Atheist morality.

[ChristianCenturion]

So, Gene Robinson doesn't have the Holy Spirit, because his truth doesn't align itself with CC's truth?

The usual implied statement I have come to expect from you. I dont' call people to accept 'my' truth. It is to the honor and the glory to God if I have anything, including truth. The word was given to all and His desire that all may come unto Him is true. I am not a gate by which one enters, but I do stand in the gap and have permission to be a watchman on the wall. I do not slumber and let theives and murderers slither past, for that I owe no appology.

Are you telling me that you're the Holy Spirit?

If I am in alignment with the Spirit then I faithfully serve my Lord. If this is true, then I and the Holy Spirit are one.
Should I not repeat what is found to be true out of some kind of fear of what you or others may say or think of that? I don't think so.

 

[Zaac]

No it wasn't. You simply told me why you think Gene Robinson is a sinful man. You didn't tell me how I can know whether the Holy Spirit is in him.

You asked this, and this was answered.

How about Reverend Gene Robinson (the recently appointed gay Anglican bishop, in case you've forgotten)? Does he have the Holy Spirit?

You asked this and this was answered.

That's not what I asked you, Zaac. I asked you whether Gene Robinson has the Holy Spirit, and thereby truth and discernment, and how you know. I didn't ask you to tell me what you believe, I asked you how you know whether somebody has the Holy Spirit.

As far as YOU knowing, YOU don't because YOU don't have the Holy Spirit by your own profession.

But as for the Christian, I am not called to judge whether or not someone has the Holy Spirit. God will judge this. But I can most certainly righteously judge by a testing of the spirits and what he says in accordance with what God's Word says. And in that regard, and his continued rebellious and unrepentant sin, he should not be in a position of overseeing. Why? Because a wayward shepherd cannot lead sheep anywhere but into waywardness.

34"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:34-35

"Jesus replied, 'If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.'" (John 14:23)

"If anyone says, "I love God," but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (John 4:20)

Gene Robinson cannot be my brother in Christ and love me as he loves Christ while unrepentantly and rebelliously disobeying the commands of Christ. And if his disobedience does not in the least phase him, and he continues to be unrepentant, then his salvation and whether or not he was ever saved does become a concern. God chastens those He loves. Does there appear to be any chastening going on in Mr. Robinson's life? Or is Mr. Robnson proudly continuing to do what he wants?

If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. (1 John 1:6)

Is Gene Robinson walking in darkness or in the light of God's truth?

"And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.(2 John 1:6)

As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead. (James 2:26)

"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men (Matthew 5:13.)

Now YOU show me in agreement with God's Word Gene Robinson's fruit?He can't love me without loving Jesus Christ. And He cannot love Jesus Christ without keeping His commands.

Not only is he not keeping them, he is rebelliously disagreeing with those commands.

And as I said before, is he saved? That's not for me to say. But the fruit of his actions says all that it needs to say.

 

[Zaac]

Right, so who does have the Holy Spirit? You and you alone?

As I said, by your own profession, you do not.

I don't have to point out somebody's lack of the Holy Spirit's discernment and thus lack of salvation. satan is capable of testifying for himself and continues to do so with men's words actions and deeds.

 

[levi501]

It cracks me up when fundies go off all biblical... using old english sentence structure like a bunch of shakespeare wannabes. It seems to fit well as it allows them to veil their smug condescension with vague pious gibberish.

It basically all comes down to the same thing though. People that don't share their core xian beliefs aren't "true christians". I guess if they didn't scrutinize others then any ole believer might think they're allowed in the "true christian" club, and then well... they wouldn't feel as special or superior to everyone.

 

[Ledifni]

As I said, by your own profession, you do not.

I didn't ask whether I have the Holy Spirit. Please, show me where I asked you that.

No, I asked you who does and how you know, because clearly you know or you could not state with such authority that certain persons do not have it. You are refusing to answer that question, which I presume is because you have no answer except, "People only have the Holy Spirit if I say they do!"

But no matter. I'm going to start a new thread on this subject -- the tendency to attribute one's own thoughts to God because one thinks it confers legitimacy.

 

[Zaac]

It cracks me up when fundies go off all biblical... using old english sentence structure like a bunch of shakespeare wannabes. It seems to fit well as it allows them to veil their smug condescension with vague pious gibberish.

It saddens me when the unsaved remain unsaved. It cracks me up when the levis of the world think that their jocularity at Christians giving God's truth that sets men free is a deterrent from continuing to do so.

I mean come on. Jesus Christ was crucified for the very same words. What do I or any other Christian for that matter care if it cracks you up that we give God's Word in response to people's questions?

It basically all comes down to the same thing though. People that don't share their core xian beliefs aren't "true christians". I guess if they didn't scrutinize others then any ole believer might think they're allowed in the "true christian" club, and then well... they wouldn't feel as special or superior to everyone.

And as was said in another thread, stop trying to speak for the saints. We are each just as wretched a sinner as are the unsaved BUT we've got JESUS.

And if your core beliefs do not align themselves with HIM, then check yourself.

 

[Zaac]

I didn't ask whether I have the Holy Spirit. Please, show me where I asked you that.

Did I say you asked that?

No, I asked you who does and how you know, because clearly you know or you could not state with such authority that certain persons do not have it. You are refusing to answer that question, which I presume is because you have no answer except, "People only have the Holy Spirit if I say they do!"

The question has been answered just not to your liking. Get over it.

But no matter. I'm going to start a new thread on this subject -- the tendency to attribute one's own thoughts to God because one thinks it confers legitimacy

Go for it. You'll get the same rebuke there.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I didn't ask whether I have the Holy Spirit. Please, show me where I asked you that.

No, I asked you who does and how you know, because clearly you know or you could not state with such authority that certain persons do not have it. You are refusing to answer that question, which I presume is because you have no answer except, "People only have the Holy Spirit if I say they do!"

But no matter. I'm going to start a new thread on this subject -- the tendency to attribute one's own thoughts to God because one thinks it confers legitimacy.

In the past, you have stated that you are allegedly familiar with Christian teaching and yet you ask a question that is basic, answered throughout, and more specifically in Romans 8.
So I suppose if you think by asking a question that you already and allegedly know, you are somehow proving something. I fail to see anything proven other than you have trouble with what is held in Christian teaching.

 

[Zaac]

So I suppose if you think by asking a question that you already and allegedly know, you are somehow proving something. I fail to see anything proven other than you have trouble with what is held in Christian teaching.

Nothing but an AMEN.

 

[Ledifni]

In the past, you have stated that you are allegedly familiar with Christian teaching and yet you ask a question that is basic, answered throughout, and more specifically in Romans 8.

CC, you say that the answer to the question is basic because you assert that your interpretation is the only one. It is not. You are wrong. There are other interpretations and no matter how far your stick your fingers in your ears and how loudly you yell, they aren't going away.

Now, tell me how you determine whether somebody has the Holy Spirit, and stop trying to cop out.

I fail to see anything proven other than you have trouble with what is held in Christian teaching.

No, no, not Christian teaching. I've seen Christian teaching that I greatly admire. It's CC-and-Zaac teaching that I have trouble with.

 

[Zaac]

No, no, not Christian teaching. I've seen Christian teaching that I greatly admire. It's CC-and-Zaac teaching that I have trouble with.

So what?

Do you think for an instance that the Holy Spirit expects your flesh to be in agreement with God's Holy Word that it echoes?

CC and Zaac haven't done anything but tell you what God's Word says. You don't have to like that and it's obvious that you don't.

And you can say it's our teaching that you have issue with until you're blue in the face. Your problem is with GOD and His Word.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

So what?

Do you think for an instance that the Holy Spirit expects your flesh to be in agreement with God's Holy Word that it echoes?

CC and Zaac haven't done anything but tell you what God's Word says. You don't have to like that and it's obvious that you don't.

And you can say it's our teaching that you have issue with until you're blue in the face. Your problem is with GOD and His Word.

Thanks Zaac. I would have replied, but I couldn't type it out with "my fingers in my ears" and all.

BTW Ledifni - I read the posts, not listen to them... Oh, I wasn't supposed to 'interpret' that as meaning what it says, was I?

 

[Scell]

...interesting debate, I must say.

Ledifni,

You'll never get an answer to your liking, because any answer a "true christian" will give you is based on the "word of god" and not on what you would define as being based on reason.

I'll paraphrase a quote that I've read on another discussion board "Debating with someone who's forgotten how to use reason is like giving medicine to those already dead"

I can understand why you have a problem with "god's word" and its interpretation since it was, after all, written by men.

-Scell

 

[James T]

CC, Zaac,

Did you provide anything other that argumentum ad verecundiam?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

CC, Zaac,

Did you provide anything other that argumentum ad verecundiam?

Excerpt:
Argumentum ad verecundiam

The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion. For example:

"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."​

This line of argument isn't always completely bogus when used in an inductive argument; for example, it may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a particular field, if you're discussing that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly between:

"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"​

and

"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"​

Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.

~~~
If you are going to go this route, I doubt that you have much of an objection to Christians on a Christian website referencing Christian doctrine - just as the objection would be moot in referring to a legal precedent in a court of law.
When in Rome... or were you expecting everyone else to bow to whatever authority to which you hold? If you do not care for my opinion, feel free to ignore it.

 

[James T]

CC, so was that a yes or a no?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

CC, so was that a yes or a no?

I'm flattered that you take such interest in my posting. As I see it, my opinion in:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16910754&postcount=40
... used reasoning that Atheism does not have inherent characteristic cohesion to make a proclamation that there is a commonality among that group dealing and/or having morality. That doesn't even hint to appeal to authority, but instead reasons that the whole does not define the parts (as specified in the OP) and the definition that unites the parts does not relate to the OP's assertion of the whole.
I could have simply pointed out the fallacy with:
Fallacy of Composition
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#composition
... but what would have been the fun in that?

 

[Zaac]

CC, Zaac,

Did you provide anything other that argumentum ad verecundiam?

Did he cuss us out in Latin?

 

[James T]

CC, so was that a yes or a no?

I'm flattered that you take such interest in my posting. As I see it, my opinion in:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16910754&postcount=40
... used reasoning that Atheism does not have inherent characteristic cohesion to make a proclamation that there is a commonality among that group dealing and/or having morality. That doesn't even hint to appeal to authority, but instead reasons that the whole does not define the parts (as specified in the OP) and the definition that unites the parts does not relate to the OP's assertion of the whole.
I could have simply pointed out the fallacy with:
Fallacy of Composition
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#composition
... but what would have been the fun in that?

But CC, so was that a yes or a no?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

You can have access to it if you desire to accept it and for sure Jesus Christ has offered and you have chosen to reject it. So by the hand of Christ right now, I submit to you yet another opportunity to give your life to Him and to receive His interpretation that you say that you do not have.

What nonsense. The world is full of christians who have submitted to Jesus and at least claim to have the holy spirit in them. They all disagree on their interpretations of the scriptures.

That's what the enemy wants you to believe because it keeps your mind in bondage.

No, that's a simple fact that doesn't keep anyone's "mind in bondage".

There is NOTHING but truth at the Cross And you must choose whether or not you're going to live your life in obedience to the one who is looking to devour you or to the One Who desires to save you .

That's nice...a bit of sermonising that doesn't address the point.