Which Commandments?

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Haha I'd say it was closer to the the truth that EVERYBODY can tell you what you need to do to go to Heaven. But true, they can be wrong and so can I.
Then why don't they tell me? There are wildly differing views on what is needed here. And when I question anybody that attempts an answer, they quickly back down and switch their answer.

You, for instance, said that Jesus was saying the truth when he said you needed to keep the commandments to go to heaven.

But then you quickly changed your mind, and said you don't need to do anything, it is simply a matter of God electing you to go to heaven. But when I pointed out to you that the elect could then do anything and they would still be saved, you quickly backed down on saying you don't need to do anything. And when I tried to get you to clarify what you needed to do, you quickly rambled off into the weeds without a clear answer.

So here is your chance. Please answer the question. What does a person need to do to go to heaven?

And no, I am not asking, "What do I need to do to earn heaven." I am asking what you need to do to go to heaven. If you switch subjects again, and deliberately switch to another question again, and hope we won't notice, I will laugh so hard I will spit my beer out.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
"The life is in the blood". The bloody sacrifice is 'the life poured out'. Jesus' death was the ONLY way God's purpose for creation could be accomplished.
Who made the rule that said God cannot accomplish his purpose unless Jesus is killed?

If God himself made that rule, why did he make that rule? Why didn't he make a better rule? Why didn't he say that he, God, can simply forgive?

Suppose you make your neighbor angry and you apologize to him. Suppose your neighbor tells you that he will not forgive you unless somebody first kills his son. Does that make any sense at all? Astonished, you ask him why somebody needs to kill his son before he forgives you. With a straight face he tells you that is just the way it is. It is his nature that he does not forgive people unless somebody kills his son as a sacrifice.

What the hey? If a person demands his son die before he can forgive you, then he better have a better reason then, "That is just the kind of person I am."
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
1. In your case, you invoke (God) as this intentional agent/being/source.

2. It's due to evolution for the following reason...

10K years ago, you are walking along a path and hear a rustle in the high grass. Do you:

a: assume it is an intentional agent whom might be there to harm you
b: assume it is the wind, or some other benign reason

The ones more-so assume answer b) are more-so dead, and can no longer pass along their genes to their offspring.

This also works for 'good' outcomes.

Case/point: You are involved in a car wreck with three fellow members in the vehicle. The other three are injured or die, and you are unharmed: Do you:

a: assume it is an intentional agent whom might be there to help you
b: assume natural phenomenon and/or circumstances left you int he right place at the right time

3. Why do you assume your taught indoctrinated God is THE God? Surely, even using the 'first cause argument, could lead to alternate claimed deities.
1. Ok, I got that, re intentional agency, now. I tried to link back to refresh my memory as to why we are talking about intentional agency and evolution and so on, and ended up on Merle's discussion, without finding out anything. If you don't mind, tell me the line of discussion that got us here.
2. Ok, I follow what you are saying about it (whatever it is) possibly being a product of evolution, but why are we talking about evolution?
3. In case you don't remember reading me saying so, the 'God' I was indoctrinated with was very different in some ways from the God I believe in now. But no, I don't see how using the 'first cause' argument could lead to alternate claimed deities. I have heard of only 3 that are supposedly Omnipotent and First Cause, yet even they, except for one, fail that test at some point. Also, in two, the matter of being first cause seems irrelevant, and I include it only because it is logically necessary for Omnipotence.

1. Yes, I am going here. As I told you in the other thread, for which I will address when I have more time... Both you and I are products of indoctrination. I just later found lack in reason to continue hold this indoctrinated belief, where you have instead found a way to continue holding this indoctrinated concept.

2. Your geographical surroundings make it easier for you to retain belief perseverance, either by finding the 'first cause argument', or many others. Remember what I also told you prior, about a staunch republican tuning into Fox for his/her news, while a staunch democrat may turn to MSNBC. This is one way we, as humans, cleave to our comfortable and already existing beliefs.

3. Why is it your believed God, and not another god or anything else?

4. You honestly think it's just as rational to believe Jesus did rise from the dead, verse not?

1. My indoctrination is not what I've held onto. Much of that worldview no longer remains.

2. I don't remember why this argument --i.e what were we talking about?

3. Why do I believe in the God I do and not another god? Because there is no other God, Omnipotent, First Cause, with the necessary attributes of Omnipotence. I have no use for superhuman beings as worthy of my adoration and worship. Why not something else, other than God? I assume you mean, as first cause? The short answer is First Cause is necessarily With Intent. The alternative is mechanical fact as First Cause and that makes no sense, as it is subject to principles from outside itself.

4. Yes definitely it is rational to believe he rose from the dead. The fact we don't see that kind of thing often is irrelevant, given who he was. Because he was God, it is a logical necessary that he rise from the dead, having overcome death by his own work, and not by proxy.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Then why don't they tell me? There are wildly differing views on what is needed here. And when I question anybody that attempts an answer, they quickly back down and switch their answer.

You, for instance, said that Jesus was saying the truth when he said you needed to keep the commandments to go to heaven.

But then you quickly changed your mind, and said you don't need to do anything, it is simply a matter of God electing you to go to heaven. But when I pointed out to you that the elect could then do anything and they would still be saved, you quickly backed down on saying you don't need to do anything. And when I tried to get you to clarify what you needed to do, you quickly rambled off into the weeds without a clear answer.

So here is your chance. Please answer the question. What does a person need to do to go to heaven?

And no, I am not asking, "What do I need to do to earn heaven." I am asking what you need to do to go to heaven. If you switch subjects again, and deliberately switch to another question again, and hope we won't notice, I will laugh so hard I will spit my beer out.


Since you see there are wildly differing views, I'd say they already told you. I'm not sure why you ask me why they don't tell you.

Again, I see you summing up what I say, or perhaps quoting exactly what I say out of context, to make me appear to have said things I don't mean. You say, "But then you quickly changed your mind, and said you don't need to do anything, it is simply a matter of God electing you to go to heaven". I would appreciate you showing me where I changed my mind. And show me where I said it (whatever 'it' is) is simply a matter of God's election. God's election determines my destiny, no doubt. And those whom God elected will be regenerated. And those God regenerated confess and repent of their sin and are forgiven their sin by Christ's sacrifice on their behalf. And they will continue to pursue Christ.

A person cannot DO anything to go to heaven. The Bible allows that if someone obeys the law of God perfectly, they have earned heaven. It is rather obvious that only Christ can do that. Then the Bible says that unless one is born again (born of the Spirit of God) they cannot see Heaven. --Two ways to go to Heaven, but only one way will happen. Born again. Salvation is by grace through faith. That cannot happen unless one is born again. What must one DO to have that? They can't until they are. (Yes, it is possible to be born again and not even know it.)
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Who made the rule that said God cannot accomplish his purpose unless Jesus is killed?

If God himself made that rule, why did he make that rule? Why didn't he make a better rule? Why didn't he say that he, God, can simply forgive?
You excel at misrepresentation. It is much more simple than a rule. God decided to make a people --a dwelling place-- for himself. There can only be God himself who is worthy, unless: he makes someone capable of being ONE with him, a particular creation, a people for himself. You seem to want to think it could all happen just any old way. If that were true, God could indeed make a square circle. It is self-contradictory to say that God could have made a particular people for himself, that earned their way there. It is impossible for one to make oneself perfect, holy and wise on a level with God. Instead, God made a way for totally undeserving people to become that perfect, holy and wise by becoming ONE with him. ONLY HE CAN DO THIS -- That is the Gospel.

Suppose you make your neighbor angry and you apologize to him. Suppose your neighbor tells you that he will not forgive you unless somebody first kills his son. Does that make any sense at all? Astonished, you ask him why somebody needs to kill his son before he forgives you. With a straight face he tells you that is just the way it is. It is his nature that he does not forgive people unless somebody kills his son as a sacrifice.

What the hey? If a person demands his son die before he can forgive you, then he better have a better reason then, "That is just the kind of person I am."
'Simply forgiving' is to allow the offense to be of no regard anymore. It is goes to the fact that God is the one most damaged by the offense --far more than we are-- when someone sins against us. Sin is against infinite God, and as such is a horror against the way of things. Not only will there be an accounting, but it will be set right, by the balance of justice. Payment is required in perfect proportion to the debt. That payment will be extracted from the debtor, or from someone who can pay that debt.

You want a mere, "God will not forgive your debt until his Son is killed." You are being ludicrous. --WHY is his Son killed? How does the death of his son mean life for the forgiven? There is a LOT behind your supposed analysis that your narrative doesn't bring into view.

If I am not going to start the car for our trip to Yosemite unless the kids go to the bathroom first, can I describe the matter as, "The wildlife won't cross the road in our sight because you didn't go to the bathroom."?

God's nature is just and accurate, among many other things. Sin is claiming both are not true, by the creature, claimed against his creator. This is no small thing. God's nature is also to set wrong right (to put it crassly). If I call God a liar, I can expect to be shown the door with the almighty boot behind my rearmost. I will pay for that. Or Christ will.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Since you see there are wildly differing views, I'd say they already told you. I'm not sure why you ask me why they don't tell you.
Once again, people gave answers, yes, but then the answers changed when I pointed out other verses. It is very hard to get anybody here to give a final answer saying this is what you need to do to go to heaven.


Again, I see you summing up what I say, or perhaps quoting exactly what I say out of context, to make me appear to have said things I don't mean.
Sir, it is against the forum rules to judge another person's intent. Is it to much to ask that you please follow the forum rules? We are not here to judge intent. We are hear to respond to what people say.

My intent was to summarize what you said here. If I misunderstood, I am sorry.


You say, "But then you quickly changed your mind, and said you don't need to do anything, it is simply a matter of God electing you to go to heaven". I would appreciate you showing me where I changed my mind.
Anybody who wants to know what you said can go back and read this thread. I responded to you each time you said the things mentioned above. Each time I responded I documented what I was responding to. If I misunderstood what you said, I apologize. Can we move on, please?

And show me where I said it (whatever 'it' is) is simply a matter of God's election. God's election determines my destiny, no doubt. And those whom God elected will be regenerated. And those God regenerated confess and repent of their sin and are forgiven their sin by Christ's sacrifice on their behalf. And they will continue to pursue Christ.
When Jesus was asked what one needed to do to go to heaven, he listed 6 commandments. You give a completely different list:

1) Be elected by God.
2) Be regenerated
3) Confess and repent of sin.
4) Continue to pursue Christ.
Is that your final answer? If this is your final answer, I have some follow up questions.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
You excel at misrepresentation.
Again, I remind you that we are not here to judge other people's character. Judging character is against forum rules.

I am doing my best to represent you fairly. If I misunderstand, please show me where I am mistaken instead of judging my intent.
It is much more simple than a rule. God decided to make a people --a dwelling place-- for himself. There can only be God himself who is worthy, unless: he makes someone capable of being ONE with him, a particular creation, a people for himself. You seem to want to think it could all happen just any old way. If that were true, God could indeed make a square circle. It is self-contradictory to say that God could have made a particular people for himself, that earned their way there. It is impossible for one to make oneself perfect, holy and wise on a level with God. Instead, God made a way for totally undeserving people to become that perfect, holy and wise by becoming ONE with him. ONLY HE CAN DO THIS -- That is the Gospel.

'Simply forgiving' is to allow the offense to be of no regard anymore. It is goes to the fact that God is the one most damaged by the offense --far more than we are-- when someone sins against us. Sin is against infinite God, and as such is a horror against the way of things. Not only will there be an accounting, but it will be set right, by the balance of justice. Payment is required in perfect proportion to the debt. That payment will be extracted from the debtor, or from someone who can pay that debt.

You want a mere, "God will not forgive your debt until his Son is killed." You are being ludicrous. --WHY is his Son killed? How does the death of his son mean life for the forgiven? There is a LOT behind your supposed analysis that your narrative doesn't bring into view.
So far I have seen nothing from you that justifies God having his son killed, other than saying that this is what he decided he needed to do. I am hearing you say that he made the rules, including the rule that says he won't forgive unless his son is killed.

If I am not going to start the car for our trip to Yosemite unless the kids go to the bathroom first, can I describe the matter as, "The wildlife won't cross the road in our sight because you didn't go to the bathroom."?
No.

But if a man said, "One of you children lied about going to the bathroom, so therefore one of the other children in this car needs to be killed", then I would question that man's sanity.

God's nature is just and accurate, among many other things.
If man A does wrong, and the matter is settled by having man B killed as a sacrifice, is that justice?
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
FYI, I'll tackle the other thread, in due time; as it is much more involved... Responses here may also overlap with some there :)

1. Ok, I got that, re intentional agency, now. I tried to link back to refresh my memory as to why we are talking about intentional agency and evolution and so on, and ended up on Merle's discussion, without finding out anything. If you don't mind, tell me the line of discussion that got us here.

If I recall, it all stems back to the real reason(s) I think you believe in God. 1. indoctrination 2. geography 3. invoking agency 4. belief perseverance, which leads you to apologetic arguments

I still contend the 'first cause' argument is a distant 4th reason for your continued belief(s).


2. Ok, I follow what you are saying about it (whatever it is) possibly being a product of evolution, but why are we talking about evolution?

I only mention "evolution", as it is the best descriptive word to demonstrate the situation. I'd venture to state, due to 'evolution', or (survival of the "fitter"), we later knowingly or always unknowingly commit type 1 errors all the time.

case/point:

a verified false positive = mistaking a rustle in the weeds for being a predator, to actually turn out to be the wind.

(possible) unverified false positive = mistaking the unknown as being an independent 'first cause', which happens to originate from the pages of the Bible for which you were already indoctrinated.

Where we differ, is that I too used to think the origin stemmed from the Bible. But once I actually read it, I later fell away; do to vast inconsistencies. Where you, have instead held strong and steady - modifying continued justification to taste.

3. In case you don't remember reading me saying so, the 'God' I was indoctrinated with was very different in some ways from the God I believe in now. But no, I don't see how using the 'first cause' argument could lead to alternate claimed deities. I have heard of only 3 that are supposedly Omnipotent and First Cause, yet even they, except for one, fail that test at some point. Also, in two, the matter of being first cause seems irrelevant, and I include it only because it is logically necessary for Omnipotence.

Translating the same Book, to now mean something entirely different, is quite common. I did this too, before I no longer believed in YHWH any longer. However, you still adhere to Jesus as your source, right? If so, then you still believe in the same God ultimately :)


1. My indoctrination is not what I've held onto. Much of that worldview no longer remains.

Same answer as directly above

2. I don't remember why this argument --i.e what were we talking about?

It looks to be the second strongest reason why you believe YHWH/Jesus is your source, verses another/others, verses none.

(i.e.) Your geographical surroundings make it easier for you to retain belief perseverance, either by finding the 'first cause argument', or many others. Remember what I also told you prior, about a staunch republican tuning into Fox for his/her news, while a staunch democrat may turn to MSNBC. This is one way we, as humans, cleave to our comfortable and already existing beliefs.


3. Why do I believe in the God I do and not another god? Because there is no other God, Omnipotent, First Cause, with the necessary attributes of Omnipotence. I have no use for superhuman beings as worthy of my adoration and worship. Why not something else, other than God? I assume you mean, as first cause? The short answer is First Cause is necessarily With Intent. The alternative is mechanical fact as First Cause and that makes no sense, as it is subject to principles from outside itself.

A verified "first cause" can only be YHWH?

4. Yes definitely it is rational to believe he rose from the dead. The fact we don't see that kind of thing often is irrelevant, given who he was. Because he was God, it is a logical necessary that he rise from the dead, having overcome death by his own work, and not by proxy.

Well, this is where you and I differ apparently. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Where the story of Jesus is concerned, I do not see any? A matter of fact, I do not see extraordinary evidence for anyone rising from the grave?


I guess this is where 'faith' comes in? And if so, why not apply 'faith' to other extraordinary claims?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Once again, people gave answers, yes, but then the answers changed when I pointed out other verses. It is very hard to get anybody here to give a final answer saying this is what you need to do to go to heaven.
Perhaps that is because you CAN'T DO anything to go to heaven. I have tried and tried to explain, it is not yours to get you to heaven. That is God's doing.

Sir, it is against the forum rules to judge another person's intent. Is it to much to ask that you please follow the forum rules? We are not here to judge intent. We are hear to respond to what people say.

My intent was to summarize what you said here. If I misunderstood, I am sorry.
I must have misspoken. I wasn't judging your intent. By "to" I was talking about the result of what you were doing, not what you were trying to do. No apology necessary on your part. Maybe I should've been more careful how I said it.

Anybody who wants to know what you said can go back and read this thread. I responded to you each time you said the things mentioned above. Each time I responded I documented what I was responding to. If I misunderstood what you said, I apologize. Can we move on, please?

Certainly let's move on, since I really don't know what you were talking about, anyway.

When Jesus was asked what one needed to do to go to heaven, he listed 6 commandments. You give a completely different list:

1) Be elected by God.
2) Be regenerated
3) Confess and repent of sin.
4) Continue to pursue Christ.
Is that your final answer? If this is your final answer, I have some follow up questions.

Here we go again, haha. Ok. I could wimp out and show you are barking up the wrong tree with: "The rich young ruler asked what HE "shall do to inherit eternal life" (my emphasis). To me that sounds quite a bit like some on here who say one must do this or that to prepare themselves for God to move in and do his part. So Jesus told him how to do that." But no need to go there.

Ancient Jews had a teaching method that some nowadays still use, to set the mind of the student going—not to give a complete answer, but to stir the mind. The way this conversation went sounds kind of like that to me. But whatever the case may be, the list was obviously not complete, as there are many more things to do to obey the law of God perfectly. The list you grabbed onto is not stand-alone. (Context, always. The whole Bible is context.)

Now, you say I had a completely different list, implying that my list was another for 'what must I do to go to Heaven' —it was not. It was a list of the logical sequence (cause and effect) involved in what happens when the Elect is born again. And it was no complete list either, just some of the first few things.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Again, I remind you that we are not here to judge other people's character. Judging character is against forum rules.
My reference was to your ability (habit?) of misrepresenting. I did not say anything about your character as such. If that reflects on one's character, so do many things we all say about others here, (such as bad logic, clinging to imaginations, ignorance and so on.)

Again, I remind you that we are not here to judge other people's character. Judging character is against forum rules.

I am doing my best to represent you fairly. If I misunderstand, please show me where I am mistaken instead of judging my intent.

I am trying.

So far I have seen nothing from you that justifies God having his son killed, other than saying that this is what he decided he needed to do. I am hearing you say that he made the rules, including the rule that says he won't forgive unless his son is killed.
You apparently see 'God having his son killed' as a stand-alone statement. His Son was also God, and was privy to the plan —in fact, in favor of the plan.

Being omniscient, God (All three persons—Father, Son and Spirit) are more than happy with the plan, because of the result. To them, it is worth the sacrifice.

No.

But if a man said, "One of you children lied about going to the bathroom, so therefore one of the other children in this car needs to be killed", then I would question that man's sanity.

I said what I did about the family going to Yosemite as a demonstration of the sort of misrepresentation you were making of the fact of the death of Christ in the plan of God. Your statement above ("One of you...lied.....so therefore one of the other children in this car needs to be killed") is of the same sort. God didn't say that about Christ.

But it is telling, I think, that you equate the two ideas. Christ is not just another one of the kids in the car. He is God. THE Son of God, not A son of God. He is God of very God, and thus able to substitute, as himself the giver of the law. There are several people I love who I would happily give my eternal destiny up for God to take them instead. In fact I've prayed he would do so if necessary. (Though, yes, that was a mere hypothetical in my mind—I'm pretty sure that if the judgement came down that God had done that, I would not be happy —but then I would not love God nor see any satisfaction at that point, but unfairness on God's part and hatred for him. (besides, it's a ludicrous point; if God chose me, I will be in Heaven, and if God did not choose them, they won't. It was just an expression of emotion concerning them.)) But I cannot pay the sins of another. Only God could do that.

If man A does wrong, and the matter is settled by having man B killed as a sacrifice, is that justice?
It is, if man B is God himself, the giver of the law that has been broken, since he offers himself up for the purpose of substitution.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
If I recall, it all stems back to the real reason(s) I think you believe in God. 1. indoctrination 2. geography 3. invoking agency 4. belief perseverance, which leads you to apologetic arguments

I still contend the 'first cause' argument is a distant 4th reason for your continued belief(s).
After all these posts, I'm finally starting, (I hope), to understand what you are asking me.

There is no true belief —that is, the faith mentioned in Hebrews 1— by mere intellectual assent or intellectual comprehension. While I insist First Cause theory is a huge part of what I believe and why I believe so many other things, it is not what saved me nor what keeps me. This Faith is the work of God.

I think I told you early on in my life, maybe even 6 or 7 years old —I don't remember— there was a moment when I realized I should theoretically be able to do whatever I wanted to if I rejected God, and close on the heels of that thought was the absolute realization that I was not able to do so. He was real, I couldn't even claim he was irrelevant. That has remained with me ever since. (No, that wasn't a turning point or anything —just something that was remarkable to me.) That God, the God of my young life, is, of course the same God as now, regardless of how much my beliefs have changed concerning him. (I bring this up, in part because of a question below.)

But my intellectual (and of course, my emotional and so on) reasons to believe I think, are not quite separable from my faith.



I only mention "evolution", as it is the best descriptive word to demonstrate the situation. I'd venture to state, due to 'evolution', or (survival of the "fitter"), we later knowingly or always unknowingly commit type 1 errors all the time.

case/point:

a verified false positive = mistaking a rustle in the weeds for being a predator, to actually turn out to be the wind.

(possible) unverified false positive = mistaking the unknown as being an independent 'first cause', which happens to originate from the pages of the Bible for which you were already indoctrinated.
This seems to me to deny the logical or instinctual knowledge of God mentioned in Romans 1. It also doesn't mention the fact of experiencing God, not through the Bible, but by conversation etc with God. While I have to admit I could be fooling myself even now, these are not type 1 (nor 2) errors, because they are not errors. As surely as I am conversing with you, though not in the same way, (maybe even more surely), I have conversed with God.

Where we differ, is that I too used to think the origin stemmed from the Bible. But once I actually read it, I later fell away; do to vast inconsistencies. Where you, have instead held strong and steady - modifying continued justification to taste.
To taste? Not sure I follow what you are saying there. Anyhow, 'justification' is a funny word. I don't quite accept the idea of justifying anything the Bible says. My problems have never been with the Bible, but with what seems to be the way Christians behave, believe, and talk. Their worldviews have often been my pitfall, because I trusted them as knowing more than me. Through study and experience I came to see I had been misreading several parts of the Bible, and their typical parallels. The Bible always has been absolute for me. The inconsistencies then are not in the Bible, but in the people.

Translating the same Book, to now mean something entirely different, is quite common. I did this too, before I no longer believed in YHWH any longer. However, you still adhere to Jesus as your source, right? If so, then you still believe in the same God ultimately :)
Yes, the same God as when I was a young kid. But my ideas concerning him are some of them very different. For one thing, they now make sense.

It looks to be the second strongest reason why you believe YHWH/Jesus is your source, verses another/others, verses none.

(i.e.) Your geographical surroundings make it easier for you to retain belief perseverance, either by finding the 'first cause argument', or many others. Remember what I also told you prior, about a staunch republican tuning into Fox for his/her news, while a staunch democrat may turn to MSNBC. This is one way we, as humans, cleave to our comfortable and already existing beliefs.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. It sounds almost like you are simply saying where I spend my time may (or may not) tend to reinforce my beliefs. That's true enough, but does it counter anything else we have been saying?

A verified "first cause" can only be YHWH?
Any other god is a different cause, not first. Not theoretically because no other name fits First Cause, but because 'God' means, among other things, First Cause. If another religion shows an Identical first cause as God, that God is the same God.

Well, this is where you and I differ apparently. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Where the story of Jesus is concerned, I do not see any? A matter of fact, I do not see extraordinary evidence for anyone rising from the grave?

I guess this is where 'faith' comes in? And if so, why not apply 'faith' to other extraordinary claims?

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence for what —to be proved true? That's true. But they don't need to be proven in order for them to be true. Also, one may become convinced through evidence that is not acceptable to all as evidence.

I don't expect you to believe it, but Faith of Hebrews 11 is the evidence —not even, 'stands for' or 'is an example of' or 'demonstrates' evidence, but when I have this faith, I have the evidence I needed. To say that is illogical only demonstrates you don't have the background facts believed, that the born-again believer has.

FAITH is the cause of my faith. God causes that FAITH.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I must have misspoken. I wasn't judging your intent.
Sir, what you said was:

Again, I see you summing up what I say, or perhaps quoting exactly what I say out of context, to make me appear to have said things I don't mean. [emphasis added]​

And yes, your words absolutely were a judgement on my intent. You said I am saying thing to make it appear that you say things you do not mean. I am not doing that. And yet you come here and judge my intent and say I am deliberately saying things to misrepresent you.

Please do not deny what you said. Your words are out there. It does you no good to deny what you said.

Please stop casting judgement on other people's intent. Is it to much to ask that you please, please follow the forum rules?
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Now, you say I had a completely different list, implying that my list was another for 'what must I do to go to Heaven' —it was not.
Ok, so you did not tell me what one needs to do to go to heaven. Like I said, it is very difficult to get anybody to answer that question here and stand by it.

Please, please answer. If a man is a murderer, a thief, and a wearer of garments made of two different fabrics, what must he do to go to heaven?

Is the answer, "nothing"? Can he just keep on murdering and stealing and wearing garments made of two different fabrics and go to heaven, as long as he is elected?

Or is your answer 1) Be elected by God, 2) Be regenerated, 3) Confess and repent of sin and 4) Continue to pursue Christ?

Or do you have some other answer?

It was a list of the logical sequence (cause and effect) involved in what happens when the Elect is born again. And it was no complete list either, just some of the first few things.
I am not asking you what causes you to do the things in the list. I am asking you what you need to do.

Again, here is the list:

1) Be elected by God,
2) Be regenerated,
3) Confess and repent of sin
4) Continue to pursue Christ​

Does a person need to do these things to go to heaven?

And if you respond by discussing what causes one to do this, while ignoring the question of what you need to do, I will laugh so hard I will spit my beer out.

And if you deflect the question once again by changing the question to one about earning salvation, instead of what one needs to do to go to heaven, I will also laugh so hard I will spit my beer out.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
His Son was also God, and was privy to the plan —in fact, in favor of the plan.
Red herring. I never said anything about Jesus being unwilling.

Once again, why did God decide that Jesus needed to die before he forgave us?

As far as I can tell, the only reason you can give for God surrendering his son to death before he forgives is because that is what he chose to do.

Being God, it seems like he makes the rules, and could have decided the rule is that he simply forgives. So why didn't he decide to simply forgive?

If God could have simply forgave without a substitute, and yet submitted his son to death anyway, is that just an act that really means nothing?

Being omniscient, God (All three persons—Father, Son and Spirit) are more than happy with the plan, because of the result. To them, it is worth the sacrifice.
Red herring. I never said anything about them being unhappy about the plan.

It is, if man B is God himself, the giver of the law that has been broken, since he offers himself up for the purpose of substitution.


Again, the question is: Why did God decide that he needed a substitution? Did something or somebody more powerful than God demand it? Or did God just decide on his own that he won't forgive unless his son first dies? If God decided it, why did he decide it?
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dcalling

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2014
3,184
323
✟107,345.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So "remember the Sabbath to keep it holy" means make one day of your week holy? Why doesn't the commandment say that?

Numbers 15:32-36 say:

And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
So all this man had to say was, "I personally keep Sunday holy instead of Saturday"?

Nope, that is just how I do it. That actual meaning is more like to separate from this world and rest in peace as what God did.

It is very different when God tells you directly what to do, as God is the only source of truth on all different situations, and that is why all of them are waiting for God to give a response, John 7 10Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11She said, “No one, sir.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again."
 
Upvote 0

dcalling

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2014
3,184
323
✟107,345.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This is what I call plan C. So is that your final answer? Plan C?

So was Jesus testifying falsely when he told this man he needed to follow commands to get to heaven?

You have to trust in Jesus, declare he is your savior with you mouth and in your heart. Once you do that you will be trying to follow the commands willingly.

This is what I call plan B. So is that your final answer? Plan B?



To err is human, to forgive is divine.

One would think if I did what I could, God would be willing to forgive human errors in judgement.

God give a specific way to be saved. It is like me as engineer telling the business man what to do for a sepecific case, and he want to follow his way, and messed up.

I want to follow commands that make sense, such as not killing or stealing. I really don't have a desire to follow the commands that don't make sense, such as not wearing mixed fabrics.


OK, but the writer of Matthew cared. Matthew said that Easter occurred on the day after the sabbath. Do you agree with Matthew that Easter Sunday was the day after the sabbath?

I don't care what Matthew declare on what day was sabbath. Same as you don't care wearing mixed fabrics (and that command is most likely not related to fabrics but related to don't deceive).

Fine. The Bible commands you to give to every man that asks. If I asked you for everything you had, would you have to follow that command?

...and give every man everything he asks you for, kill those who teach other gods, don't wear mixed fabrics, sell everything you have, etc. Why did your list stop short at just 2 of the commands in the Bible?
Which commandment says I need to give every man what they asks? Please quote actual scripture.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
You have to trust in Jesus, declare he is your savior with you mouth and in your heart. Once you do that you will be trying to follow the commands willingly.
Ah, so Jesus had it completely wrong when he said you need to follow a list of commandments.

Once you do that you will be trying to follow the commands willingly.
You still have free will, don't you? How do you know that a person might not just confess Jesus as savior and then live like the devil?

After all, many believers are in jail.
God give a specific way to be saved. It is like me as engineer telling the business man what to do for a sepecific case, and he want to follow his way, and messed up.
OK, but if a business man asks you how to get to the other side of a river, and you know there is a finely engineered bridge to get there, would you direct him to take another bridge that you know is out? Why did Jesus direct this man to take a "bridge" that he knew was out?

I don't care what Matthew declare on what day was sabbath.
Ah, so if the Bible says the sabbath is on Saturday, and you don't want to believe that, you can just ignore what the Bible says? Good to know.

Same as you don't care wearing mixed fabrics.
Right. we don't care about wearing mixed fabrics. So we just disobey the command not to do it, even if the command is in the Bible.

Which commandment says I need to give every man what they asks? Please quote actual scripture.
Luke 6:30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.​
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Nope, that is just how I do it. That actual meaning is more like to separate from this world and rest in peace as what God did.
Suppose the man in Numbers 15:32-36 had said, "that is just how I do it. I rest in peace when I want to." Think that would have saved his life?

I think they would have said, "You want to rest in peace? Fine. We will make you rest in peace" ;)

Numbers is quite clear that the command to keep the sabbath means keep the sabbath. It does not mean rest in peace every now and then.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Sir, what you said was:

Again, I see you summing up what I say, or perhaps quoting exactly what I say out of context, to make me appear to have said things I don't mean. [emphasis added]​

And yes, your words absolutely were a judgement on my intent. You said I am saying thing to make it appear that you say things you do not mean. I am not doing that. And yet you come here and judge my intent and say I am deliberately saying things to misrepresent you.

Please do not deny what you said. Your words are out there. It does you no good to deny what you said.

Please stop casting judgement on other people's intent. Is it to much to ask that you please, please follow the forum rules?
"To", in the way I used it, can mean "with the result of" as easily as what you took it to mean— "with the intent of". I certainly hope you don't intend to tell me what I meant.
 
Upvote 0