James: "The Effectual, Fervent Prayer of the Righteous Man..."

[cvanwey]

death is just a changing point for those who live forever, but we want to stay on earth as long as we can be a part of helping others have eternal life.

I have a question, based directly off of your response...?

If one had never heard of Jesus Christ, and then perish, do they get a free pass to heaven, or are they instead sent to hell?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, because I started with (verse) 11:1, but then decided to included the entire chapter (so you would not accuse me of cherry picking or something)

Why don't you start with 1:1 in the Greek text? That would be the more 'hermeneutical' thing to do...........

 

[cvanwey]

Why don't you start with 1:1 in the Greek text? That would be the more 'hermeneutical' thing to do...........

As opposed to any other language? Here might be a better question, why not instead convey/reveal truth in a way which is not so easily left up for a multitude of interpretations, even among the literate?

 

[Hammster]

O, but I sure did.

The answer, thus far is that you are presenting a very hypothetical question, which needs further clarification prior to proceeding coherently.

No, it doesn’t. You just don’t want to answer. Which is fine.

 

[Hammster]

I have a question, based directly off of your response...?

If one had never heard of Jesus Christ, and then perish, do they get a free pass to heaven, or are they instead sent to hell?

Before this can be answered, “heard” has multiple meanings. Which one are you referring to? And you referring to just one person, or is it being used in a general sense?

And can you explain your understanding of both heaven and hell? I would like to make sure I’m answering correctly.

I could do this all day. Or, I could just take your question at face value.

Which do you think is better?

 

[Chriliman]

What I find to be 'ignoring' is the fact that God appears to have cloned Himself, and for the clone to atone back to Him, and that many here do not simply seem to reconcile as such.... This is not a 'narrow' observation. Quite frankly, it has been a heated and widely discussed topic since the concept of a Holy Trinity was first brought forth. But if you care to broaden the question, then maybe we can also discuss the (possibilities) that the concept of a trinity was not invented until later :0

In more modern terms, God the Father is the perfect way of being that we all should aspire to, the Son is acting in that way in the flesh as a man/woman(thanks to Jesus for being the perfect example), the HS is real-time interactions with God that give power/gifts to individuals to enact change for the better in our world right now.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As opposed to any other language? Here might be a better question, why not instead convey/reveal truth in a way which is not so easily left up for a multitude of interpretations, even among the literate?

... for the life of me, I can't really think of what that way would be, especially since one atheist I know of has said that our "being human" makes it impossible for any one of us to ever confirm anything communicated on a supernatural level as actually being something which comes from an Absolute, Supreme Being.

If this is the case, then we're in a kind of mortal quandary with no way out, aren't we?

 

[cvanwey]

No, it doesn’t. You just don’t want to answer. Which is fine.

Okay, let's INSTEAD play it your (hypothetical) way, and see how such questioning actually pans out

@Hammster

"Why is it immoral if the giver of life takes it back? Was there a promise made somewhere?"

@cvanwey

If He does exist, He can do whatever He wants - and answers to no one."

So now can we get back to reality now?

- Please define your rendition of 'immoral'? Does it align with my response above? If not, then I suppose we can then discuss Euthyphro's dilemma for a bit?

 

[Hammster]

Okay, let's INSTEAD play it your (hypothetical) way, and see how such questioning actually pans out

@Hammster

"Why is it immoral if the giver of life takes it back? Was there a promise made somewhere?"

@cvanwey

If He does exist, He can do whatever He wants - and answers to no one."

So now can we get back to reality now?

- Please define your rendition of 'immoral'? Does it align with my response above? If not, then I suppose we can then discuss Euthyphro's dilemma for a bit?

Still didn’t answer the question.

I’ll wait.

 

[cvanwey]

In more modern terms, God the Father is the perfect way of being that we all should aspire to, the Son is acting in that way in the flesh as a man/woman(thanks to Jesus for being the perfect example), the HS is real-time interactions with God that give power/gifts to individuals to enact change for the better in our world right now.

This repose appears to lend or add nothing to advance any such position; any other way than God atones to Himself, which is odd and inconsistent.

 

[cvanwey]

Still didn’t answer the question.

I’ll wait.

Sometimes, especially in these cases, answering the question with another question may be warranted; and if the shoe fits....

If a human 'gives life', is it 'immoral' to take it back? And many times, was there a promise made somewhere?

I already know you will not answer, for (2) reasons:

1. You will state it does not answer your direct question.
2. You will indicate that humans cannot be compared to the likes of God

But I fully answered your question regardless, in the prior post/response.... All subsequent responses are simply for others to read and view the apparent avoidance you will continue to present forth-coming...

So to reiterate, if God does exist, God can do whatever. But I ask, does anything God decides to do conclude in morality? Is God capable of immorality? Or is anything God chooses, by definition, instead moral?

Until YOU define 'immoral', your question(s) is/are severely hypothetical, unfounded, and undefined; leading to possible earnest confusion.

 

[Chriliman]

This repose appears to lend or add nothing to advance any such position; any other way that God atones to Himself, which is odd and inconsistent.

God atoned to himself because He was sorry for making something that fell and needed to be restored. This makes sense if we hold to the belief that God created man and then man sinned, therefore God would have to fix the problem by intervening in some way not only for us, but for His glory as well.

 

[cvanwey]

God atoned to himself because He was sorry for making something that fell and needed to be restored. This makes sense if we hold to the belief that God created man and then man sinned, therefore God would have to fix the problem by intervening in some way not only for us, but for His glory as well.

How can an all knowing being be sorry? This would imply that He either did not know of the future, or has regret for something He already knew would happen; based directly upon the way He created it. Furthermore, reparations to one's self also implies fault. If God is not the one at fault, creating a clone to atone back to yourself serves as an illogical method, to say the least.

 

[cvanwey]

... for the life of me, I can't really think of what that way would be

But God would

And to elaborate upon your prior point, I doubt God adheres to a 'specific language' for universal truth. So I could study Greek, Aramaic, or any other really. But even so, it's not like all the fluent Greek speaking theologians agree across the board; so why does your suggestion even matter - (to learn it in Greek)?

 

[Chriliman]

How can an all knowing being be sorry? This would imply that He either did not know of the future, or has regret for something He already knew would happen; based directly upon the way He created it.

There's many places in the Bible that suggest God hasn't always been all knowing, but rather becomes all knowing. Trust me, the significance of that nuance isn't lost on me, I wrestle with it to this day.

Furthermore, reparations to one's self also implies fault. If God is not the one at fault, creating a clone to atone back to yourself serves as an illogical method, to say the least.

Logically, God would feel some responsibly to restore what he made that has fallen. The extent of that responsibility may well be infinite.

 

[cvanwey]

There's many places in the Bible that suggest God hasn't always been all knowing, but rather becomes all knowing. Trust me, the significance of that nuance isn't lost on me, I wrestle with it to this day.

Aside from the fact to the lack of any clear testable and repeatable/observable revelation, such a scenario is on the large list; of the many many many things which lead me to conclude such a concept is instead plagued with fallible 'man made' inventions

Logically, God would feel some responsibly to restore what he made that has fallen. The extent of that responsibility may well be infinite.

I'm sure you've heard this response before....

It would be like a car maker knowingly creating half the cars with faulty brakes, and also knowing which specific families are going to die as a result. Just saying...

 

[bling]

I have a question, based directly off of your response...?

If one had never heard of Jesus Christ, and then perish, do they get a free pass to heaven, or are they instead sent to hell?

Scripture does not address this directly, but from my knowledge of God they would go to heaven, BUT would not have completed the earthly objective of all mature adults which is sad, but understandable.

 

[cvanwey]

Scripture does not address this directly, but from my knowledge of God they would go to heaven, BUT would not have completed the earthly objective of all mature adults which is sad, but understandable.

Then why prosthelytize?

Leave as many in the 'dark' as possible. A higher percentage might assent to heaven, as they would not be given the chance or choice to not accept or reject the teaching

 

[Oncedeceived]

There's many places in the Bible that suggest God hasn't always been all knowing, but rather becomes all knowing. Trust me, the significance of that nuance isn't lost on me, I wrestle with it to this day.

Where in the Bible does it say God has not always been all knowing?

Logically, God would feel some responsibly to restore what he made that has fallen. The extent of that responsibility may well be infinite.

We can't be created perfect because we are not God. God knew we would fall because we had no way to be perfect unless we were covered by Jesus. Perfection is only accomplished by God and extended to us through the gift of Jesus taking our sin and perfecting us by covering us.

 

[Hammster]

Sometimes, especially in these cases, answering the question with another question may be warranted; and if the shoe fits....

If a human 'gives life', is it 'immoral' to take it back? And many times, was there a promise made somewhere?

I already know you will not answer, for (2) reasons:

1. You will state it does not answer your direct question.
2. You will indicate that humans cannot be compared to the likes of God

But I fully answered your question regardless, in the prior post/response.... All subsequent responses are simply for others to read and view the apparent avoidance you will continue to present forth-coming...

So to reiterate, if God does exist, God can do whatever. But I ask, does anything God decides to do conclude in morality? Is God capable of immorality? Or is anything God chooses, by definition, instead moral?

Until YOU define 'immoral', your question(s) is/are severely hypothetical, unfounded, and undefined; leading to possible earnest confusion.

I didn’t ask if God could do something.

Try again.