Purveyor of Confusion

cvanwey said:

I appreciate that...



Let me repeat God has any means possible to convey/relay His communication. He decided..... 'Book'. A book written by fallible humans. Seems He would know endless genuine debates and disagreements whom ensue.




Any other comparison would be a false analogy really. Why? Because I doubt you acknowledge or recognize any other god(s), whom inspire holy texts. Otherwise, I could compare the Bible with 'X". God 'inspired' this Book. This was His chosen vessel for truth. And at the end of the day, 'salvation' is the end goal. What IS the way to salvation???????



For the Bible, the end goal is salvation. And yet, many Christians disagree as to what it takes for salvation. Again, it would be a false analogy to try and compare 'the theory of evolution', 'Big bang cosmology', or any other quite frankly....



Read Matthew 25:31-46, and tell me where is requires that you do this? And before you read more into this response, than is intended, let me elaborate...

You can find verses which support your conclusion. And so can I, which directly opposes yours. Yours do not reference mine. And mine do not reference yours. Hence, how do we, as humans, determine which ones we adhere to hard-and-fast, verse not?



The point here is, even as a believer, I could come to differing conclusions regarding the tenets for salvation. And if you do not believe me, or do not want to take my word for it, go talk to a Catholic, and then speak to an Evangelical.

Click to expand...

Your argument would make sense if the Bible was some sort of equation with only one possible answer, or should be, but it isn’t, and shouldn’t be. The bible is aimed at one audience - people. People rarely sit down and agree on anything complex (outside of movies), although your ideas about that exaggerate the actual reality. My grandfather for example was a well-known Baptist minister and he worked for years on projects with a Catholic group (Opus Dei I think, off the top of my head) and there are literally hundreds of cross denomination groups across the world, if not thousands, who agree to agree on basic ideas, and more. This is how people work - people work through disagreement and discussion and so on. Your argument is something like saying humankind should have never made any kind of tools, because tools break. It’s rooted in a rather sadly impoverished notion of how humans function. Some sort of precisely definable mega-book might be suitable for a race of robots, but it would be wasted on all but a small section of human society.

cvanwey said:

I already gave this to you. You are making things way harder than they need to be. And I'm not sure what you mean by "edit"? This is the verse, again:

"16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right."

Click to expand...

In what way does that support your assertion ‘God says truth is not debatable’?

cvanwey said:

My OP is in regards to the 'tenets of salvation'. My point is that it looks unclear, as to [THE] path?

Click to expand...

If you want to understand something by the bible based on odd bits you pick out, then you’re barking up the wrong tree.

cvanwey said:

This does not address my inquiry. Let me repeat it:

"I say, if your claim to salvation is 'faith', any Christian whom commits this act, will negate 'faith'. Same goes with any Christian really... i.e. 'saved by grace', 'saved by grace, faith, works'... Other...

Matthew 12:32 negates all. Why am I wrong? Can you inquire upon the Source? If so, great, let's resolve this now. If not, then it might seem God does not care to resolve this matter."

Click to expand...

It completely addressed your inquiry.

If 100% of non-Christians commit the unpardonable sin, and 0% of Christians commit the unpardonable sin, then Matthew 12:32 does not.. "negate all" as you suggest.

One problem you will inevitably experience in your consistent attacks on Christianity VIA quoting singular verses is that you do not actually take the time necessary to look into Scripture. Context matters, and one cannot just look at a singular verse and make assumptions. Also, Scripture informs Scripture, and so you need to take the totality of Scripture into account when seeking to understand something.

You do none of these things. Which hinders your ability to understand Scripture on a monumental level.

cvanwey said:

That's the problem here @2PhiloVoid .... There really isn't any additional verse or context to address...

Click to expand...

There isn't? Really? And what commentators on the Bible do you rely upon who say what you're saying here regarding blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and say it for the same exact reasons that you do?

C'mon. Don't hold out on me in this opportunity to really shine with your imputed academic credentials! Let it fly so we can all 'see' the superiority of your attempt to man-handle and mangle yet another singular verse in the Bible...

Why immediately 'rule out' that the verse means exactly what it says? That if you 'speak against' the Holy Spirit, you are forever doomed, no mater what?

Click to expand...

Verses (or sentences in ANY written work of any kind) don't always and, by necessity, mean only that which they appear to mean when they are isolated from their respective place in a literary passage and subjected to an overly rigid prima facie reading. Or didn't you know this? C'mon, cvanway! You can do better than this.

cvanwey said:

My point is you have one extreme, to another. One end of a spectrum, to another... And yet, they still fall under some sort of the "Christian umbrella". Hindus don't.

Click to expand...

That is debatable. By that reasoning you too are a Christian because you have your way of interpreting the text.

The earliest we can trace Unitarian ideas to is the second century - the gnostics. Christian groups will trace their theology back to the first century, whether they then add on or adjust it slightly.

Any group that does not see Jesus as God is automatically excluded because they might just as well be atheist.

There are certainly different extremes, a spectrum and even an umbrella, but Unitarians are out in the rain.

cvanwey said:

I quoted it directly from what you stated. I cut/pasted even....

Many, in my own family circle of Christians, believe that Matthew 12:32 means exactly what it states. That once you 'speak against' the Holy Spirit, God will never forgive you.

And furthermore, why MUST I reference Matthew 6:1? Why must I know this verse relates to Matthew 12:32?

And thus far, we have had only 4 brave soldiers disclose their 'translation for Matthew 12:32. And not once, do we find unity.

Again, seems as though if God is going to issue such a possible major threat, the least He could do is clarify just a bit?

Click to expand...

I haven't actually said anything about Matthew 12:32 at all (unless my memory is going). So you certainly don't have 4 brave soldiers - at most 3.

To be fair the closest you might get is the statement about how much faith: all and how much works: you don't have enough faith.

But that wouldn't be a different approach to at least one of the other readings of the passage.

I've also stayed out of that argument for a couple of reasons, no least of which I'm not convinced you understand what is under the umbrella as you so eloquently put it in your previous post.

cvanwey said:

Your prior response was:

""Catered for. Still-born and child death have committed no sin and therefore have nothing to be redeemed from. Likewise those who have mental defects that prevent them from understanding anything. But if you can understand mentally, you can put your Faith in Jesus and there you go..."

And now you state it is 'unclear'?????

If the Bible is unclear, then how do you know the above, in quotes? Doesn't the Bible assert that all humans are born in original sin? And if so, wouldn't that means they are not allowed in God's heaven?

Click to expand...

I'm not actually sure what the issue is here. I can't speak on behalf of every Christian group on every issue. I tell you what I think and why it is a reasonable stance to hold. On some aspects of Christianity it is easy to talk about what all Christians think and why, but it is never going to be the case with everything.

So you were asking specifically about Original Sin and the issue how do people get it? The Bible doesn't say we are born with it only that it has entered the world and we have all got it. But the Bible and Jewish tradition also make parents responsible for the actions of their children. So in my view it is catered for by that: children are born neutral/innocent and it is the parents who are responsible for their actions. This is borne out by Jesus' words and actions - he calls children innocent and allows them to spend time with him.

It is also borne out by the whole idea of repentance. You cannot repent if you do not know you have done wrong, so a young child cannot be held responsible for all their actions. As time goes by they gain more responsibility and in so doing also gain more of the world and its influences.

So in my view Original sin is more like COVID - we catch it because we don't social distance from those that already have it.

cvanwey said:

Sure, I believe you. And then there exists others whom state it is the perfect Word of God, with no contradictions. Thus, one must ask... Are the ones whom state there exists no contradictions liars, delusional, or other?

Click to expand...

Like I said if people try to tell you that the Bible can be perfectly harmonized they are in denial. Everybody is in the same boat of trying to build their own theologies and we all wish that God could have said some things differently to support our dogmas better. We can do our best to hold contradicting texts together but ultimately no one can or should claim that their theology is perfect.

The Bible doesn't even claim that it is "perfect" it is we who idolize it so much. It simply claims that it is the "inspired Word of God" and everything that is written is written for a purpose. Even if the Bible was perfect, infallible, inerrant... there is no way that any of us can read it without bringing our own paradigms to the table, thus making it imperfect.

cvanwey said:

And yet, this seems to be the method for Which God condoned for primary communication?

Click to expand...

Incorrect, God's primary method of communication is the Holy Spirit, 1 Corinthians 2:10. How do you think the Bible was written in the first place?

As stated above I think it becomes a problem when we begin to idolize the Bible too much and believe that it is the only way God can talk to us. God reaches people through prayer, life experiences, other people, etc etc and all of this is the work of the Holy Spirit.

And if you think that God's primary purpose is to be understood by all people then you do not know God. Take the story of the Tower of Babel. I think God fits the title of Purveyor of Confusion fairly well. I don't know why God intends to keep us ignorant of His intentions but I believe He has good reason.

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter.
1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror.

cvanwey said:

That's what I've been doing, via Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 14:33, Matthew 12:32, John 3:16-18, Mark 16:15-20, etc...

Click to expand...

You are correct but you are missing the bigger point of the Gospels and that is grace. We ultimately did nothing to earn our own salvation. Faith, obedience, baptism, repentance... these are not causes of our salvation or ways we can earn it, but they are the results of our salvation and ways we can show it. Do you understand the difference?

cvanwey said:

They also hinder upon it. Ever visit Ken Ham's facilities? Ever go to an non-denominational church, and see posters about the 6-7 days of literal creation? Ever wonder how that warps young impressionable minds? For which they later need to 'deprogram', when entering higher learning?

Click to expand...

However I think if you weigh up over 2000 years what Christians have done you will find it far from hindering. It is sad that Christians do think like Ken Hamm, but I've listened to the likes of Dawkins and his vitriol warps young impressionable minds also. I've also been to plenty of non-denominational churches and not seen anything about creation (except in the vaguest sense). It may be the difference between European and American churches, because while I have seen such posters, they are the exception rather than the rule over here.

Also at least these groups are exposed to alternative views, rather than told 'this is how it is whether you like it or not'. Truth will always win out, but only when people are taught to question: to be skeptical.

It is like Father Christmas, you grow up thinking it is true and then one day you figure it out and it is not a big issue and you get on with your life. It doesn't mean that everything you are told is untrue. And you start to build a worldview that tries to make sense of it all and that sometimes means ditching that which doesn't work entirely and sometimes it means adapting it to something more reasonable.

cvanwey said:

Furthermore, I help the homeless, I'm not 'Christian', so?

Click to expand...

Good for you. That's one. Compared to the millions of Christians who do it. Like I said, a minority. If Atheists are doing stuff (and I am aware that some atheists are) they aren't doing it on anywhere near the scale that Christians are. So Christianity is not hindering at all.

thomas_t said:

believe and declare Jesus as Lord, Romans 10;9-10

Click to expand...

so, no repentance from sin? No baptism required for salvation?