulty and limited perception. In any case, man is considered to have free-will before the fall, if he did not he would not have erred. Erred is the right word, by the way because man when his oginally sinned did not understand the nature of sin. This, I believe is why we are offered salvation.

In any case, you have said that we are only saved out of mercy. That limits God's justice. If God is just he will not save those who do not deserve to be saved. You could respond by saying that we are Justified in faith, but that is anti-Cqatholic rhetoric. It would be more theologically correct to say we are "excused" through faith, we are never justified. However, if we were completely to blame and without redeeming features why would God offer undiserved and therfore unjust mercy?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Slaves to sin? Again, doctrine, not scripture. That's Protestant penitentialism, can you demonstrate we are enslaved to anything? Again I direct you to the book of Job, who never renounced God even as he raved at his fate.

What about Psalm 51 - "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

We are born as slaves to sin in this world. However, numerous characters in the OT speak of God knowing them before they were born, and David says he was specifically chosen by God. If, as you say, you do not believe God has/uses foreknowledge, how else could be possibly have known them if they had not existed before they were born into this world and enslaved by sin?


Once again you imply a temporal aspect to God because you give God a "before"

No, God is outwith time. Sometimes He just intervenes in earth and plays along to the dimension of time so we can understand what He is doing, whether it is speaking to Moses or whatever.

If God was truly to reveal Himself to us directly, in all His glory, and not just playing along to our worldly limits, then there would be no need for faith - the central idea behind Christianity.


You have said previously that we cannot escape sin without God's help. If this is so then God's witholding of salvation is an act of damning. If you have the medicine to cure a man, sure to work, and you withold it you murder him. Further, you have said God's call is irresistable, in which case there is NO ONE who would resist when called.

By our understanding of time, He judges us before we are born, our names written in the Book of Life (although that was "before" we existed in any manner - God is not limited by time). That fact alone shows our fates are predetermined.


I don't believe in election to begin with. God makes no choices about our fate. Second, there are several contingencies wherin everyone can be damned and go to heaven as well. The best at the moment is multiple dimensions, where every choice for evey action is enacted. Leaving that aside, see after your next quote.

I believe there can only be one dimension, one timeline, and everything that happens in it is inevitable. Otherwise the prophecies in the Bible could never have been predicted.


I believe God chooses not to be involved, we are not arbitarily created in the womb the way we were thought to be when Calvin was alive, we are the result of random biological processes. Since God is timeless there is no before and no after for him. So for him we do not exist before we were born, we will not have existed after we die. The simplest way of expalining it is to say that God doesn't look, rather than saying he looks and then does nothing. He allows us the choice, and he does not influence the outcome.

Flesh comes from flesh, that is true - our bodies are merely the result of biological processes. And that's why we shouldn't be too concerned about them. Our spirit is much more important, it is created by God Himself.


God created Man, therfore Man must in some sense be good, or at least have a portion of good. You arguement about evil makes no sense to me, you say evil must exist because if it did not it would overpower God. If it didn't exist?

In any case, I would say evil is a state of mind, not a tangible thing. If it is a state of mind it is a result of our faulty and limited perception. In any case, man is considered to have free-will before the fall, if he did not he would not have erred. Erred is the right word, by the way because man when his oginally sinned did not understand the nature of sin. This, I believe is why we are offered salvation.

Maybe God judges based on those who sin through ignorance, because they are enslaved to Satan, and those who rejoice in sin, choosing to remain Satan's slave.

The pain suffered by the elect is merely chastisement, like a parent teaching a child that they have erred. Whereas other suffering, the pointless suffering that people bring upon each other, is simply a result of Godlessness. God never randomly punishes sinners, He only ever punishes his children.

Maybe, since humanity chose poorly with its free-will, we must suffer Godlessness in order to willingly be brought back to God - meaning we will never suffer from a misuse of free-will again.


In any case, you have said that we are only saved out of mercy. That limits God's justice. If God is just he will not save those who do not deserve to be saved. You could respond by saying that we are Justified in faith, but that is anti-Cqatholic rhetoric. It would be more theologically correct to say we are "excused" through faith, we are never justified. However, if we were completely to blame and without redeeming features why would God offer undiserved and therfore unjust mercy?

Why must justification through faith be anti-Catholic rhetoric? Just because the Roman Catholic Church disagrees with it?

People have a choice to accept God - I believe that choice is irreversible, and is made before we are born, before we exist in any form on this earth, before we are chained by Satan.

Now, if you chose God before coming into this earth, then God will not deny you His gift, and will overcome all the wickedness in us, overcome us even if we resist Him, and give us the gift that we willingly accepted before Satan corrupted us.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What about Psalm 51 - "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

We are born as slaves to sin in this world. However, numerous characters in the OT speak of God knowing them before they were born, and David says he was specifically chosen by God. If, as you say, you do not believe God has/uses foreknowledge, how else could be possibly have known them if they had not existed before they were born into this world and enslaved by sin?

That does not demonstrate we are slaves to sin, merely that we are born sinful, i.e. disobedient and imperfect.


No, God is outwith time. Sometimes He just intervenes in earth and plays along to the dimension of time so we can understand what He is doing, whether it is speaking to Moses or whatever.

If God was truly to reveal Himself to us directly, in all His glory, and not just playing along to our worldly limits, then there would be no need for faith - the central idea behind Christianity.

So then we chose in this life? You said we had already chosen before we were born, you can't have it both ways. Either we make the choice in this life or it has already been made.


By our understanding of time, He judges us before we are born, our names written in the Book of Life (although that was "before" we existed in any manner - God is not limited by time). That fact alone shows our fates are predetermined.[/qutoe]

No it doesn't, because Revelations contains a warning that any tampering with the Book will result in removal from the Book of Life, this injunction indicates two things:

1. The possibility of corrupting scripture.

2. The possibility of a man's fate being changed.

If these things were not possible the injunction and warning would be both unnecessary and pointless.

[quote]I believe there can only be one dimension, one timeline, and everything that happens in it is inevitable. Otherwise the prophecies in the Bible could never have been predicted.

Of coure they could. God could predict different things in different timelines. In any case the prophecies are often ofscure and the only definately fulfilled ones are the ones concerning Jesus and it is acceptable to say that in an otherwise changable universe God, and therefore Christ are constant.

In any case the evidence is increasingly pointing towards multiply dimensions and to say, "I don't believe my senses", is as faulty as saying, "America is not in ther Bible and so doesn't exist."


Flesh comes from flesh, that is true - our bodies are merely the result of biological processes. And that's why we shouldn't be too concerned about them. Our spirit is much more important, it is created by God Himself.

If God creates our spirits and some of us are predetermined to reject God then he has created us so. All men and women are created to love God and worship him, so how can you say God creates all souls if some are created to reject him?


Maybe God judges based on those who sin through ignorance, because they are enslaved to Satan, and those who rejoice in sin, choosing to remain Satan's slave.

You mean he judges between those he releases and those he does not? Again, you said previously that Grace is irresistable. If man cannot resist Grace then the wilfully disobedient must have had Grace witheld.


The pain suffered by the elect is merely chastisement, like a parent teaching a child that they have erred. Whereas other suffering, the pointless suffering that people bring upon each other, is simply a result of Godlessness. God never randomly punishes sinners, He only ever punishes his children.

All people are God's children, all people are decended (according to the Bible) From Adam, that is why we sin to begin with.


Maybe, since humanity chose poorly with its free-will, we must suffer Godlessness in order to willingly be brought back to God - meaning we will never suffer from a misuse of free-will again.

Something to think about: Man chose Sin when he did not know what Sin was.



Why must justification through faith be anti-Catholic rhetoric? Just because the Roman Catholic Church disagrees with it?

The doctrine is anti-Catholic because it was designed to neuter the power of the Roman Catholic Priesthood.


People have a choice to accept God - I believe that choice is irreversible, and is made before we are born, before we exist in any form on this earth, before we are chained by Satan.

Now, if you chose God before coming into this earth, then God will not deny you His gift, and will overcome all the wickedness in us, overcome us even if we resist Him, and give us the gift that we willingly accepted before Satan corrupted us.

Frankly, this is doctrine again, and very late doctrine at that.

First principles:

God is Just.

How can a Just God create some to be damned and others not, have us make the choice before we are born, which is determined by our nater He has made, and then force us to suffer through this life?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What about Psalm 51 - "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

We are born as slaves to sin in this world. However, numerous characters in the OT speak of God knowing them before they were born, and David says he was specifically chosen by God. If, as you say, you do not believe God has/uses foreknowledge, how else could be possibly have known them if they had not existed before they were born into this world and enslaved by sin?

That does not demonstrate we are slaves to sin, merely that we are born sinful, i.e. disobedient and imperfect.


No, God is outwith time. Sometimes He just intervenes in earth and plays along to the dimension of time so we can understand what He is doing, whether it is speaking to Moses or whatever.

If God was truly to reveal Himself to us directly, in all His glory, and not just playing along to our worldly limits, then there would be no need for faith - the central idea behind Christianity.

So then we chose in this life? You said we had already chosen before we were born, you can't have it both ways. Either we make the choice in this life or it has already been made.


By our understanding of time, He judges us before we are born, our names written in the Book of Life (although that was "before" we existed in any manner - God is not limited by time). That fact alone shows our fates are predetermined.[/qutoe]

No it doesn't, because Revelations contains a warning that any tampering with the Book will result in removal from the Book of Life, this injunction indicates two things:

1. The possibility of corrupting scripture.

2. The possibility of a man's fate being changed.

If these things were not possible the injunction and warning would be both unnecessary and pointless.

[quote]I believe there can only be one dimension, one timeline, and everything that happens in it is inevitable. Otherwise the prophecies in the Bible could never have been predicted.

Of coure they could. God could predict different things in different timelines. In any case the prophecies are often ofscure and the only definately fulfilled ones are the ones concerning Jesus and it is acceptable to say that in an otherwise changable universe God, and therefore Christ are constant.

In any case the evidence is increasingly pointing towards multiply dimensions and to say, "I don't believe my senses", is as faulty as saying, "America is not in ther Bible and so doesn't exist."


Flesh comes from flesh, that is true - our bodies are merely the result of biological processes. And that's why we shouldn't be too concerned about them. Our spirit is much more important, it is created by God Himself.

If God creates our spirits and some of us are predetermined to reject God then he has created us so. All men and women are created to love God and worship him, so how can you say God creates all souls if some are created to reject him?


Maybe God judges based on those who sin through ignorance, because they are enslaved to Satan, and those who rejoice in sin, choosing to remain Satan's slave.

You mean he judges between those he releases and those he does not? Again, you said previously that Grace is irresistable. If man cannot resist Grace then the wilfully disobedient must have had Grace witheld.


The pain suffered by the elect is merely chastisement, like a parent teaching a child that they have erred. Whereas other suffering, the pointless suffering that people bring upon each other, is simply a result of Godlessness. God never randomly punishes sinners, He only ever punishes his children.

All people are God's children, all people are decended (according to the Bible) From Adam, that is why we sin to begin with.


Maybe, since humanity chose poorly with its free-will, we must suffer Godlessness in order to willingly be brought back to God - meaning we will never suffer from a misuse of free-will again.

Something to think about: Man chose Sin when he did not know what Sin was.



Why must justification through faith be anti-Catholic rhetoric? Just because the Roman Catholic Church disagrees with it?

The doctrine is anti-Catholic because it was designed to neuter the power of the Roman Catholic Priesthood.


People have a choice to accept God - I believe that choice is irreversible, and is made before we are born, before we exist in any form on this earth, before we are chained by Satan.

Now, if you chose God before coming into this earth, then God will not deny you His gift, and will overcome all the wickedness in us, overcome us even if we resist Him, and give us the gift that we willingly accepted before Satan corrupted us.

Frankly, this is doctrine again, and very late doctrine at that.

First principles:

God is Just.

How can a Just God create some to be damned and others not, have us make the choice before we are born, which is determined by our nater He has made, and then force us to suffer through this life?

[Rhyfelwyr]

That does not demonstrate we are slaves to sin, merely that we are born sinful, i.e. disobedient and imperfect.

How could anyone possibly resist sin without God's grace? I we are born sinners and do not even see our own iniquity, how could we possibly repent and come to God?


So then we chose in this life? You said we had already chosen before we were born, you can't have it both ways. Either we make the choice in this life or it has already been made.

No, we chose before this life. Our souls exist before we are born into this world, before we are conceived in sin. It is in this period when God fashions our spirit that God looks into our hearts and judges us. To those He elects based upon what He sees, He gives them the gift of salvation. It must be irresistable, because to claim it is not would be to deny God's sovereignty, and would mean that the elect could be swayed by the sin of the flesh.


No it doesn't, because Revelations contains a warning that any tampering with the Book will result in removal from the Book of Life, this injunction indicates two things:

1. The possibility of corrupting scripture.

2. The possibility of a man's fate being changed.

If these things were not possible the injunction and warning would be both unnecessary and pointless.

It only says names can be blotted out by the Lamb, so you must still acknowledge that those never mentioned in the Book of Life were never going to accept God - their fates were known to Him. Not because God worked in their lives to ensure that fate as He does with the elect, but because they chose to reject Him before they were born.

However, the fact that it says names can be blotted out is interesting, and I will look into it further...


Of coure they could. God could predict different things in different timelines. In any case the prophecies are often ofscure and the only definately fulfilled ones are the ones concerning Jesus and it is acceptable to say that in an otherwise changable universe God, and therefore Christ are constant.

In any case the evidence is increasingly pointing towards multiply dimensions and to say, "I don't believe my senses", is as faulty as saying, "America is not in ther Bible and so doesn't exist."

We can't really know the answer to this, but I still prefer the one timeline theory.


If God creates our spirits and some of us are predetermined to reject God then he has created us so. All men and women are created to love God and worship him, so how can you say God creates all souls if some are created to reject him?

Indeed they are created to love and worship Him. But they rebel, just as Adam himself did. Their rebellion against God is seen before they are born, therefore they are not elected to salvation.

Is God weak because He allows this rebellion - no! He allowed Satan to rebel too remember - do you think this was because Satan was too powerful for God to handle? Ultimately, God will use such people/creatures/spirits in bringing the elect to salvation, before destroying them utterly in the Lake of Fire.


You mean he judges between those he releases and those he does not? Again, you said previously that Grace is irresistable. If man cannot resist Grace then the wilfully disobedient must have had Grace witheld.

Grace is witheld for some because those people never wanted to accept it. This was before they were born and enslaved by sin, therefore God is righteous in his judgement.

Once you have been elected to salvation, grace is indeed irresistable in this lifetime.


All people are God's children, all people are decended (according to the Bible) From Adam, that is why we sin to begin with.

Agreed.


Something to think about: Man chose Sin when he did not know what Sin was.

Now man knows well what sin is, and must suffer the punishment for rebellion against God, if only as chastisement to be steered back to Him.


The doctrine is anti-Catholic because it was designed to neuter the power of the Roman Catholic Priesthood.

As opposed to only saints in the Catholic sense being justified and having all the benefits of a union with Christ?


Frankly, this is doctrine again, and very late doctrine at that.

First principles:

God is Just.

How can a Just God create some to be damned and others not, have us make the choice before we are born, which is determined by our nater He has made, and then force us to suffer through this life?

Our fates on earth are predestined, based on choices we made (or perhaps simply a judgement by God) before we were born.

We were not predestined to make that choice by God (it was inevitable but He didn't work in our [pre-]lives to influence us), although he did have foreknowledge of it. Indeed, he is outwith time, he can be at the beginning and ends of its dimension at once.

[Sigurd]

This is a refreshing discussion here at the .org.
I want to dissect too. :smartass2:


...
We are born as slaves to sin in this world. However, numerous characters in the OT speak of God knowing them before they were born, and David says he was specifically chosen by God ...
...
Flesh comes from flesh, that is true - our bodies are merely the result of biological processes. And that's why we shouldn't be too concerned about them. Our spirit is much more important, it is created by God Himself ...

The notion that God knew someone before they were born suggest life before birth. And predestination cold translate to preordination, an intriguing thought, and I believe, doctrine in certain branches of Christianity.



No, God is with out time. Sometimes He just intervenes in earth and plays along to the dimension of time so we can understand what He is doing, whether it is speaking to Moses or whatever.

I believe there can only be one dimension, one time line, and everything that happens in it is inevitable. Otherwise the prophecies in the Bible could never have been predicted.

Having different definitions of who or what God is could lead to thrilling discussion on time and space. Considering the story behind how the immaterial God came to be, this very idea should be questioned my modern Christians.



God never randomly punishes sinners, He only ever punishes his children.

Tell that to the pre-deluge people and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. :wiseguy:



Now, if you chose God before coming into this earth, then God will not deny you His gift, and will overcome all the wickedness in us, overcome us even if we resist Him, and give us the gift that we willingly accepted before Satan corrupted us.

Now this is a Mormon doctrine called: pre-mortal life and the choice made at the council in heaven.



Of course they could. God could predict different things in different time lines. In any case the prophecies are often obscure and the only definitely fulfilled ones are the ones concerning Jesus and it is acceptable to say that in an otherwise changeable universe God, and therefore Christ are constant.

To predict things would be simple for an eternal being having omnipotence. Whatever you predict, you will make sure it happens. No need for fate or predestination.



All people are God's children, all people are descended (according to the Bible) From Adam, that is why we sin to begin with.
...
Something to think about: Man chose Sin when he did not know what Sin was.

One of the things I based my leave of the Lutheran church was the notion of original sin and babies going to hell if they were not baptized.



Frankly, this is doctrine again, and very late doctrine at that.

First principles:

God is Just.

How can a Just God create some to be damned and others not, have us make the choice before we are born, which is determined by our nater He has made, and then force us to suffer through this life?
Yes... I think this is the basis for the Christian need of a redeemer. As I understand it God is perfectly just and executes perfect justice.
Like any law that demands payment for breaking it, so does the law of God. No mercy involved.
If you break the law, i.e sin, you are damned from heaven.
Christ atoned for every sin past present and future. He is the mediator with God (Justice).
Justice demands payment and Christ payed up for all (believers and nonbelievers).

This is where it gets tricky. Christ demands something for his leverage with justice. Faith, repentance and baptism is what he asks in addition to some other minor stuff.
Apparently in some denominations all it takes is to speak his name and you will magically be transformed to a clean being, never to do evil again and justice will not have claim on you.
This is what according to Christianity mankind can chose freely. To follow Christ. To chose freedom and heaven or the full weight of justice on their own shoulders and paying out of their own pocket in Gehenna.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Interesting stuff Sigurd, especially the idea of preordination. :book:

One thing though. I know I said we make a decision/are judged before we are born, however I did not mean at the council of heaven, because I am not a Mormon.

Especially in the Psalms, most notably of David, it is mentioned several times that God sees into our hearts when He is fashioning our spirit before we are born into sin and the flesh.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How could anyone possibly resist sin without God's grace? I we are born sinners and do not even see our own iniquity, how could we possibly repent and come to God?

We do not know our iniquity? I think most of us have at least an idea.


No, we chose before this life. Our souls exist before we are born into this world, before we are conceived in sin. It is in this period when God fashions our spirit that God looks into our hearts and judges us. To those He elects based upon what He sees, He gives them the gift of salvation. It must be irresistable, because to claim it is not would be to deny God's sovereignty, and would mean that the elect could be swayed by the sin of the flesh.

So we had Sin before we entered this world? The rejection of God is a Sin, therefore if we reject God we Sin, but if God fashioned our Souls, in heaven or elsewhere, then they must be perfect before we entered this world. So how could we reject God before we entered this world?

Are you suggesting God is incompetant, that he cannot reliable create perfect souls?


It only says names can be blotted out by the Lamb, so you must still acknowledge that those never mentioned in the Book of Life were never going to accept God - their fates were known to Him. Not because God worked in their lives to ensure that fate as He does with the elect, but because they chose to reject Him before they were born.

No, it says specifically, it's right at the end of the bible, the KJV reads roughly," Whosoever adds unto this book the Lord shall add unto him the curses contained with this book and whosoever takes from this book the Lord shall take him from the book of life."

In any case, names blotted out would have had to once have been written. You still haven't provided scriptural support for the assertion that human souls reject God before birth.


However, the fact that it says names can be blotted out is interesting, and I will look into it further...[/;quote]

Good, glad to hear it. Don't talk to your priest about it first.

[quote]We can't really know the answer to this, but I still prefer the one timeline theory.

Personnally I sometimes feel I'd prefer no God, but it doesn't change anything


Indeed they are created to love and worship Him. But they rebel, just as Adam himself did. Their rebellion against God is seen before they are born, therefore they are not elected to salvation.

Again, how can God create souls pre-ordained to reject him before they even come into contact with sin.


Is God weak because He allows this rebellion - no! He allowed Satan to rebel too remember - do you think this was because Satan was too powerful for God to handle? Ultimately, God will use such people/creatures/spirits in bringing the elect to salvation, before destroying them utterly in the Lake of Fire.

So they have been created to be destroyed? How is this Just? Why does God destroy some of his children and not others? Why, if it is so ordained, is their fate so terrible?


Grace is witheld for some because those people never wanted to accept it. This was before they were born and enslaved by sin, therefore God is righteous in his judgement.

You said Grace is irresistable, therefore anyone who is offered it will accept it. To say that some would not is to limit God's power.


Once you have been elected to salvation, grace is indeed irresistable in this lifetime.

So a soul is able, powerful enough, to resist God outside of this world? Then you limit his power.


As opposed to only saints in the Catholic sense being justified and having all the benefits of a union with Christ?

I'm afraid you've been fed lies here. A saint is anyone who enters heaven. A Canonical Saint is one whom the Church considers has definately entered heaven. Whatever you may think of Catholic politics theologically Canonical Saints are no different to others in heaven, they are just the ones the Church is "sure" are there.


Our fates on earth are predestined, based on choices we made (or perhaps simply a judgement by God) before we were born.

We were not predestined to make that choice by God (it was inevitable but He didn't work in our [pre-]lives to influence us), although he did have foreknowledge of it. Indeed, he is outwith time, he can be at the beginning and ends of its dimension at once.

Your arguement doesn't add up. God cannot "allow" things to happen accept by ommission, not saving someone, not extending Grace, is the same as active damnation.

[Sigurd]

One thing though. I know I said we make a decision/are judged before we are born, however I did not mean at the council of heaven, because I am not a Mormon.

You "said" (how I interpreted it) that mankind makes an active choice before coming into this world. I can't think of any other denomination that teaches this.

Hints at preordination is found several places in the Bible and not just Psalms.
Take Jeremiah for example:

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
(Jer 1:5)

Also, consider John the Baptist mentioned in Isaiah and then later in Luke when Zacharias was told that his unborn child should be named John and should prepare the way of the Lord.

There are other sources of literature that deals with this, but I doubt you would recognize non-canonical texts.

[Rhyfelwyr]

PVC, I will reply to your post later.

Sigurd, that is what I have come to believe, that God knows us before we are born, and not just through His foreknowledge. Maybe that is not strictly Calvinism - does that make me a heretic? :clown:

I will look into this further. This has been a really good discussion here folks, plenty of food for thought for myself.

Do you know any of the denominations that hold these views of preordination (specifically to salvation)?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You "said" (how I interpreted it) that mankind makes an active choice before coming into this world. I can't think of any other denomination that teaches this.

Hints at preordination is found several places in the Bible and not just Psalms.
Take Jeremiah for example:

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
(Jer 1:5)

Also, consider John the Baptist mentioned in Isaiah and then later in Luke when Zacharias was told that his unborn child should be named John and should prepare the way of the Lord.

There are other sources of literature that deals with this, but I doubt you would recognize non-canonical texts.

Feel free to hit me up with the non-Canonical texts any time.

As to preordination, a point of order: It always concerns prophets, and as Sigurd points out, God can make whatever he wants happen. Extrapolating the lives of the (almost universally) disobedient prophets to the general post-incarnation population of humanity is suspect.

As to John, there is some cause to think he might not have been admitted into heaven when you look at Jesus' words after he is taken into captivity.

[Sigurd]

Feel free to hit me up with the non-Canonical texts any time.

Hah.. I would have hoped any of you wanted to hear more of the immaterial God fallacy, but let's stick to the current topic about destiny vs. preordination.

But before I dive into the extra-canonical texts, let's make time for a little apropos.

If we should consider the Judeo - Christian tradition as the basis of the only true religion,the creation story and the prophets from Adam to John the Baptist and the Apostles are all truths and did happen.
If we should consider all that, we should also consider that which it teaches. God invites all to his kingdom and would have provided the means to do so for all mankind in any era.
If all mankind originates from Adam and again from Noah, we should find something that resembles God's gospel in the break off cultures from these men.
We should also expect a corruption of original doctrines and the introduction of new and false traditions. The Jewish history is full of it and that is why prophets were sent.
If God indeed loves all his children he would give them a chance and make sure a prophet was sent to teach his Gospel of faith, repentance and baptism.
These prophets would be recorded where they were accepted and maybe these records were conserved to be found at a later time.
My point is: look for similarities in ancient religious texts and you might just find a core that is collective for them all.
One of these cores are a council in heaven, a war in heaven, preordination, a plan for the souls, a creation of a place to home the souls temporarily and a savior and a rebel.

To the issue at hand:
I believe the doctrine of life before death was a common belief in Judaism and the early church.
If we delve into a few extra-canonical excerpts and look at what is written, this can't be mistaken.
Let's consider the big three: Enoch, Abraham and Moses.
All big prophets in the Judeo-Christian tradition. But the books I'll quote is not found in the canon.

This is taken from the Coptic Enoch and the apocryphon devoted to the Biblical Enoch, the man who was taken to heaven with his city of righteous people or Zion.
All the souls of men, whatever of them are not born, and their places, prepared for eternity. For all the souls are prepared for eternity, before the composition of the earth.
(2. Enoch c23)

The apocalypse of Abraham taken apparently from papyri found with a sarcophagus.
Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good and stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers: for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.
(Book of Abraham c3)

The Testament of Moses also called the Assumption of Moses found in the Pseudepigrapha.
... Accordingly He designed and devised me, and He prepared me before the foundation of the world, that I should be the mediator of His covenant ...
(Assumption of Moses v1)


The Jewish religion mentions this pre-existence but I have no links or quotes other that from memory.
In the Bereshith Rabba it mentions God holding a council with the souls of the righteous before He creates the earth.
In the Talmud it mentions the 7th heaven where the unborn souls dwell, those who await to be put into bodies. And I distinctly remembers somewhere that the Messiah will not come until the last soul in heaven has been put into the world.

The extra-canonical texts speaks much of this theme, but only fragments remain in the canon.
As Rhyfelwyr noticed, the Bible gives hints to God knowing his children before they were born i.e receive a tabernacle of flesh.
Some He foreordain to carry out certain tasks, but they never execute these tasks until He intervenes. These prophets and formerly great spirits, experience things that put them into the knowing that God exists. Faith is obsolete, they now know.
I am not sure about Christ and John the Baptist, as nothing is written about their "awakening".



As to John, there is some cause to think he might not have been admitted into heaven when you look at Jesus' words after he is taken into captivity.
Which quote are you referring to?
I know of one instance the Christ spoke of John the baptist and that is the verses:
Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
(Matt 11:11)
For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
(Luke 7:28)

The "least in the kingdom of heaven" is a known way of saying he was the servant of all. A humble man and willing to serve everyone.
Besides, it would be horrifying for the different Christian denominations that has named their churches after John the Baptist, to find out that John never went to heaven :smartass2:.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not familliar with the texts you quoted but from the actual quotes it would seem that it only definately refers to particular prophets, not all humanity.

A quick google turns up a late date of 1stAD for 2 Enoch, but a much earlier date for 1 Enoch, while 3 Enoch seems even later (Medieval even).

Wiki article on Smith Book of Abraham, is this what you were refering to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_abraham

[Rhyfelwyr]

Always put the Bible first, if an ancient text isn't there then it's because God didn't want it to be. I looked up my idea on preordination, however it lacks any clear scriptural backing, and appears to refer to specific matters and not salvation, as PVC said.

Also, I've been looking up some past discussion I had on the topic of predestination. Without going into hyper-calvinism, I think that it is clear that God sends no person to Hell. However, what He does do is save people from Hell.

This is clear from the Psalms, one example being Psalm 65:

4 Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple.

It is important that David acknoweldges that he is chosen, inferring that the alternative would be for him not to be chosen, rather than to be chosen for x fate. Which is why I do not believe the doctrine of double predestination. This theme is continued throughout the Bible, for example when it says "those whom He did predestine...".

Remember, if Jesus had not died on the cross, then we would all go to Hell. It is only because God suffered our punishment that we can ever be gifted His grace. God is just, the wages of all sin will be payed. However, He chose to take the punishment for some - therefore it is God Himself who has been the only one to suffer injustice.

For example, say there are two criminals on trial. Both are on trial for seperate murders, but face the same charges. One murderer is poor and has a rubbish lawyer. The other is a rich gangster, and has bribed the whole jury. So, the poor murderer goes to jail for life, while the rich gangster walks free. The rich gangster escaped justice, but does that make the fate of the poor man any less just? Should he be freed so he received equal punishment to the gangster?

The only difference with the scenario in salvation is that God took the sentence for the rich gangster (the elect), and He did it out of mercy. God was the only one to suffer from injustice, yet He chose to do it anyway.

With God having suffered as He did, should we now complain to Him, saying why did He not take everyone's punishment, why did He not suffer greater injustice for mankind's crimes?

It is important that the elect realise, that just as the rich gangster, they are really no better than the poor man that goes to jail.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Always put the Bible first, if an ancient text isn't there then it's because God didn't want it to be. I looked up my idea on preordination, however it lacks any clear scriptural backing, and appears to refer to specific matters and not salvation, as PVC said.

Your concept of the formation of the bible is extra-scriptual. The text itself does not support it, and neither do the historical accounts of its formation.

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_canons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo

also, the Gospels clearly contradict in detail, examine the calling of the first four diciples in Mathew and John. Peter and his brother are the same but the other two are different, in Mathew Peter is litterally a fisherman, in John he is a diciple of John the Baptist.


Remember, if Jesus had not died on the cross, then we would all go to Hell. It is only because God suffered our punishment that we can ever be gifted His grace. God is just, the wages of all sin will be payed. However, He chose to take the punishment for some - therefore it is God Himself who has been the only one to suffer injustice.

For example, say there are two criminals on trial. Both are on trial for seperate murders, but face the same charges. One murderer is poor and has a rubbish lawyer. The other is a rich gangster, and has bribed the whole jury. So, the poor murderer goes to jail for life, while the rich gangster walks free. The rich gangster escaped justice, but does that make the fate of the poor man any less just? Should he be freed so he received equal punishment to the gangster?

The only difference with the scenario in salvation is that God took the sentence for the rich gangster (the elect), and He did it out of mercy. God was the only one to suffer from injustice, yet He chose to do it anyway.

With God having suffered as He did, should we now complain to Him, saying why did He not take everyone's punishment, why did He not suffer greater injustice for mankind's crimes?

It is important that the elect realise, that just as the rich gangster, they are really no better than the poor man that goes to jail.

So God is unjust?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Who suffered unjustly save God Himself?

[Sigurd]

Wiki article on Smith Book of Abraham, is this what you were refering to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_abraham

Hmmm... not looking good for old Joe Smith there. I find the book of Abraham quite intriguing though.
In stead of the Smith book of Abraham, try the Apocalypse of Abraham found in the Pseudepigrapha. It deals with mostly the same issues and story.


Always put the Bible first, if an ancient text isn't there then it's because God didn't want it to be.

As Philipvs notes, you have a view that the Bible is perhaps infallible and believe that the canon is complete.


It is important that David acknowledges that he is chosen, inferring that the alternative would be for him not to be chosen, rather than to be chosen for x fate. Which is why I do not believe the doctrine of double predestination. This theme is continued throughout the Bible, for example when it says "those whom He did predestine...".

David might have been chosen and pre-ordained to his position as the line in which the Christ would come, but didn't he fall with the Uriah/Bathsheba issue and lost his salvation?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Who suffered unjustly save God Himself?

Jesus and God are not exactly the same being, because Jesus has a human element as well. In any case many answers present themselves to you question:

In any case, your arguement about the gangster bribing the jury is horribly flawed and is an example of gross injustice, so in your own example the Poor Man suffers injustice. You need a much better example.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Jesus and God are not exactly the same being, because Jesus has a human element as well. In any case many answers present themselves to you question:

In any case, your arguement about the gangster bribing the jury is horribly flawed and is an example of gross injustice, so in your own example the Poor Man suffers injustice. You need a much better example.

I know it couldn't be a perfect example - because the gangster went unpunished, his sins were never payed for. The point in it was to focus on the poor murderer - did he suffer injustice? The example was not a broad comparison with salvation, the point was purely that the poor man did not suffer injustice.

The difference between this court case and salvation is that in the court case the judge is just a man. When it comes to salvation, God is the judge. The elect can't wriggle out of a sentence like the gangster (which is why I didn't intend for too much to be read into that side of the example). God judges us just like He judges everyone else, and the penalty for all would be the same. It is by mercy that any are saved, because Jesus suffered for the sins of the elect. Therfore, their sins were paid for just as those of anyone else.

If we somehow came to God by our own merits, how then could we possibly realise the fundamental Chrisitan beliefs, that are to humble ourselves before God and recognise our total iniquity in his sight, and the aboslute, total glory of his sacrifice on the cross in bringing us to salvation?

Plus there are other issues if you do not believe the doctrine of predestination. If you do not believe that the fates of people are sealed, then how do you account for chance? Some kid in the pre-colonial Amazon rainforest will not have the same chance of salvation as a child raised by Christian parents in a Christian country.

More broadly speaking, without going into the clearest inequalities, completely random chance would determine salvation if it was not for God's plan. That would mean that if people came to God, it would either be through the infuence of their upbringing, or perhaps some sort of inner righteousness. How then could they humble themselves before God as Christians are supposed to do?

If we are truly to open our hearts to God and beg him to reform us, then the only way this could be done is by realising we are absolutedly no better than any other human that has ever existed (apart from the human aspect of Jesus).

No other way would work, salvation has go to be perfect.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I know it couldn't be a perfect example - because the gangster went unpunished, his sins were never payed for. The point in it was to focus on the poor murderer - did he suffer injustice? The example was not a broad comparison with salvation, the point was purely that the poor man did not suffer injustice.

Yes he did suffer injustice, because the system is broken and the law is not equal. A law which is just must be equal and unbiased.


The difference between this court case and salvation is that in the court case the judge is just a man. When it comes to salvation, God is the judge. The elect can't wriggle out of a sentence like the gangster (which is why I didn't intend for too much to be read into that side of the example). God judges us just like He judges everyone else, and the penalty for all would be the same. It is by mercy that any are saved, because Jesus suffered for the sins of the elect. Therfore, their sins were paid for just as those of anyone else.

You are positing a doctrine which makes God's absolute justice incompatable with his absolute mercy. Clearly something in the balance changes when you believe in God BUT that does not solve the fundamental problem with your doctrine.

Why send Jesus to begin with if Man does not deserve salvation? Why does God love man if man is evil?

The answer has to be that JUSTICE was served by sending Jesus, therefore hummanity deserves a chance at salvation for some, unknown reason. Since we are condemned for Adam's Sin one possibilty is that we do not bear the direct weight of that Sin as Adam did, or that Original Sin is not in itself a just reason to spend eternity in Hell.

In Genesis Adam, Noah and Abraham all talk to God, so are they in Heaven or Hell? Are they elect? They certainly aren't Christians, they have no concept of the incarnation as far as the text shows.


If we somehow came to God by our own merits, how then could we possibly realise the fundamental Chrisitan beliefs, that are to humble ourselves before God and recognise our total iniquity in his sight, and the aboslute, total glory of his sacrifice on the cross in bringing us to salvation?

What is the difference between deciding on Earth and deciding in Heaven, aren't both "on your own merits" really?


Plus there are other issues if you do not believe the doctrine of predestination. If you do not believe that the fates of people are sealed, then how do you account for chance? Some kid in the pre-colonial Amazon rainforest will not have the same chance of salvation as a child raised by Christian parents in a Christian country.

Yes its an issue, Calvinism sidesteps it so that the poor barbarians were born on the wrong side of the world and obviosly deserve to go to Hell for that. Just because I don't have answer, and I don't, doesn't mean your theoretical doctrine solves the problem.


More broadly speaking, without going into the clearest inequalities, completely random chance would determine salvation if it was not for God's plan. That would mean that if people came to God, it would either be through the infuence of their upbringing, or perhaps some sort of inner righteousness. How then could they humble themselves before God as Christians are supposed to do?

You limit God's Power again by assuming he is not able to make what seems unequal equal in reality. The world isn't fair as far as we can tell, so because it doesn't seem fair you assume that god is unable to provide a fair and equittable chance at salvation. I grew up in an atheistic family, the most devout confessing christian I have ever met grew up in the busom of the church.


If we are truly to open our hearts to God and beg him to reform us, then the only way this could be done is by realising we are absolutedly no better than any other human that has ever existed (apart from the human aspect of Jesus).

No other way would work, salvation has go to be perfect.

Yes it does, and it can't be if, all being equal before God, some are elected and others are not.

To be honest I think you're grappling with the basic problems all christians have and you hold to Calvinism because it systemises and justifies would would otherwise seem to be a deeply unfair world.

[Rhyfelwyr]

To be honest, you are right, I am looking to find a reason why the world could be so unjust. Like yourself, I come from an atheist family, at times of the aggressive variety.

As you could probably tell from my preordination idea, I am desperate to discover the justice behind God's system. I do not see how it could lie in this earth where everything is created unequal - surely the life we know must just be the stage where fates determined in a just manner by God are acted out? Whether it stems from strict legalistic justice and individual responsibility (preordination), or from God Himself, granted 100%, with no rounding of numbers, through mercy (predestination).

My main problem has always been with how justice can be served on this earth if God does not intervene (without His intervention hinging on chance). It seems that to deny God's sovereignty in salvation is to deny the ultimate glory of salvation itself - an irresistable gift to people who are totally undeserving of it.

I have to say that I have always felt the guiding hand of fate myself, without it I cannot possibly conceive of myself coming to God. There's no influence from my family or surroundings. If Geneva was the most godly city on earth, the Scotland was the most godly nation - oh how things have changed. :shame:

Anyway, one night after I posted a question on the topic of predestination on the Christian forums I use, I was reading the Bible and started to pray for guidance on the topic, and then that song came into my head, maybe you know it, the one that goes "its got to be perfect", with some woman singing. And I knew that it was referring to my thought that for salvation to be ultimately glorious it must come purely from God. I swear I hadn't heard that song in years, nor thought about it, it just popped into my head when I asked God for guidance. Also it was incredibly clear normally songs in my head go horribly out of tune.

So that certainly made me think to inquire into Calvinism from a new point of view, and I think I have benefited in my understanding from doing that.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Great discussion I have to say, but I would like to ask one thing.

Philipus Vallinderus Calicula: I'd like to point you to something you said just above...


You are positing a doctrine which makes God's absolute justice incompatable with his absolute mercy.

It was my understanding, although I could be wrong that God was supposed to be completely merciful, thus creating the paradox above. In fact Descartes, in trying to establish God's existence claims that God has all the perfections. Perfect Justice, perfect goodness, perfect power... etc... Despite the fact that many of these are incompatible.

Now I'm not obtuse enough to accept this argument (or rather reject any possibility of God's existence based on such a flawed argument), but it is clear that there is a problem. It seems that you are solving this by postulating that God is not totally good (and thus merciful), but instead perfectly just. This also would somewhat defeat the epicurean paradox (God cannot be all-powerful, all-knowing and totally good if there is evil). However I was under the impression that God was supposed to be perfectly good.

If 'Perfect Justice' is your overriding theory, although I'm not certain that it is (sorry if I've missed your point), then it still raises questions. What possible finite crime can be so bad as to deserve eternity in hell? Even the authors of genocide have only committed a finite crime, which cannot possibly justify infinite punishment. Thus if God is perfectly just, then everybody will be saved in the end. The alternative is to posit that there is an alternative to heaven and hell, which these redeemed souls would then inhabit, which is against any Christian doctrine that I know of.

There are other objections that I could raise but I don't have the time at the moment. Again my apologies if this is way off what you are actually saying.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Great discussion I have to say, but I would like to ask one thing.

Philipus Vallinderus Calicula: I'd like to point you to something you said just above...



It was my understanding, although I could be wrong that God was supposed to be completely merciful, thus creating the paradox above. In fact Descartes, in trying to establish God's existence claims that God has all the perfections. Perfect Justice, perfect goodness, perfect power... etc... Despite the fact that many of these are incompatible.

Now I'm not obtuse enough to accept this argument (or rather reject any possibility of God's existence based on such a flawed argument), but it is clear that there is a problem. It seems that you are solving this by postulating that God is not totally good (and thus merciful), but instead perfectly just. This also would somewhat defeat the epicurean paradox (God cannot be all-powerful, all-knowing and totally good if there is evil). However I was under the impression that God was supposed to be perfectly good.

If 'Perfect Justice' is your overriding theory, although I'm not certain that it is (sorry if I've missed your point), then it still raises questions. What possible finite crime can be so bad as to deserve eternity in hell? Even the authors of genocide have only committed a finite crime, which cannot possibly justify infinite punishment. Thus if God is perfectly just, then everybody will be saved in the end. The alternative is to posit that there is an alternative to heaven and hell, which these redeemed souls would then inhabit, which is against any Christian doctrine that I know of.

There are other objections that I could raise but I don't have the time at the moment. Again my apologies if this is way off what you are actually saying.

Heh, you're not off what I'm saying but if you look back through the thread you'll see Love and Mercy, as well as Power, figure in exactly the same way as Justice.

Justice

Mercy

Love

Power

A doctrine which breaks any of those limits God in some way. Knowledge might be another one but it's a bit more difficult to qualify.


To be honest, you are right, I am looking to find a reason why the world could be so unjust. Like yourself, I come from an atheist family, at times of the aggressive variety.

As you could probably tell from my preordination idea, I am desperate to discover the justice behind God's system. I do not see how it could lie in this earth where everything is created unequal - surely the life we know must just be the stage where fates determined in a just manner by God are acted out? Whether it stems from strict legalistic justice and individual responsibility (preordination), or from God Himself, granted 100%, with no rounding of numbers, through mercy (predestination).

You will never find that Justice, not completely. Your perspective is limited, it's called being human and it's the same fault which I apply to all theologians, prophets and Apostles. You're in what might be called the "Bable" stage, trying to work out how it all works. You don't need to know that, you find out when you die. Trying to see God's puropse is also, I think, fairly pointless sometimes. What good will it do you, and how can you possibly comprehend the mind of God?


My main problem has always been with how justice can be served on this earth if God does not intervene (without His intervention hinging on chance). It seems that to deny God's sovereignty in salvation is to deny the ultimate glory of salvation itself - an irresistable gift to people who are totally undeserving of it.

No idea really, but god is Great and God is Good, so obviously it does. The Stoical position is that your perspective of reality is incorrect, and that there is no evil in the world, only evil thoughts. Seneca is the father of christian Stoicism, even though he was a Pagan. Look him up.


I have to say that I have always felt the guiding hand of fate myself, without it I cannot possibly conceive of myself coming to God. There's no influence from my family or surroundings. If Geneva was the most godly city on earth, the Scotland was the most godly nation - oh how things have changed. :shame:

Really? No influence? Where did you first encounter the Bible?


Anyway, one night after I posted a question on the topic of predestination on the Christian forums I use, I was reading the Bible and started to pray for guidance on the topic, and then that song came into my head, maybe you know it, the one that goes "its got to be perfect", with some woman singing. And I knew that it was referring to my thought that for salvation to be ultimately glorious it must come purely from God. I swear I hadn't heard that song in years, nor thought about it, it just popped into my head when I asked God for guidance. Also it was incredibly clear normally songs in my head go horribly out of tune.

So that certainly made me think to inquire into Calvinism from a new point of view, and I think I have benefited in my understanding from doing that.

Ok, well lets not bother with the issue of true visions, beyond saying that it has always been held that more visioins come from Satan than from God, and no vision in this period of history is absolute because there are not more prophets.

So, interpretation:

1. The Song was one you knew, and it came to you after a period of what I will assume was meditative prayer, rather than self flagalation.

2. That Salvation must be perfect is a given but, as I said "it comes from God" is a pointless statement, as everything comes from God.

3. assuming the words refer to salvation, why do you think this means you need to find the answer? Maybe it means the answer is perfect and therefore you won't find it on Earth, so stop worring about it and get on with life.

4. checked the lyrics? http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gary.hart/lyricsf/fairground.html Maybe Jesus thinks you should get a girlfriend.

5. It could mean you are concerned with Earthly matters in this and that you should think about this from a purely Godly point of view.

Those are just some ideas about interpretation. Be careful of statements like "I knew" and ask yourself whether you honestly do know or whether the idea just strikes a chord you really like.

[Rhyfelwyr]

OK, but I didn't say I accepted a doctrine based on that. I can tell it wasn't from Satan though. Far out as this may seem to ordinary Orgahs reading this post, when Satan sends thoughts they are better described as 'fiery arrows', they literally last a moment and they strike you when you are a Christian in the early stages. The devil's vain attempts to put us off track I suppose. I thought it only happened to me, but then when I joined the Christian forums I use apparently everyone has the exact same thing! :shrug:

Of course we will never understand the mind of God, but He gave us the scriptures so that we could do our best to interpret them and live by them. I think it's important that I get some understanding of the message of the Bible, so that I don't spread a false message to others. I think I will need to look into the epicurean paradox... what are your thoughts on that PVC (or anyone else)?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OK, but I didn't say I accepted a doctrine based on that. I can tell it wasn't from Satan though. Far out as this may seem to ordinary Orgahs reading this post, when Satan sends thoughts they are better described as 'fiery arrows', they literally last a moment and they strike you when you are a Christian in the early stages. The devil's vain attempts to put us off track I suppose. I thought it only happened to me, but then when I joined the Christian forums I use apparently everyone has the exact same thing! :shrug:

Of course we will never understand the mind of God, but He gave us the scriptures so that we could do our best to interpret them and live by them. I think it's important that I get some understanding of the message of the Bible, so that I don't spread a false message to others. I think I will need to look into the epicurean paradox... what are your thoughts on that PVC (or anyone else)?

Epicurus is very simple.

Q: How can an all powerful and all loving God allow evil?

A1: He can't stop it, so he isn't all powerful, maybe he doesn't even exist.

A2: He chooses not to stop it, so he isn't all loving, so maybe he doesn't exist.

That's it.

Now, I hate to tell you this but your first paragraph is doctrinal again. It's based on Jesus' tempting in the wilderness. The problem though is that, as much as what you say might be true, that does not need to be the whole of the answer. There is a very long tradition of the Devil, or other demons, transfiguring themselves into angels of Light and decieving pious men (or women), prophecy, words of reasurence etc.

The line between mystic and heretic in the middle ages was a very fine one and whater you may have been told about old Catholicism (a lot of it isn't true, if your Church is anything like other Calvinistic ones) they took this issue very seriously, there is an abundance of literature on the subject.

You might want to start with the Cloud of Unkowing which is a meditative text but contains some chapters on false piety. some of it is nonsense, such as people with nervous twitches, or cracking joints, but a lot of what the author says about people burning with what they believe to be reightiour fire is worth thinking about.

In any case there are a lot of well documented cases of Churchmen who relate their own bizare experiences that have been variously interpreted as a supressed sex-drive or the works of demons. If you look at the early Church I don't think there are any grounds to think that a Baptised christin is inately protected, i.e. fenced off from, these sorts of experiences.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I get the impression you think my church gives some sort of hyper-Calvinist ant-Catholic Puritan fire and brimstone sermons. It's not like that, its all about getting along, John Knox would be spinning in his grave.

So do you not believe that God could be all powerful and all merciful? I was just thinking the other day that He would have to be all merciful to save even one soul. Which leaves the question over His power... that may be harder to answer, or at least explain why He allows evil to exist.

What you say about the devil is true I suppose. It just seems like an insult to God if I was to think He could be Satan in disguise.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

'God either wishes to take away evil, and is unable, or He is able and unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?'

The words of Epicurus in the 3rd century. I personally have not found an even halfway suitable refutation of this argument/paradox. The Free will argument limits his power in that God could create us to freely choose good over evil, and doesn't account for natural evils. Evil sevring a greater purpose makes no sense either. If God is all-merciful then he would spare us suffering. If He is all-good, then He would not create evil.

I feel that similarly, Justice, Love, Power and Mercy are incompatible, if you are indeed talking about them in absolutes. Perfect Justice would involve punishment, allowing for the existence of a place like hell. However Perfect Mercy would not allow for it, forcing God to absolve all people of their sins and allow them to ascend to heaven. Love and Justice are not totally contradictary, although there are some issues to work around. Or would you care to show me otherwise PVC?

With mysticism and heresy being similar, I was under the impression that heresy was essentially a warping of the church's take on Christianity. In other words someone offering their own interpretation on God and his words, without Church consent. A mystic then would be someone who was not accused of heresy by the church, presumably because their ideology did not conflict with the 'official' version.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

'God either wishes to take away evil, and is unable, or He is able and unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?'

The words of Epicurus in the 3rd century. I personally have not found an even halfway suitable refutation of this argument/paradox. The Free will argument limits his power in that God could create us to freely choose good over evil, and doesn't account for natural evils. Evil sevring a greater purpose makes no sense either. If God is all-merciful then he would spare us suffering. If He is all-good, then He would not create evil.

One possible refutatuion is that man's understanding of evil is faulty and that it exists only in the minds of men. This is most pertinant when considering natural evils, but it applies equally to Hitler and the Holocaust; the latter lead to modern notions of Human Rights and the UN as an international forum for dispute resolution.


I feel that similarly, Justice, Love, Power and Mercy are incompatible, if you are indeed talking about them in absolutes. Perfect Justice would involve punishment, allowing for the existence of a place like hell. However Perfect Mercy would not allow for it, forcing God to absolve all people of their sins and allow them to ascend to heaven. Love and Justice are not totally contradictary, although there are some issues to work around. Or would you care to show me otherwise PVC?

This is a paradox which has not been answered. One of the problems whith trying to answer it is that we do not know who is actually saved, another is that we do not actually see the hand of God. So, no I'm not going to refute the paradox here. However, I will reject any doctrine which creates such a paradox in itself. I believe Calvinism does just that.


With mysticism and heresy being similar, I was under the impression that heresy was essentially a warping of the church's take on Christianity. In other words someone offering their own interpretation on God and his words, without Church consent. A mystic then would be someone who was not accused of heresy by the church, presumably because their ideology did not conflict with the 'official' version.

Mystics have a direct line to God, and an individual interpretation, Heretics claim the same. There are examples of people burned as heretics who have since been restored to the Church. Joan of Arc is the most famous example.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I get the impression you think my church gives some sort of hyper-Calvinist ant-Catholic Puritan fire and brimstone sermons. It's not like that, its all about getting along, John Knox would be spinning in his grave.

No such thing as Hyper-Calvinism. It's a doctrine which contains election, and therefore contains God's damning of souls. A more fuzzy form of Calvinism can be achieved by limiting God's power. You've talked a lot about not believing in double pre-destination but, as I pointed out, this denies the binary of heaven-hell and God's all-powerful and irresitable nature which you proclaim.

As regards your Church, you have been taught that Roman Catholic Saints are somehow special in their relationship to God. This is anti-Roman Catholic invective (it's also anti-catholic, but that's another issue entirely). You've probably also been told that Roman priests are believed to have to some special power from God.


So do you not believe that God could be all powerful and all merciful? I was just thinking the other day that He would have to be all merciful to save even one soul. Which leaves the question over His power... that may be harder to answer, or at least explain why He allows evil to exist.

I would not be arguing with you if I did not believe he was all-powerful and all merciful. When I have time I'm going to write a tract on this and set out my objections systematically but if you look back over this thread you will see that I have ranged accross love, power, mercy and other elements of the Divine.


What you say about the devil is true I suppose. It just seems like an insult to God if I was to think He could be Satan in disguise.

You might think of it as an insult to God that you trust your own judgement so completely and are vain in your self assurence. (I must have read that somewhere, I don't write like that normally.)

Seriously though, if you're going to go in for the "fiery arrows" bit you need to take the "false angel" bit as well.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No such thing as Hyper-Calvinism. It's a doctrine which contains election, and therefore contains God's damning of souls. A more fuzzy form of Calvinism can be achieved by limiting God's power. You've talked a lot about not believing in double pre-destination but, as I pointed out, this denies the binary of heaven-hell and God's all-powerful and irresitable nature which you proclaim.

God never works in the lives of people to damn them, there's no need to, they'll do that themselves. He only ever works in people's lives to save them. Yes God created them, but it is purely the nature of their being that damns people, with no extra influence from God once they are created. Hyper-Calvinism suggests that there is, but this is incorrect.


As regards your Church, you have been taught that Roman Catholic Saints are somehow special in their relationship to God. This is anti-Roman Catholic invective (it's also anti-catholic, but that's another issue entirely). You've probably also been told that Roman priests are believed to have to some special power from God.

I'm pretty sure I didn't hear it at church, however no person/group of people on earth has the ability or right to say with absolute authority that any one person is in Heaven. And no I don't believe that anyone thinks priests are granted special powers from God, I've never heard anything on the matter. I would presume Catholics consider priests to be human just like the rest of us, and that the church hierarchy was mainly for practical rather than spiritual reasons. At least till you get to the top, then its dodgy.


I would not be arguing with you if I did not believe he was all-powerful and all merciful. When I have time I'm going to write a tract on this and set out my objections systematically but if you look back over this thread you will see that I have ranged accross love, power, mercy and other elements of the Divine.

I look forward to reading it, because it is a question I cannot answer myself.


You might think of it as an insult to God that you trust your own judgement so completely and are vain in your self assurence. (I must have read that somewhere, I don't write like that normally.)

Seriously though, if you're going to go in for the "fiery arrows" bit you need to take the "false angel" bit as well.

I thought that as well, that is would be wrong for me to be sure in anything that I felt. Human beings are completely inferior to the power of God and Satan, I know well that one could easily trick us into thinking he was the other. I just believe that when God gives us understanding, it lifts us to a level above doubt, when we know it cannot be Satan, because God lets us know. And I know it doesn't make sense when you look back reflecting on it (you think how can I have been sure it was God), but that is beause you're on a different level, its like you're looking straight across when what you just experienced was above you. You can never understand it except when you're there.

So I suppose I can never explain it properly. :shrug:

[Ronin]

this thread is like a giant game of mad libs.

awesome!!! :wiseguy:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

God never works in the lives of people to damn them, there's no need to, they'll do that themselves. He only ever works in people's lives to save them. Yes God created them, but it is purely the nature of their being that damns people, with no extra influence from God once they are created. Hyper-Calvinism suggests that there is, but this is incorrect.

It's a binary. If God does not save he damns. The arguement runs thus.

God is all powerful.

Only God has the power to save, this comes only from God, salvation is determined by him alone.

God saves some and not others, those he does not save are damned for all eternity.

As I said before, you said God's grace was irresistable. If that is so then only those he forsakes could possibly resist him.

His refusal to save would be an act of damnation under that system.

You also said it is people's own nature that damn them, but their nature is detemined ultimately by God.

You also say that he works in their lives to save them, without which they could not be saved (so you have previously written). So then how can people have free will? How can anyone be saved if they are not free to choose? Worse, how could adam have sinned and condemned humanity without free will.

Disobediance requires choice. Calvinism removes choice. In effect it removes sin.


I'm pretty sure I didn't hear it at church, however no person/group of people on earth has the ability or right to say with absolute authority that any one person is in Heaven. And no I don't believe that anyone thinks priests are granted special powers from God, I've never heard anything on the matter. I would presume Catholics consider priests to be human just like the rest of us, and that the church hierarchy was mainly for practical rather than spiritual reasons. At least till you get to the top, then its dodgy.

Maybe it's these Christian forums you use. A lot of the rhetoric you use is very much in the vein of the Evangelical Churches.

Link?


I thought that as well, that is would be wrong for me to be sure in anything that I felt. Human beings are completely inferior to the power of God and Satan, I know well that one could easily trick us into thinking he was the other. I just believe that when God gives us understanding, it lifts us to a level above doubt, when we know it cannot be Satan, because God lets us know. And I know it doesn't make sense when you look back reflecting on it (you think how can I have been sure it was God), but that is beause you're on a different level, its like you're looking straight across when what you just experienced was above you. You can never understand it except when you're there.

So I suppose I can never explain it properly. :shrug:

Satan is pretty pathetic really. I've reffered to it before, but read the Book of Job (all of it) for a demonstration od just how powerless he ultimately is. Having said that, consider this:

If you had been decieved you would still have written the same passage as the one I am quoting. How do you know that the assurence you feel is not false pride?

Faith in God is not the same as faith in yourself.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It's a binary. If God does not save he damns. The arguement runs thus.

God is all powerful.

Only God has the power to save, this comes only from God, salvation is determined by him alone.

God saves some and not others, those he does not save are damned for all eternity.

As I said before, you said God's grace was irresistable. If that is so then only those he forsakes could possibly resist him.

His refusal to save would be an act of damnation under that system.

You also said it is people's own nature that damn them, but their nature is detemined ultimately by God.

You also say that he works in their lives to save them, without which they could not be saved (so you have previously written). So then how can people have free will? How can anyone be saved if they are not free to choose? Worse, how could adam have sinned and condemned humanity without free will.

Disobediance requires choice. Calvinism removes choice. In effect it removes sin.

Yep, you're either a servant of God, or a slave to Satan. Of course I may well be wrong but that's what it seems like.

Maybe Adam was the only human to have free will - after the original sin everything that happens is the result of his sin, as humanity learns the consequences of rebellion against God. If you resist God, then you are vulnerable to whoever will enslave you.

Of course, we do not know why God created people who will be damned. However, the inevitability of events which arise as a result of the situation created by God do not equate to the predestination that Calvinist doctrine refers to. Calvinism only refers to one specific aspect of predestination - the certainty as shown throughout the Bible that God will not allow the elect to fail to come to salvation. The elect know that it is their purpose to come to salvation, but we do not know what the purpose of the others are - the Bible does not mention election to damnation as it does election to salvation, so we should consider why this is.


Maybe it's these Christian forums you use. A lot of the rhetoric you use is very much in the vein of the Evangelical Churches.

Link?

I'd rather keep the anonymity, however I will say that in a recent poll they held Arminianism received more votes than Calvinism when asked what the voter preferred.


Satan is pretty pathetic really. I've reffered to it before, but read the Book of Job (all of it) for a demonstration od just how powerless he ultimately is. Having said that, consider this:

If you had been decieved you would still have written the same passage as the one I am quoting. How do you know that the assurence you feel is not false pride?

Faith in God is not the same as faith in yourself.

It is a difficult issue, I know that. However, it seems that if God gives me understanding then it is well beyond anything my mind would be capable of itself. I don't see where pride in myself came into the equation though - if I've been tricked then its been out of my own stupidity and I've nothing to be proud about, if I've not then it came purely from God and so that's great - nowhere do I deserve any merit.

With a mind as small and powerless as my own, surely the only way I could tell between God and Satan is if God Himself gave me the necessary knowledge to know that? If it comes from God, to question it is to question God. How can I know it's from God? The only way is if He lets me know directly. Nowhere does my merit come into the equation.

Which ties into the larger idea of us being servants of God or slaves to Satan - so long as these greater powers are at work, how can we resist the one without shielding behind the other? Of course hiding behind Satan is foolish, since God will destroy him. Just not yet.

EDIT: Partly because of this thread, and also more generally, I decided earlier today that I would no longer think to much over the Calvinism/Arminianism/whatever denomination debate, and would instead focus on God Himself. So, I just hopped over to the forums, and the first topic, right at the top of the page, is on this precise topic! And I've never seen it come up before in my time there, is this coincidence... the answer is no because this kind of thing happens so often.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

One possible refutatuion is that man's understanding of evil is faulty and that it exists only in the minds of men. This is most pertinant when considering natural evils, but it applies equally to Hitler and the Holocaust; the latter lead to modern notions of Human Rights and the UN as an international forum for dispute resolution.

This is one of the strongest arguments against Epicurus, but I feel that there are still issues with it. To take your example of Hitler and the Holocaust. I was under the impression that the dignity of the human person (which I believe is first raised in Genesis) is a scriptural back-up to what most would agree to. It is is morally wrong, and thus evil, to take the life of another person. If you wished to argue that moral wrongness and evil are different, then insert the word innocent into the above statement. It is very hard to believe that God would approve of genocide, and if He did, then according to Epicurus, He is not God.


This is a paradox which has not been answered. One of the problems whith trying to answer it is that we do not know who is actually saved, another is that we do not actually see the hand of God. So, no I'm not going to refute the paradox here. However, I will reject any doctrine which creates such a paradox in itself. I believe Calvinism does just that.

I would be inclined to agree that Calvinism does create that paradox. And I agree that if Love, Justice, Mercy and Power were reconcilable, then in all probability it would be very hard to comprehend, given that, as you've said, we don't know who and who isn't saved.



No such thing as Hyper-Calvinism. It's a doctrine which contains election, and therefore contains God's damning of souls. A more fuzzy form of Calvinism can be achieved by limiting God's power. You've talked a lot about not believing in double pre-destination but, as I pointed out, this denies the binary of heaven-hell and God's all-powerful and irresitable nature which you proclaim.

If heaven and hell exist, and God is all-powerful, then God intended for hell to exist. Furthermore if God's power is irresistible then those who go to hell are those rejected by God, not those who reject Him, because they had no choice in the matter. In essence I agree that Calvinism must limit God's power or his goodness, and thus is an unsuitable doctrine.



I would not be arguing with you if I did not believe he was all-powerful and all merciful. When I have time I'm going to write a tract on this and set out my objections systematically but if you look back over this thread you will see that I have ranged accross love, power, mercy and other elements of the Divine.

I'd be interested...


It's a binary. If God does not save he damns. The arguement runs thus.

God is all powerful.

Only God has the power to save, this comes only from God, salvation is determined by him alone.

God saves some and not others, those he does not save are damned for all eternity.

As I said before, you said God's grace was irresistable. If that is so then only those he forsakes could possibly resist him.

His refusal to save would be an act of damnation under that system.

You also said it is people's own nature that damn them, but their nature is detemined ultimately by God.

You also say that he works in their lives to save them, without which they could not be saved (so you have previously written). So then how can people have free will? How can anyone be saved if they are not free to choose? Worse, how could adam have sinned and condemned humanity without free will.

Disobediance requires choice. Calvinism removes choice. In effect it removes sin.

This is a much more eloquent and logical way of putting what I said above. Furthermore I'd add that if He is all-powerful and irresistible and He works to save people then they will be saved, and thus there is no need for hell.



Yep, you're either a servant of God, or a slave to Satan. Of course I may well be wrong but that's what it seems like.

Maybe Adam was the only human to have free will - after the original sin everything that happens is the result of his sin, as humanity learns the consequences of rebellion against God. If you resist God, then you are vulnerable to whoever will enslave you.

Resisting God requires Free Will. Therefore to validate your situation above, God intended for people to resist him which leads to their damnation, thus leaving the same situation. Calvinism relys on a God who damns unjustly, or God is not all-powerful.

[Big_John]

walk away pever, walk away before it's too late.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yep, you're either a servant of God, or a slave to Satan. Of course I may well be wrong but that's what it seems like.

What about Lost souls (necessarily claimed by Satan?).


Maybe Adam was the only human to have free will - after the original sin everything that happens is the result of his sin, as humanity learns the consequences of rebellion against God. If you resist God, then you are vulnerable to whoever will enslave you.

Then God punishes the children ad extramis (I think that's the Latin) for the sins of the father? If Adam sinned why are we punished.

Set my give you a slightly different interpretation of Original Sin. God made Adam with Free Will, but not with judgement. Adam did not know right from wrong, only once he had tasted the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge did he know, then he tried to hide his Sin from God.

What Adam gave his children was understanding, and with that understanding came the weight of Sin because without it true disobedience to God is not possible.


Of course, we do not know why God created people who will be damned. However, the inevitability of events which arise as a result of the situation created by God do not equate to the predestination that Calvinist doctrine refers to. Calvinism only refers to one specific aspect of predestination - the certainty as shown throughout the Bible that God will not allow the elect to fail to come to salvation. The elect know that it is their purpose to come to salvation, but we do not know what the purpose of the others are - the Bible does not mention election to damnation as it does election to salvation, so we should consider why this is.

It might be because failure to elect to salvation is election to damnation.


I'd rather keep the anonymity, however I will say that in a recent poll they held Arminianism received more votes than Calvinism when asked what the voter preferred.

Fair enough, but I recognise the tone none the less. You're not a university student belonging to a CU, are you?


It is a difficult issue, I know that. However, it seems that if God gives me understanding then it is well beyond anything my mind would be capable of itself. I don't see where pride in myself came into the equation though - if I've been tricked then its been out of my own stupidity and I've nothing to be proud about, if I've not then it came purely from God and so that's great - nowhere do I deserve any merit.

Pride comes because you believe God has given you understanding above others. You have been elected to this understanding over and above the mass of hummanity.


With a mind as small and powerless as my own, surely the only way I could tell between God and Satan is if God Himself gave me the necessary knowledge to know that? If it comes from God, to question it is to question God. How can I know it's from God? The only way is if He lets me know directly. Nowhere does my merit come into the equation.

You still think you are chosen, that can be pride (I'm really not saying it is but it important to always remember.)


Which ties into the larger idea of us being servants of God or slaves to Satan - so long as these greater powers are at work, how can we resist the one without shielding behind the other? Of course hiding behind Satan is foolish, since God will destroy him. Just not yet.

God can shield you from Stan, but Satan cannot protect you from God, unless God allows it.


EDIT: Partly because of this thread, and also more generally, I decided earlier today that I would no longer think to much over the Calvinism/Arminianism/whatever denomination debate, and would instead focus on God Himself. So, I just hopped over to the forums, and the first topic, right at the top of the page, is on this precise topic! And I've never seen it come up before in my time there, is this coincidence... the answer is no because this kind of thing happens so often.

Saint Augustine said, "To say that God is ineffable should not be said, because then something is said (about that which is ineffable), this contradiction should be passed over in silence."

I think it's in either "City of God" or "On the Christian Doctrine"

He does go on to say you should try to talk about God, but your words will always be insufficient.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What about Lost souls (necessarily claimed by Satan?).

Then God punishes the children ad extramis (I think that's the Latin) for the sins of the father? If Adam sinned why are we punished.

Set my give you a slightly different interpretation of Original Sin. God made Adam with Free Will, but not with judgement. Adam did not know right from wrong, only once he had tasted the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge did he know, then he tried to hide his Sin from God.

What Adam gave his children was understanding, and with that understanding came the weight of Sin because without it true disobedience to God is not possible.

Even if you believe God gave Adam free will, He must have known that Adam would eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.


It might be because failure to elect to salvation is election to damnation.

The nature of people might mean it has that effect, however people are not damned in the same manner in that they are saved.


Fair enough, but I recognise the tone none the less. You're not a university student belonging to a CU, are you?

I'm at Uni, though not in a CU (if that's Christian Union?), or any similar group.


Pride comes because you believe God has given you understanding above others. You have been elected to this understanding over and above the mass of hummanity.

You still think you are chosen, that can be pride (I'm really not saying it is but it important to always remember.)

And yet I do not deserve it, so I have no reason to be proud of myself. Was Moses proud or vain when He listened to God? Should he have thought Satan might be tricking him? If God wanted Moses to know who he was talking to, He would let him.


God can shield you from Stan, but Satan cannot protect you from God, unless God allows it.

True.


Saint Augustine said, "To say that God is ineffable should not be said, because then something is said (about that which is ineffable), this contradiction should be passed over in silence."

I think it's in either "City of God" or "On the Christian Doctrine"

He does go on to say you should try to talk about God, but your words will always be insufficient.

True. Perhaps all our discussions are irrelevant because of this. No doctrine we can come up with can truly help us to understand God. However it comes about, at least we both agree you need to have faith, and I suppose that's what matters in the end.

[pevergreen]

walk away pever, walk away before it's too late.

I got bored and I stopped. Never fear.

I do like the discussion it has spawned though.

[Sigurd]

I got bored and I stopped. Never fear.

I do like the discussion it has spawned though.
Any follow up story on this one pever?

Also, I had a discussion this weekend with a Born again Lutheran on the infallibility of the Bible which coincidently involved Rhyfelwyr's quoted scripture.

Is it getting close? It seems there is a certain awakening in the Christian movement everywhere.

[pevergreen]

Oh yes!

They both decided to delete me as friends on facebook and they refuse to talk to me, not because they know this, but because they are now going out!

So according to their own beliefs, they are obviously soon to be married :laugh4:

("they" being the lady and the boy who converted her in the first place, who when questioned, said he had no intention of going out with her. We all knew it was a lie :grin2:)

In terms of Christianity, i still dont think it can work until it falls beneath a single umbrella, with a single head, but still allow the different denominations.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh yes!

They both decided to delete me as friends on facebook and they refuse to talk to me, not because they know this, but because they are now going out!

So according to their own beliefs, they are obviously soon to be married :laugh4:

("they" being the lady and the boy who converted her in the first place, who when questioned, said he had no intention of going out with her. We all knew it was a lie :grin2:)

In terms of Christianity, i still dont think it can work until it falls beneath a single umbrella, with a single head, but still allow the different denominations.

So the guy used Christianity to get a girl to dump her boyfriend and then asked her out?

Oh man, oh man.

:shame:

[pevergreen]

We knew for some time it was going to happen. A lot of people want to hit him. Hard.

Sarathos is over it anyway.

[Rhyfelwyr]

We knew for some time it was going to happen. A lot of people want to hit him. Hard.

Sarathos is over it anyway.

I always thought these dramas that are associated with Aussies were just based on stereotypes from soaps like Neighbours, however with some of the stories I've heard from your circle of Orgah friends I'm begging to wonder if they have some foundations...

:drama2:

[HoreTore]

We knew for some time it was going to happen. A lot of people want to hit him. Hard.

Sarathos is over it anyway.

Bah. Puppy love. Who cares?

And they're christians, they get all the drawbacks of a relationship but without the benefit(teh sex), so.... I feel rather sorry for them :smash:

[Sigurd]

They both decided to delete me as friends on facebook and they refuse to talk to me, not because they know this, but because they are now going out!

So ... they don't know your interest was fake but then just dump you out of ... spite? Your connection to Sarathos?



So according to their own beliefs, they are obviously soon to be married :laugh4:

("they" being the lady and the boy who converted her in the first place, who when questioned, said he had no intention of going out with her. We all knew it was a lie :grin2:)

Man ... If I had still lived in Brisbane, I might have offered to "talk" to them.
But ya never know. He wanted her over to this ... ( can't exactly call it extreme form of Christianity ) to get the woman of his dreams. She might as well have been lured in to get the boy of her dreams.

[LittleGrizzly]

Hang on a second... are you telling me i can use religion to pull ?!

Time to start brushing up on my bible studies!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bah. Puppy love. Who cares?

And they're christians, they get all the drawbacks of a relationship but without the benefit(teh sex), so.... I feel rather sorry for them :smash:

Yes, we know you are a nhilist who hates God.


So ... they don't know your interest was fake but then just dump you out of ... spite? Your connection to Sarathos?


Man ... If I had still lived in Brisbane, I might have offered to "talk" to them.
But ya never know. He wanted her over to this ... ( can't exactly call it extreme form of Christianity ) to get the woman of his dreams. She might as well have been lured in to get the boy of her dreams.

This is something that deserves it's own topic really, faith and human relationships. Personally, I can't imagine how you can have an intimate relationship with someone who has a completely different world view to you, not to mention the potential salvation/damnation issue.

[Sigurd]

This is something that deserves it's own topic really, faith and human relationships. Personally, I can't imagine how you can have an intimate relationship with someone who has a completely different world view to you, not to mention the potential salvation/damnation issue.
Unless you believe that marriage continues after death, I can't see this as a problem. Faith is an individual thing and I believe so are salvation.
Besides... if it is predestined ...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well there is the whole thing about not going into a relationship which will be 'unequally yoked'.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Unless you believe that marriage continues after death, I can't see this as a problem. Faith is an individual thing and I believe so are salvation.
Besides... if it is predestined ...

Well, I don't believe in predestination, as we have established, so that isn't a problem. To a certain extent your own faith is personnal but Christianity is a communal religion, not a private one, and beyond that I just find it difficult to understand how you can share your whole life with someone who has a completely different conception of reality.

My faith is an integral part of my life, it informs my very understanding of my own existance. For example:

Christmas: More than just an excuse to have the family over and have a big party, fun as that is. For me that's secondary to celebrating the fact that over two thousand years ago the world and the fabric of reality were fundamentally altered.

I can't imagine spending my life with someone who can't understand that feeling.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If I was married, I'd be more concerned about where my wife was going after she died than what we agreed upon in life. Yes, we are told that God wipes away all tears in Heaven, however to say that you wouldn't care about her after you die doesn't seem right. For that reason, I could only marry a Christian I expect. Sounds bigoted I know, but it's not really.

According to my beliefs, Christmas means less to me than anyone else. It's a pagan festival, there's no religious element to it, Jesus wasn't born on what we call Christmas day. And to counter the argument about praising his birth regardless, why should we ritualise a celebration of Christ's birth into set festivals? We shouldn't, God hates ritualisation and ceremony (He used it to teach the Jews, but now we should know better!).

Others around me may celebrate the commercial side and eat, drink, and be merry, but I'm to miserable to do that, the idea of rejoicing in iniquity comes to mind. Yeah, you've got turkey, pudding, wine, excessive food, and lots of stuff that could have been more usefully invested in charity, maybe even an idolatrous depiction of a nativity scene - but where's God?!

So, I expect Santa just skipped the naughty list and put me straight onto the hit list, but that's what I think of Christmas.

EDIT: After reading my above post I expect I'll be getting a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Past...

[CountArach]

Others around me may celebrate the commercial side and eat, drink, and be merry, but I'm to miserable to do that, the idea of rejoicing in iniquity comes to mind. Yeah, you've got turkey, pudding, wine, excessive food, and lots of stuff that could have been more usefully invested in charity, maybe even an idolatrous depiction of a nativity scene - but where's God?!
People put more money and time into charity around Christmas than any other time of the year. Its one of the few times that I actually donate to a charity (I'm a poor student so I can't actually afford it...). So claiming that no good comes out of it is completely false.

Also the only time I have ever gone to church (When I was younger and still a Christian...) was on Christmas day. So again, to claim that there is no God in many people's Christmas is completely false.

[Rhyfelwyr]

People put more money and time into charity around Christmas than any other time of the year. Its one of the few times that I actually donate to a charity (I'm a poor student so I can't actually afford it...). So claiming that no good comes out of it is completely false.

Also the only time I have ever gone to church (When I was younger and still a Christian...) was on Christmas day. So again, to claim that there is no God in many people's Christmas is completely false.

Of course some good comes from it, my point is that the Christians who have been longer in the faith have no reason to take it seriously.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If I was married, I'd be more concerned about where my wife was going after she died than what we agreed upon in life. Yes, we are told that God wipes away all tears in Heaven, however to say that you wouldn't care about her after you die doesn't seem right. For that reason, I could only marry a Christian I expect. Sounds bigoted I know, but it's not really.

According to my beliefs, Christmas means less to me than anyone else. It's a pagan festival, there's no religious element to it, Jesus wasn't born on what we call Christmas day. And to counter the argument about praising his birth regardless, why should we ritualise a celebration of Christ's birth into set festivals? We shouldn't, God hates ritualisation and ceremony (He used it to teach the Jews, but now we should know better!).

Others around me may celebrate the commercial side and eat, drink, and be merry, but I'm to miserable to do that, the idea of rejoicing in iniquity comes to mind. Yeah, you've got turkey, pudding, wine, excessive food, and lots of stuff that could have been more usefully invested in charity, maybe even an idolatrous depiction of a nativity scene - but where's God?!

So, I expect Santa just skipped the naughty list and put me straight onto the hit list, but that's what I think of Christmas.

EDIT: After reading my above post I expect I'll be getting a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Past...

That's a very Puritanical view, and it ignores the communal element of liturgy, because that's the point of a Church. It's a community of believers who share their faith. That is why Christmas and Easter are important.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That's a very Puritanical view, and it ignores the communal element of liturgy, because that's the point of a Church. It's a community of believers who share their faith. That is why Christmas and Easter are important.

But why bring Christians together to celebrate something in an un-Christian manner? It's self-defeating.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How is prayer and hym un-Christian?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Rhyfelwyr, if your belief system is making you miserable, there's every reason for re-considering it. Life is a precious, joyful thing - the greatest gift, if you believe in a god - and contains enough misery threaded through the happiness without needing the creation of more.

To quote again:

"If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."

:bow:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Nah, it's not the religion, my parents have been telling me I'm like Victor Meldrew since I was 8.

I don't mean that I feel miserable, just that I might appear a miserable character. I just don't understand how people can get so involved in festivities and feel OK about it. It's hard to explain, often I can't really explain it properly. Like a week or so ago my parents came back from a dance thing and had their party hats etc on and were quite 'cheerful' etc, and I was absolutedly shocked. And then later I wondered what I was so shocked about, and I didn't really know, because they hadn't done anything wrong in particular. The whole scene just seemed so... wordly?

@PVC: It's the mass repetition of certain hyms and prayers that I don't like about these ceremonies. It would be much better if people could pray sincerely with whatever God puts in their hearts than muttering some manufactured words and calling it a prayer. It's something I've noticed at church, repeating the words for a prayer never feels as genuine. Even if you are going to pray for the same thing, you are better doing it in your own way.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Rhyfelwyr, if your belief system is making you miserable, there's every reason for re-considering it. Life is a precious, joyful thing - the greatest gift, if you believe in a god - and contains enough misery threaded through the happiness without needing the creation of more.

To quote again:

"If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."

:bow:

:yes: Listen to the more worldly man, he's right.

Asfar as prayers and liturgy go, as I said, its about a communal act. There's nothing quite like having 250 people saying the "Our Father" in rhythm, and you being one of them.

[Mooks]

Nah, it's not the religion, my parents have been telling me I'm like Victor Meldrew since I was 8.

I don't mean that I feel miserable, just that I might appear a miserable character. I just don't understand how people can get so involved in festivities and feel OK about it. It's hard to explain, often I can't really explain it properly. Like a week or so ago my parents came back from a dance thing and had their party hats etc on and were quite 'cheerful' etc, and I was absolutedly shocked. And then later I wondered what I was so shocked about, and I didn't really know, because they hadn't done anything wrong in particular. The whole scene just seemed so... wordly?



To me it seems like you take things too seriosly. If your constantly looking for the "meaning" and "worth" of things your never have any fun.

[Rhyfelwyr]

To me it seems like you take things too seriosly. If your constantly looking for the "meaning" and "worth" of things your never have any fun.

If you are a Christian, how can you take your salvation too seriously!? It's all that matters, all else, as they say, is vanity.

[Lord Winter]

If you are a Christian, how can you take your salvation too seriously!? It's all that matters, all else, as they say, is vanity.

Will God really look at small day to day matters instead of the overall life and character of a man? There's nothing wrong if your not working 24/7. No ones that perfect.

[tibilicus]

Surely the most important thing in life is enjoying life not constantly looking for salvation?

[Mooks]

If you are a Christian, how can you take your salvation too seriously!? It's all that matters, all else, as they say, is vanity.

So you must torture yourself to prove yourself to your deity? Keep in mind that what you are doing to yourself is like some college frat hazing.

[Rhyfelwyr]

So you must torture yourself to prove yourself to your deity? Keep in mind that what you are doing to yourself is like some college frat hazing.

I didn't really understand the last half of that sentence, however I will say that Christians don't try to live a righteous life to get close to God, it comes as a natural progression from knowing God. Once you repent, you grow to hate iniquity bit by bit, one step at a time. We aren't doing it to torture ourselves because we think it will please God - that would be achieving salvation through works! God doesn't care in the least for anything we do, we can't do good by ourselves, but by the goodness that He works within us.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you are a Christian, how can you take your salvation too seriously!? It's all that matters, all else, as they say, is vanity.

If you follow God for the purposes of salvation then that is vanity.


I didn't really understand the last half of that sentence, however I will say that Christians don't try to live a righteous life to get close to God, it comes as a natural progression from knowing God. Once you repent, you grow to hate iniquity bit by bit, one step at a time. We aren't doing it to torture ourselves because we think it will please God - that would be achieving salvation through works! God doesn't care in the least for anything we do, we can't do good by ourselves, but by the goodness that He works within us.

Say not the Catholics. In any case, some of the most moral and sensetive people I have known have been atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, and Jews. How can you do a single good deed with a heavy heart? Grudging charity is not charity at all. Life should be fun, I don't believe for a second that God wants us to be miserable, that path only leads to hating life.

The Bible teaches that life is the greatest of all God's gifts.

I did two things yesterday, I went to Church on my own and I had dinner with my family. I enjoyed both, I smiled I laughed, I had FUN. I think you over intellectualise your faith and you reject the emotional aspect of it. I'm not the sort of christian who sings happy clappy songs, sways side to side, and then collapses in an ecstatic fit on the floor but even I think your faith should be something you enjoy.

I'm not saying it's not hard for me sometimes, more often than I would like in fact, but at no time have I ever felt that God has wanted me to be miserable.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If you follow God for the purposes of salvation then that is vanity.

Nothing makes me happier than knowing that if I do something I do it for God's glory. I won't lie though, I am God-fearing. I know if I abandon Him then He'll force me back on track. It's just a case of going through the stages. At first you have the 'fire', then it seems a struggle as you try to do the hard part and live as God wants you to. However, God gradually builds us up in a way that is more pleasing to Him, so we rejoice in serving Him.


Say not the Catholics. In any case, some of the most moral and sensetive people I have known have been atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, and Jews. How can you do a single good deed with a heavy heart? Grudging charity is not charity at all. Life should be fun, I don't believe for a second that God wants us to be miserable, that path only leads to hating life.

Who could say that changing your life to avoid sin is easy? It's not easy, and it's not supposed to be easy. I know it's a matter of doctrine, but I believe that God will make us persevere to the end. Step by step God will work to change us so that we hate sin, and so we can gladly serve Him. Although our righteousness can never be more than rags, I'm delighted to know I serve God if I think I do something 'good', however sometimes it's difficult. Indeed, it often seems impossible to be selfless. For example, I let my litttle brother on my PC today to play RTW for a few hours. He wanted to play it more, but I didn't let him, even though I'd played it for longer than him. I know this wasn't showing a good example of the righteous life, but I did it anyway because I wanted to get on with my Seleucid campaign. Gah, there's really no excuse I know. :shame:


The Bible teaches that life is the greatest of all God's gifts.

I did two things yesterday, I went to Church on my own and I had dinner with my family. I enjoyed both, I smiled I laughed, I had FUN. I think you over intellectualise your faith and you reject the emotional aspect of it. I'm not the sort of christian who sings happy clappy songs, sways side to side, and then collapses in an ecstatic fit on the floor but even I think your faith should be something you enjoy.

I'm not saying it's not hard for me sometimes, more often than I would like in fact, but at no time have I ever felt that God has wanted me to be miserable.

The emotional aspect is what it's all about. The emotional aspect comes through reading the Bible, praying, and building a relationship with God, not by taking joy is wordly things. Eternal life is the greatest of God's gifts, this life is just a test.

[Lord Winter]

Nothing makes me happier than knowing that if I do something I do it for God's glory. I won't lie though, I am God-fearing. I know if I abandon Him then He'll force me back on track. It's just a case of going through the stages. At first you have the 'fire', then it seems a struggle as you try to do the hard part and live as God wants you to. However, God gradually builds us up in a way that is more pleasing to Him, so we rejoice in serving Him.



Who could say that changing your life to avoid sin is easy? It's not easy, and it's not supposed to be easy. I know it's a matter of doctrine, but I believe that God will make us persevere to the end. Step by step God will work to change us so that we hate sin, and so we can gladly serve Him. Although our righteousness can never be more than rags, I'm delighted to know I serve God if I think I do something 'good', however sometimes it's difficult. Indeed, it often seems impossible to be selfless. For example, I let my litttle brother on my PC today to play RTW for a few hours. He wanted to play it more, but I didn't let him, even though I'd played it for longer than him. I know this wasn't showing a good example of the righteous life, but I did it anyway because I wanted to get on with my Seleucid campaign. Gah, there's really no excuse I know. :shame:



The emotional aspect is what it's all about. The emotional aspect comes through reading the Bible, praying, and building a relationship with God, not by taking joy is wordly things. Eternal life is the greatest of God's gifts, this life is just a test.

But why does God need the test to know? Thats a pretty bleak view of life.

[Rhyfelwyr]

But why does God need the test to know? Thats a pretty bleak view of life.

It's not bleak on the whole. Yes, it reduces the importance of this life, but compared to an atheist who thinks you become worm food when you die, it's really a pretty good message to spread.

Well I suppose your body will still become worm food, but you know what I mean.

Perhaps calling life a test was a bad choice of words, because God already knows the results, and we would all fail if it wasn't for His intervention. It's only because of the original sin we need to go through this, and its purely out of mercy that God gives eternal life. There's nothing bleak about that.

[Furunculus]

Matthew Parris certainly seems to believe that christianity is the only salvation africa has, and he is athiest:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2270657

[CountArach]

In a related matter to the OP - someone came into the store work at yesterday and tried to preach to me. Who goes into a Department Store and tries to convert the staff? The only reason that I didn't go off at him was because he seemed like a genuinely nice guy.

[Strike For The South]

In a related matter to the OP - someone came into the store work at yesterday and tried to preach to me. Who goes into a Department Store and tries to convert the staff? The only reason that I didn't go off at him was because he seemed like a genuinely nice guy.

Someone who is worried for you. Just say thanks but no thanks.

[Lorenzo_H]

I am trying to be a Christian. In the sense that I have a relationship with God, and I believe in Jesus.

But I struggle pretty badly with a lot of the stuff Pevergreen mentioned. Its such a dilemna - to know whether to have sex or not. I have concluded that if I want to get married to my current gf, I should not until then. I always struggle with it though - I have passed so many opportunities. I wonder if I should have taken them, or start taking them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Matthew Parris certainly seems to believe that christianity is the only salvation africa has, and he is athiest:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2270657

I read that, interesting piece. The most interesting part though is that he doesn't even try to suggest an alternative.


Someone who is worried for you. Just say thanks but no thanks.

Bingo, someone who also lacks subtley

Rhyfelwyr, you seem absolutely agonised and miserable about every part of your life and your relationship with God. I don't know what to suggest to you, but if your life is so dissatisfying maybe you should consider a monastary.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Rhyfelwyr, you seem absolutely agonised and miserable about every part of your life and your relationship with God. I don't know what to suggest to you, but if your life is so dissatisfying maybe you should consider a monastary.

That would be the worst choice. Withdrawing from the world without equanimity of soul and tranquility of faith begets utter disaster.

No, the solution for the religious angst of youth is time-honoured: he needs to get laid.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That would be the worst choice. Withdrawing from the world without equanimity of soul and tranquility of faith begets utter disaster.

No, the solution for the religious angst of youth is time-honoured: he needs to get laid.

Maybe, but he's not going to take that advice. There's an ecumunical monastic community in France at a place called Taize. They're apparently very relaxed and down to Earth, a lot of young people go there to stay for short periods to help them sort themselves out.

[Rhyfelwyr]

To clear this up, I'm not agonised and miserable, and I can assure you if I was it wouldn't be for knowing God.

Maybe my attitude towards some things in this life make me appear that way, but I've got other things on my mind to cheer me up. Calvinists tend to be stereotyped as dull and miserable, but if you study their characters you realise they are anything but that. It's more down to a misunderstanding than a reality.

[Lord Winter]

It's not bleak on the whole. Yes, it reduces the importance of this life, but compared to an atheist who thinks you become worm food when you die, it's really a pretty good message to spread.

Well I suppose your body will still become worm food, but you know what I mean.

Perhaps calling life a test was a bad choice of words, because God already knows the results, and we would all fail if it wasn't for His intervention. It's only because of the original sin we need to go through this, and its purely out of mercy that God gives eternal life. There's nothing bleak about that.

I just can't belive that God only uses this life to sort out humanity. Like you say he has other ways. Instead I belive that theres a purpose in an earthly life and it should be a time of growth and joy instead of penence and sorrow.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I just can't belive that God only uses this life to sort out humanity. Like you say he has other ways. Instead I belive that theres a purpose in an earthly life and it should be a time of growth and joy instead of penence and sorrow.

I agree it's useful for growth and joy. But we are born sinners, you have to be transformed by God for any useful growth to happen. In any case, you've got to admit that penence and sorrow have their roles. If we were perfect, we wouldn't feel them, but being born sinners it's always going to be a struggle.

[Lord Winter]

They have a role, but everything in moderation.

[Mooks]

I am trying to be a Christian. In the sense that I have a relationship with God, and I believe in Jesus.

But I struggle pretty badly with a lot of the stuff Pevergreen mentioned. Its such a dilemna - to know whether to have sex or not. I have concluded that if I want to get married to my current gf, I should not until then. I always struggle with it though - I have passed so many opportunities. I wonder if I should have taken them, or start taking them.

Take it, if you decide not to be a christrian your constantly regret it.


didn't really understand the last half of that sentence, however I will say that Christians don't try to live a righteous life to get close to God, it comes as a natural progression from knowing God. Once you repent, you grow to hate iniquity bit by bit, one step at a time. We aren't doing it to torture ourselves because we think it will please God - that would be achieving salvation through works! God doesn't care in the least for anything we do, we can't do good by ourselves, but by the goodness that He works within us.

I cant really debate this with you. Im a person who has been sourrounded by the religious and nonreligious. Both types of people have about the same amount of "goodness" in them. A belief in god does nothing for how nice, generous, humanitarian a person is. A religious person is just as likely to lie,steal,cheat and backstab you to get what he/she wants (even if he wants is for his deity), and most of the time able to justify it using their faith.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I feel that this is a little unfair. Yes, in my experience many religious people are just as likely to fall short of some moral standards. But there are cases where faith in a God leads people to be more moral than they would otherwise be.

I certainly wouldn't say that in general religious people justify their indiscretions in the name of faith.

@ Lord Winter/Rhyfelwyr: To actively follow the moral code that Christianity is does involve some sort of sacrifice. For example there are clearly rules to follow. But I have to be more in sympathy with Lord Winter in that spiritual growth must be a major part of our existence. Of course penance and sorrow will have roles within that, but they shouldn't all encompassing. Just as there can be no corage without fear, there can be no joy without sorrow. Balance is key.

[Mooks]

I feel that this is a little unfair. Yes, in my experience many religious people are just as likely to fall short of some moral standards. But there are cases where faith in a God leads people to be more moral than they would otherwise be.

I certainly wouldn't say that in general religious people justify their indiscretions in the name of faith.

@ Lord Winter/Rhyfelwyr: To actively follow the moral code that Christianity is does involve some sort of sacrifice. For example there are clearly rules to follow. But I have to be more in sympathy with Lord Winter in that spiritual growth must be a major part of our existence. Of course penance and sorrow will have roles within that, but they shouldn't all encompassing. Just as there can be no corage without fear, there can be no joy without sorrow. Balance is key.



Never seen a case in my life of that happening. But if it does happen, the person isnt moral, he/she just following the rules.

And I was thinking of my brother when I said they can use their faith as a excuse. Hes a youth leader, and he certainly will lie and steal if it will somehow bring more youth into Christianity.


I agree it's useful for growth and joy. But we are born sinners, you have to be transformed by God for any useful growth to happen. In any case, you've got to admit that penence and sorrow have their roles. If we were perfect, we wouldn't feel them, but being born sinners it's always going to be a struggle.


Useful to whom?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Never seen a case in my life of that happening. But if it does happen, the person isnt moral, he/she just following the rules.

What's important is whether or not they live a righteous life gladly. One message conveyed throughout the Bible is the need for rules to guide people who may be less experienced in the faith. It's all about God transforming you, at first you may struggle to follow the rules, but if you persevere then you will come to live a righteous life without having to check you are following the rules.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Never seen a case in my life of that happening. But if it does happen, the person isnt moral, he/she just following the rules.

And I was thinking of my brother when I said they can use their faith as a excuse. Hes a youth leader, and he certainly will lie and steal if it will somehow bring more youth into Christianity.

Useful to whom?

Your brother clearly has not read his Bible, Jesus has a name for such a one, Hypocrite, and he pretty much damns them. They live for outward praise, and so recieve nothing inwardly because they do not give inwardly.

[Mooks]

What's important is whether or not they live a righteous life gladly. One message conveyed throughout the Bible is the need for rules to guide people who may be less experienced in the faith. It's all about God transforming you, at first you may struggle to follow the rules, but if you persevere then you will come to live a righteous life without having to check you are following the rules.

So if you follow the doctrine long enough it will eventually become 2nd nature? Makes sense.



Your brother clearly has not read his Bible, Jesus has a name for such a one, Hypocrite, and he pretty much damns them. They live for outward praise, and so recieve nothing inwardly because they do not give inwardly.

I look foward to seeing the majority of the clergy in hell when I arrive there. :smash: .

Also this is why Pascal's Wager doesnt work. Never seen the common rebuttal (your quoted post) from a theist though.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Never seen a case in my life of that happening. But if it does happen, the person isnt moral, he/she just following the rules.

You've not seen a born-again Christian with a shady past living a a good and moral life? Even if they are just following the rules, their faith in God has guided to follow these moral guidlines, making them more moral than they would otherwise be.


And I was thinking of my brother when I said they can use their faith as a excuse. Hes a youth leader, and he certainly will lie and steal if it will somehow bring more youth into Christianity.

To damn all religious people on the basis of one person, even if you know him well seems to be a little hasty.

We are all of us hypocrites, at some point in our lives, meaning to be so or not.

[Rhyfelwyr]

So if you follow the doctrine long enough it will eventually become 2nd nature? Makes sense.

Living your life by the rules is hardly enough to be an effective witness to others, Jesus himself said he was filling in the gaps left by the 'rules'. You can't honestly look at Jesus and say that he was simply following rules which he had ingrained into his head.