Is baptism necessary to be saved? (2)

[YAQUBOS]

I have no problem with this.

Great! So when God accepts repentance, He is not contradicting Himself as a Righteous and Holy God who judges sin.

You don't? Did you *read* what you just wrote? "God put an end to all the people" and "we are people"... so... we don't actually exist? But, bizarre as this statement of yours is, it's still a red herring. To say it again: God said "I will wipe mankind from the face of the earth" but clearly didn't. If we insist on God's omnipotence, the remaining options are: (1) God lied, (2) "I will wipe...etc" means something other than I think it does, (3) the Bible isn't word-for-word inerrant, but, rather, written by flawed humans. (There may be other options, and I'm willing to hear them, but Occam's Razor makes me think these are the most likely.) (1) is objectionable to me, and obviously I can't work out how to reconcile (2), so ... (3) it is. I don't see why that freaks so many people out.

The Bible never said that God would wipe the RIGHTEOUS from the face of the earth. It says that God would wipe people from the face of the earth BECAUSE OF THEIR SINS. Noah was living in repentance before God. And Noah was a witness who called all the other sinners to join him into the Ark. And God gave those people 120 years to repent. And the text says all this clearly. And you still want God to refuse any repentance, or else He is changing His mind. But this is exactly His mind! He wants to save the repentant sinner, so He is bringing a Flood over the earth as a judgment on those who do not want to repent.

So I don't see why you are beating the air.

I didn't, you did. That's why I'm calling strawman on that one. I said God knew *some* of us would go to hell. Again, if God is omniscient then He knew even before creating mankind that some of us would end up in hell ("choose to go to hell" if you like). The argument that I and others have been trying to make is that a loving God wouldn't go through with this plan (even given that people are choosing their fate), assuming that hell = infinite torment. Or, at very least, would make it a lot less ambiguous as to how to avoid that fate. In case you hadn't noticed, a large number of people are headed for hell, in your view, including many who consider themselves Christians. In fact, as far as I can tell, everyone but you is destined for hell. So it really can't be *that* obvious, now, can it? Conclusion: God created humanity in the full knowledge that many well-meaning people will make the wrong choice and end up suffering eternally. That's ... not just. It's wrong. If you disagree, then I don't see we can go much further. This is axiomatic for me: what I've just described cannot be the action of a loving God.

Yes, it seems it is very ambiguous for you to choose between sin or God...

What can I say?...

By the way, God is not responsible of anyone's sin. And if many will refuse to repent, this is not enough reason to give up the whole humanity for them, because other's want to repent.

Oh look, another red herring. Seriously, man, open a fish market.

Of course I know that I was born, not created ex nihilo. But I was born to mortal parents, who were born of mortal parents, and so on back to Adam (well, let's go with that and not confuse the matter with extra debates). So I am still a created being, not part of the Godhead. Please. Stop bringing up irrelevances. The fact remains that I exist because God created humanity and I will go to hell

(in your view of the universe). Or if not me, then someone else -- it doesn't matter. So the above argument remains intact.

No, the above argument does not remain intact. God didn't create YOU as a sinner. God created Adam WITHOUT sin. Your sinful nature is what you inherited from ADAM, not from God. So God is not responsible of you being born in sin.

But you are calling God to give up your parents, and your parents' parents until Adam just because you don't wish to repent. You prefer all mankind to die rather than you to repent...

Good, finally a straight answer: God did know my choice a priori. Aaaand then, a total strawman. If the fish market folds, go into farm supplies. Why does God have to kill anyone? An omnipotent God can't prevent my birth without killing? Or, given that I'm not alone in my journey to hell, why create humanity in the first place?

See? So you want God to give up all His good creation only because you don't want to repent!! Who said that you will go to hell if you repent? And who said that ANY human would go to hell if they repent?

If an Omnipotent God wants to stop your birth and the birth of many others, He would have to stop humanity. But He is a loving God. He created us to LIVE. And, although you don't know it, but life is GOOD.

God created you free. He knew many would sin, but that doesn't mean that He had to create us robots or not create us at all. His choice was to create us, and when we fall, to give us the Way of Salvation. Here is the Good News: Christ is the Savior. You don't need to go to hell because of your sins. You can repent and have Life.

Strawman. Not kill. Just not create. We wouldn't have lost anything -- we would never have existed. Or come up with a different system, such as finite punishment and refinement that purifies us of sin and allows us to become worthy of God's presence? Or... any other of an infinite set of possibilities, for that matter.

God provided the way to purify you of sin and make you be able to enter His Presence: ATONEMENT. Why don't you just accept that?

Seriously. Stop it. Not kill. And no more proselytizing, either. I mean it.

If God is Love, then why not find a way to allow *everyone* to achieve perfection. And not just by having one shot at saying the right magic words, based on vague and ambiguous references in a set of ancient texts belonging to one group of Bronze Age nomads.

(Some tedious repeated fallacies snipped....)

Refusing sin and coming to God is not that ambiguous. And it's not about magic words. You need to repent, and not to make a show.

You know nothing about my parents or my relationship with them. Do not speak about what you don't know. And to answer your question: if they believed what you believe, then, yes, I'd say they should not have had me, unless they were sadists.

(And more snipping...)

Sin makes us hate even our parents.

And those who don't perform this one, specific act end up with infinite suffering. Why? Please explain the logic of this. Why is this better than, say, allowing everyone to continue to perfect themselves post mortem? Thus, true effort is required, and we still suffer the consequences of our sins, as we have to struggle with our sinful natures, separated from God in the spiritual realm; God's justice is satisfied, and all can eventually be purified and achieve the perfection in which we were originally created. Please explain to me why this is worse than God having to crucify Himself at a specific point in human history, with everyone coming after required to genuinely profess a belief in this system and taking a magic bath to prove it.

Before I explain, I want to tell you clearly and once for all: It's not a belief in any system, and it's not a bath.

OK. Now, as you want to perfect yourself post mortem, then you changed your mind about a system that can purify everyone from their sins...

Well, tell me how much time you need post mortem to purify yourself from your sins, knowing that sin is in your nature? When will you be able to get rid of your sinful nature? Tell me how much time you need post mortem?

Ditto. If I can be bothered, since I suspect I'm wasting my time. KCDAD and SS seem to be interested in bouncing around ideas and searching for the Truth. You don't. You think you've found it already and seem to have no purpose here except to browbeat heretics (ie everyone else). I hope I'm wrong.

May the Lord bless you richly!

YAQUBOS†

 

[KCDAD]

YAQUBOS;43537554

Let's take a look at your logic.

God is not responsible of anyone's sin.

If God is not responsible for his creation, would you also say that parents are not responsible for the actions of their children?

God didn't create YOU as a sinner.

OK.. more on this late. Here is the real problem.

God created Adam WITHOUT sin.

Where did Adam's sin come from? Eve? Who created Eve? The serpent? Who created the serpent? The apple tree? Who created the apple tree?

Your sinful nature is what you inherited from ADAM, not from God. So God is not responsible of you being born in sin.

God is not responsible again, because we "inherited" sin nature... not the sin itself...

You prefer all mankind to die rather than you to repent...

What is this? Now I am responsible for the rest of mankind's sin and forgiveness?

So you want God to give up all His good creation only because you don't want to repent!!

Good creation? What about the serpent, tree or Eve... which ever you want to blame for the original sin... If it were good as you say... can evil come from God?

If an Omnipotent God wants to stop your birth and the birth of many others, He would have to stop humanity. But He is a loving God. He created us to LIVE. And, although you don't know it, but life is GOOD.

Do you think God is responsible for stillborn babies?

God created you free. He knew many would sin, but that doesn't mean that He had to create us robots or not create us at all. His choice was to create us, and when we fall, to give us the Way of Salvation.

Tell that to the millions born or sold into slavery.
If he knew we would sin, why be upset about it?

Sin makes us hate even our parents.

Wow. I don't hate my parents at all... not even a little... you sure this isn't about your problems with your parents and not about God?

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Yes, pride is a sin. So you must not be so proud as to think that you, a human, can interpret the Word of God. No human can interpret the Word of God. When God says something, only God can interpret what He meant.

Well at least we have some new logical fallacies to play with (red herrings and strawmen were getting tedious). This one, however, is pretty standard for you: semantic shift. (Unfortunately this is a form of red herring because the point is you're completely ignoring the meat of the argument and instead playing with some words.) "Interpret", in the context of textual analysis, does not imply perfect understanding of the intent of the author. That's why it's *an* interpretation, not *the* interpretation. Everyone does this when reading; everyone *has* to do it because no-one can read the mind of another. Go back and read what I actually wrote: "You read words, you try to understand what they mean, you then decipher the meaning of the text". That's what "interpret" means.

So the Bible interprets the Bible. No need to speculate about any text. No need to invent ideas while reading a text.

Another new fallacy. And this one's pretty easy to spot. Let's look closely... "the Bible interprets the Bible". Yes, folks, we have a Begging the Question. Or Circular Reasoning, if you prefer. Not only is that statement a perfect example in and of itself, but it also works so nicely in the context. I say "when you read the Bible, you make an interpretation" and you reply "but the Bible makes an interpretation of itself" to which I say something like "but then how do you get *that* interpretation?" By reading the Bible? Hey, look at that nice circle we just completed -- we appear to be right back where we started. And if not by reading the Bible... how exactly?

I just ask Him, and find the answer in the Bible.

So you get your "perfect" interpretation directly from God? Or from reading the Bible? Sounds like you just said the latter. So, that's begging the question, as I've just demonstrated.

From a little later:

They may ask someone else to interpret it for them, and then they accept his interpretation.

In my case, I accept the interpretation of God.

So now your interpretation comes directly from God. OK, so if it's the former, then why even enter these arguments, let alone quote the Bible in them? In that case, you have all the answers via a source unavailable to us, so your participation in these debates is unhelpful and, in fact, inflammatory. I might as well say "Adam had three legs because God told me so", then dodge and weave while others try to disprove me, safe in the knowledge that I always have the safe escape "I know I'm right and you're all destined for hell for not believing me/God". (Hmm, sounds like the behavior of someone in this thread...)

So, simple question: is there any point to discussing things using the rules of logic and debate, and starting with the bare text (the Bible) available to us? If so, why do you refuse to do so? If not, why are you wasting our time?

You don't like the attitude of Christians who do not want to preach THEIR words, but the full Word of God...

Oh I see what you did there: you didn't address the question (and threw in a subtle ad hominim for good measure, along with a repeated fallacy from above). You're *VERY* good at that. So let me repeat the question, in the vain hope that you'll actually answer it one day: "Do you or do you not possess the humility to believe that someone else might have useful input to a discussion? If not, have the guts to say so, so that I can ignore you from now on. If so, how about demonstrating it?"

And while we're here, I also notice (believe it or not, I'm moderately good at noticing logical flaws) that you haven't actually answered a single one of my logical critiques. I called all your logical fallacies by name, but you haven't yet disproven a single one. You haven't even tried.

1) I never threatened YOU personally with hell. I don't know you personally. I am only calling you to repentance, and saying that if you don't repent you will go to hell.

Which is the same thing as threatening me with hell. If you think I have already repented then why are you bothering to say this? If not (and I can provide plenty of examples that demonstrate that this is the case) then you are judging me (which is not for you to do) and declaring that, as a result, I will go to hell.

If I were in your place, I would thank you for reminding me of the importance of repentance in which I now walk.

But you're not, so stop it. I've asked you once, I won't ask again.

The Bible calls us to test ourselves to see whether we are in the Faith:

"Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?" ( 2 Corinthians 13:5 )

I am not doing anything more than reminding you of this verse.[\quote]
Good. So then I'll use your standard of not judging anyone except for what they've written, and I'll conclude that I see Jesus Christ in me more than I seem Him in you... so then... what? I guess I should start telling you to repent before you go to hell, right?

See how this can work both ways? See why it's repugnant that you're the only one doing it?

By the way: I never doubted the sincerity of your beliefs, specially you. But it is not enough to be sincere in order to be saved.

Oh, right, because you're in full possession of the perfect truth. I keep forgetting that. There's no possibility that you're wrong about something. So you can patronize me by claiming that you think my beliefs are sincere, but wrong, so it's ok to keep preaching at me, against my wishes.

Again, how can you not see that that cuts both ways? "I possess the Truth! I know I do, because God said so! And God says to you, Yaqubos, that you must stick a pencil up your nose or be forever infested by head lice. I know you sincerely believe that's not true, but God told me it is! I don't want you to be infested with lice (honest!), so please stick a pencil up your nose before it's too late. And every time you disagree with me, I'll tell you to stick a pencil up your nose instead of rebutting your arguments with logic!"

See how annoying that might get?

Furthermore, all that aside, I have now asked you to stop that behavior. Whether or not it was a breach of CF protocol, I have now formally and clearly asked you to stop. That request does not impinge upon your rights or beliefs, so if you do not, *that will* be a breach of the rules.

Now, if you want to threaten me of reporting, I would like to remind you who I am: I am a disciple of Jesus Christ. Lions of Nero cannot stop me of declaring the truth. The most that you can do is to ban me from these forums, which is the web equivalent of capital punishment. But that doesn't stop my witnessing.

Oh puleeeease. Being a wee bit overdramatic are we? Or are you honestly comparing yourself to the first Christian martyrs? Get a grip.

And I hope there are moderators who understand this, because I am not violating any forum rules. Even those rules are subject to each person's interpretation.

Oh the irony. I thought we could read without interpretation? Or is that just the Bible, for some magical reason?

So, go ahead, dear Saul, and report. I am ready. I am not afraid of humans like you. Jesus Christ is with me.

Oh woe! Woe!!! WOOOOE!

And the Oscar goes to...

To your credit, you did find a way to at least pause on carrying through with my threat: I'd hate to actually get you banned, because that would just reinforce your martyr complex.

And who said that this punishment is something God has put to see His creatures suffer and thus enjoy it???

No-one. That's why this is yet another strawman. The whole point is that a loving God would *hate* to see His creations suffer.

Oh, fortheloveof..., I guess I'll restate the argument one more time. (Like you'll actually read it carefully this time, when you haven't the last 28 times, but still...) God would hate to see His creations suffer b/c God is Love. God knows in advance that this will happen b/c God is omniscient. So why does God through with the plan? It would be more humane (so to speak) to not create the universe at all, or to ensure somehow that no-one ends up suffering (infinitely). A perfect God would have realized this.

If you die in your sins, you go before God's Judgment in your sins. Your nature is sinful. How can that sinful nature enter Heaven, that holy place where no sin can enter? And what amount of punishment can change that nature of sinfulness? No amount!

So then how does anyone avoid hell? It can't be through works, b/c human nature is sinful and no amount of good works will change that. So it must be through... letmeguess... faith in Jesus. Am I right? OK, great. So why does that work? It doesn't change our nature. If it did, no Christians would ever sin again, and we know that's not true. (And if that's proof that you haven't really put your faith in Jesus, or something similar, then we still all end up in hell, b/c everyone continues to sin, ergo no-one has put their faith in Jesus.) So we still have a sinful nature. By your argument, we can't enter Heaven. So it has to be something more. Like, say, God accepts Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf and *forgives us*. That last bit's fairly important because if implies that God has the option to forgive us. So why all the rigmarole with the crucifying and the baptizing and the magic creeds and so forth? Why not just forgive, based on His examination of our hearts?

I will agree with you that the punishment is not eternal, if you just tell me after how much time a sinner ceases to be a sinner and thus is able to enter Heaven. Just try to answer this, and you will understand how much a limited punishment is against any spiritual logic that hates sin and knows how much it is bad.

But you're assuming a lot about the Nature of God right there, which is effectively begging the question. Oh, right, except that you know everything about God already. Sorry. See, I told you I keep forgetting that. If you weren't perfect in your knowledge, I might suggest that perhaps God is perfectly capable of perfecting us, or perhaps God is perfectly capable of forgiving us and then perfecting us, or... an infinite number of other possibilities. I can forgive someone without requiring them to make full restitution of their wrongs; why can't God (who is, y'know, a bit better than me in ... let's see... oh, right, every way imaginable).

See, unlike you, I'm happy to admit that I can't know all the possibilities in the Mind of God. I don't know what the right answer is; that's why I'm searching for it. Having someone yak on repeatedly about how they've got the right answer and here it is, without any logical structure to back it up, doesn't really help. It certainly isn't going to sway me. So if you're genuinely concerned about my eternal welfare, please stop preaching and start addressing my points logically. Or just admit that you can't and at least impress me with your honesty.

Yes, God knows everything in advance. By the way, there is no "in advance" for God, because there is no past, present and future for God.

Quibbling. I understand that. Move on.

Oop. Looks like I hit the word limit. Alright. Cut and paste into two posts. Grr.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

(Continuing...)

Is that the only expression in the text? Don't we have a context? What does the context say about the sin of humans? Why would God wipe them from the face of the earth? Just to pass some time or to show how much He is powerful??

Ahahaha. So, again, now who's interpreting? (Oh, right, God, I'm sure, via his perfect conduit: you.)

Look, follow closely here. You quote the Bible ... a lot. You do so to make a point. You even underline specific phrases or words and then say "ergo: my point; see, God says so". OK, fine. So then you must admit that that's a valid argument technique. And to do that, you have to claim that each word in the Bible is unambiguously chosen by God. If not, then 90% of your arguments are on very shaky ground, because you haven't proven that the word you've underlined in your argument is reliable.

So, which is it? (So far) Are the words of the Bible precise and reliable? Or are 90% of your arguments now open for revision?

Let's assume that you'll take Reliability for $100, Alex. OK, so then why am I not allowed to do exactly what you do? I took a passage and I highlighted a word. That word was mankind. That means mankind. Everyone. All of Man. Every descendant of Adam. Man. Kind. Mankind. There are other words available, you see, if you don't mean "everyone". You could say "I will wipe the unrighteous from the face of the earth". Or "I will wipe the wicked" or "those who haven't repented" or "everyone except Bob" or ... But God didn't say that. God said "mankind". So, again, which is it: (A) the Bible isn't the inerrant Word of God, (B) God misspoke/lied/couldn't think of the right word/etc, (C) God meant "mankind" when He said "mankind"?

And if that doesn't convince you (because, y'know, it's just logic and stuff -- that's never convinced you in the past), how about this:

Let me requote that verse: So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

Alrighty then. "Men and animals". Interesting. Does God wipe out all the animals? I seem to remember something about Noah having some animals on board the ark. So now we're in the same dilemma. Did God lie? Or did He change his mind? Or, using your very own ad hoc workaround, did He just spare the righteous animals? And there just happened to be exactly two righteous kangaroos, two righteous elephants, two righteous ring-tailed lemurs, etc. (Every other lemur was a right *&$^# -- they got what was coming to 'em.) Also, it doesn't say that any animals found favor with God.

So answer that, please. With no red herrings or other dodges of the question. God said He would wipe all the animals from the earth. He didn't. Explain:

I continue in the next reply.

Oh goody. Let's see what fun lies in store.

The Bible never said that God would wipe the RIGHTEOUS from the face of the earth

No, it said "mankind" which means righteous and unrighteous alike. Because it means "everyone". I'm not going over this again. See above.

Yes, it seems it is very ambiguous for you to choose between sin or God.

Seriously. I am being very patient. Stop. This. Now.

I'll skip the repetitions. I've made my argument pretty clear. Until you refute it logically, there's no point in me beating my head against a wall.

Your sinful nature is what you inherited from ADAM, not from God

Begging the question. (Is that today's Fallacy of the Day? Are you in a mail-order club or something?) KCDAD has already dealt with this.

prefer all mankind to die

I have stated that this is a strawman. Stop repeating it.

only because you don't want to repent!

DO. NOT. QUESTION. MY. BELIEFS. AGAIN.

but life is GOOD.

Unless you go to hell for eternity. In which case it's infinitely bad. Why couldn't a loving and omnipotent God prevent that? (And do NOT bring up the possibility of salvation unless you are willing to take SS's view of the *certainty* of salvation. *Possible* salvation doesn't answer the question.)

And, again, you are yet to convince me that you lose anything by not living at all. If the universe was never created, would you care?

ATONEMENT. Why don't you just accept that?

(A) you have no evidence that I haven't, so stop it. Yes, my posts may *imply* that I haven't but I am arguing about a logical position -- I have not revealed my current beliefs about atonement (although I've raised the question in this post -- but not until this post). (B) more importantly, see above. Possible salvation does not address my (repeated about 15 times) main argument; only certain salvation does (or some other non-atonement-based theology).

And it's not about magic words.

Ah, so if someone in Tajikistan thinks "wow, people are really bad; there must be an infinite and perfect God that created the universe and, if so, that God must be really irked at me...; from now on, I swear I will be a better person" and honestly means it and really follows through with it..., they won't go to hell? Even if they don't say anything about Jesus? (And, just for argument's sake: they've heard the gospel, but it didn't do much for them. It sounded like some pretty fairly tales to them.)

Sin makes us hate even our parents.

You did not just say that.

Either that was directed at me or it wasn't. If it wasn't, then it was irrelevant and inflammatory; I wait to hear your retraction of that worthless statement.

Or if was... I will wait for your apology. And report you if it doesn't come. That's defamation and that is definitely against CF rules. (And to heck with your persecution complex.)

It's not a belief in any system, and it's not a bath.

So then why are you so set on preaching at me repeatedly? If it doesn't matter what I believe or whether I'm baptized, what, precisely, is your point? That we will be judged according to the contents of our hearts? OK, cool. So why do I need to be baptized (at all)? Because your other posts say that baptism goes with "true repentance".

Please make a coherent argument. Please.

then you changed your mind about a system that can purify everyone from their sins...

When did I change my mind on this? And (oh look, back to red herrings), what does it matter if I did:

Well, tell me how much time you need post mortem to purify yourself from your sins, knowing that sin is in your nature? When will you be able to get rid of your sinful nature? Tell me how much time you need post mortem?

I don't know. See. I can say that. I can't know the workings of the Mind of God. That doesn't invalidate any of my arguments. I've presented an argument that I find compelling against your theology (of a loving God that willingly creates a universe knowing that it will result in ultimate suffering for some of His creations). You are yet to present a logical counterargument that proves your view is right. And just saying "well, what's your alternative?" doesn't achieve that. Analogy: you say "there are 5 stars in the universe"; I reply "but I can go outside at night and count at least 6"; responding "well, how many are there, then, smartypants?" doesn't save you.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Since I'm boots-in now anyway...

It is necessary IN Salvation, but it is NOT necessary FOR Salvation.

Is pen necessary? Answer: It is necessary to write, but it is not necessary for transportation. I don't think you will now tell me: Is it now necessary or not? Make up your mind!

That's a spurious comparison. A pen is necessary IN writing but not FOR writing? What? Writing and transportation are two entirely different things. Salvation and salvation are... not.

And I find it ironic that you're insisting SS make up his mind, when nobody here's yet worked out what your position on baptism is. (I guess we're all stupid, whereas you have all the answers.) I'm still not sure I have it straight: baptism isn't necessary to *become* saved, but it is necessary to *continue* to be saved? That's what the door/house analogy seems to suggest. (You don't need a door to enter but you do to live there?)

Try to live in a house without a door, and you will see why that door is so essential.

What if you live in a yurt? (See, I can do red herrings, too.)

He believed in the coming Christ, but he was not baptized. And I don't see where the problem is.

But I thought baptism was necessary IN salvation?

I never said that baptism is a bath.

Ah, so you do not mean physical/water baptism. OK, that helps clarify things. Slightly. (You're talking spiritual baptism, then?)

And I never said that baptism has a saving power.

But it is necessary to be saved. How can it not have saving power if it's necessary. (And that's regardless of IN or FOR -- in some way it is necessary, so how can it not have power?)

(Skipping... I'm not even going to get into the pointless self-referential "God's Word" debate.)

No, the English word "eternal" comes from "e-terna" which means "no-time". That might be no-time past or no-time future.

No, the English word "eternal" comes from latin. Dictionaries exist. They're even available online. Try one. And, while I'm here, they tend to define "eternal" as "without beginning or end" or, possibly, "unending" (which, I believe you mentioned earlier), or "unchanging", or "existing out of time". I assume the last option is what you were going for, which is true, but not for the reason you gave.

So you are in error when you say that eternity means a period of TIME that would be SHORT. Eternity is NO-time.

Unless the period is infinite. See what fun we can have with semantic quibbling?

You are wasting your time. You think you know better than the Greek scholars...

Which Greek scholars? As they say in wikiland: citation needed.

Yes. I am from a people speaking an indo-european language like the Greek. We have many words that receive a new meaning by just transforming them to plural. Example: The plural of power means Army

And the plural of cat means... more cats! Wow, how about that. I have an example to counter your example. Huh, I guess proof by example just doesn't work, does it. So unless you want to edit "We have many words" to "ALL our words" this doesn't prove anything. "Can" does not imply "does".

(More skipping)

When a creature is not pure, God does not test him; He JUDGES him with eternal hell.

But nobody is pure, so we're all damned, then.

The dead today do not have bodies. Souls are in hell. But they wait for their bodies in which they will be judged with the eternal judgment.

Tangent, but... why does it matter whether or not they have bodies? Seems all a bit convoluted. We die, our souls go to hell, our bodies return to the earth. Then they get reconstructed and ... sent to hell again? Or something. Weird. Well, whatever.

So you must repent of your self-righteousness as you think you live a godly life and do not need to repent.

Good to see that you're not judging anyone else, like it says not to in the Bible.

I am a big sinner and I repented. I live in repentance. I don't have anything good in me to boast of, so how can I be self-righteous? I trust in Christ who is all in all.

Wow. Translation: "can't you see that I'm a better person than you because I don't think I'm a better person than you?". Just a hunch, but maybe people wouldn't think you were self-righteous if you didn't act that way.

And I call you to repent now before it's too late. Sin leads to eternal hell.

Y'know, I prefer Cato's "and furthermore Carthage must burn". If you're going to end everything with a predictable tag-line, at least make it badass.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

I honestly don't know why I'm bothering, but...

First, I want to remind you that you were opposing the fact that there is a FUTURE judgment. I hope this verse that YOU quoted helps you be convinced.

Huh. So the book of Revelation is not actually a vision of the future, but has actually already happened? OK, that's an interpretation I haven't heard before. Care to expand on that a bit? I'm interested.

As you feel bad when I tell you that you need to repent, this shows that you didn't repent yet.

Could be, could be... Or maybe that he has already repented and is sick of you judging him when that's not your place. (Obviously, I'm skipping the other utterly unimaginable alternative of you being wrong.)

Why are you always failing?

Oh, zing. Wow, SS, how will you ever recover from that?

If you don't see this in that text, then I wonder if you know English.

"It's like "goldy" and "bronzey" only it's made of iron..." And here I've been giving *you* the benefit of the doubt on that front, given your spectacular ability to miss the point and do semantic tapdances.

The Bible is written by God through men in the language of men. God repented means God turned from what He would do. Did He change anything? No. He accepted their repentance that didn't surprise Him.

But the semantics still trips you up. God can't have "turned from what He would do" because He knew they would repent and, therefore, that He wouldn't do it. So He was never going to do it. See how delicate the semantics get? And then:

And why does the text say that? Did you even think about that? Did you think why God sent Jonah to tell them that? Was it not to lead them to repentance?

So then how do you know that we will go to hell? Perhaps we're just being told that to lead us to repentance. Until it happens, we can't be sure, just like Ninevah.

1) ...

as usual, no complete quote.

More irony. How many times have you quoted a piece of scripture and argued over the meaning of a word (when challenged)... Did SS say that was the only interpretation of the word? No, he just said that was a possible meaning, and backed it up. Based on that, he gave an interpretation of the passage. (Oh, but I forget that you have the perfect interpretation...)

By the way: How did you know that God didn't lie? Who told you that?

I can't speak for SS, but plenty of people believe that there is a perfect God. Perfect would mean unable to lie. It's a simple enough belief, no more unreasonable than believing that a book of bronze-age stories in the inerrant Word of God.

(And then more Jonah stuff that's been done to death.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

OK, one more. I swear I can quit any time I want, really... *shivers from withdrawal symptoms*

Does the traditional Christian faith say that the Bible is lying??

In those words? Of course not. But that's where some of us find ourselves when trying to follow through with traditional doctrine. Which is, of course, why we choose to consider other possibilities.

Do you doubt these?

Why shouldn't he? Where's the proof? I say that God says "you must put rabbit droppings down your shirt at 3:30 on a Thursday", and I know that's true because it says so in the Book of Wilted Turnips, chapter 42, and that's God's Word (it says so in chapter 54). Now, prove me wrong.

Or, another example: "I always tell the truth". Prove me wrong. I must be telling the truth because I always tell the truth.

Wake up very well, and follow us.

KCDAD & SS: do you find this as offensive as I do? Just curious? Maybe I'm overly sensitive.

(Next post)

Can't I quote a part of the verse???

Sure. Just don't get upset when someone else does the same thing.

End of the matter

Yeah. That's the problem, right there. You think you possess the Truth already, so you refuse to keep looking.

If God is Truth then God has nothing to fear from questions. So why do you?

OK, I'm done for a while...

 

[Soul Searcher]

It is necessary IN Salvation, but it is NOT necessary FOR Salvation.

Is pen necessary? Answer: It is necessary to write, but it is not necessary for transportation. I don't think you will now tell me: Is it now necessary or not? Make up your mind!

My mind has not altered. It is baptism is not required. I have stated as much several times already and you know this. I do not believe in twisting words as you have done saying it is but it isn't. As for your pen question the answer is also no. It is not nessacary to write one can use a pencil for instance. As for transportation have you lost your mind or what? This has nothing to do with anything.

I was talking about the entrance of your house. I don't think you prefer to put a window there.
And I didn't mean a door without a lock.

Try to live in a house without a door, and you will see why that door is so essential.

A door is convient but not mandatory.

He believed in the coming Christ, but he was not baptized. And I don't see where the problem is.

There is no problem because baptism is not a requirement.

I never said that baptism is a bath.
And I never said that baptism has a saving power.
I clearly mentioned that baptism is not the door to enter ( Jesus Christ is the door ) .
But baptism is the door that seals your house of faith.

It is a ritual and nothing more. Didn't you say that you don't interpret scripture. What would you call your take on baptism? I see it as a poor interpretation.

Jesus clearly said that the Bible is the Word of God.
And Genesis 1 clearly says that God created everything by His Word.

For the last time no he did not. He did not mention the bible at all. The bible did not even exist. You are intentionally being dishonest and everyone knows it.

No, the English word "eternal" comes from "e-terna" which means "no-time". That might be no-time past or no-time future.

So you are in error when you say that eternity means a period of TIME that would be SHORT. Eternity is NO-time.

You missed the point competely I see. Not surprising really. What I was referring to is the way it is used in common language forever is more commonly used but occasionaly eternity is used.

Example I was in the checkout line forever or it was like an eternity that I had to wait. Likely either of these would actually be talking about a period of several minutes and we understand it as such.

I already told you what your error is: You think that all words that have the same root have the same meaning of the root.

No I do not think this, I did not tell you I think this. You are making it up and you are wrong. Yet a word does not take on a infite meaning when it is a form of a finite period.

aionion means eternal.

No it does not. Aidios does but that is not the word they used.

You are wasting your time. You think you know better than the Greek scholars...

I know better than people who have allowed thier beliefs in an eternal hell to taint thier perception.

A link to people who do not know Greek?

I offered a link to explain the meaning of the word in detail. I take it that you are not interested?

Yes. I am from a people speaking an indo-european language like the Greek. We have many words that receive a new meaning by just transforming them to plural. Example: The plural of power means Army

What? Powers=Army

We have seen clearly how the Bible says that many will not be saved.

No we have not. Not a single verse say that anyone will not be saved. Not to mention that even if there was a verse that says so or even a hundred it would only prove that there is a contradiction because it does say that all will be saved.

Jesus is very clear here. Many will not find the narrow gate of Salvation.

Few there be that find it yes. You interpret this to mean that many will not be saved but you don't interpret do you? So how do you interpret and not interpret? You talk in circles and say little of meaning.

OK. We have understood that fire is a symbol of judgment. But what about the lake of fire?

Fire is a sign of God, of repentance, of purification, of light and warmth of life. Brimstone is or was thought of as a purifing agent and God himself is said to be a consuming fire. J.T.B. said that he who comes after me will baptise you with fire [lake of fire?] and the holy spirit.

To summarize the bible says that we shall be salted with fire, baptised with fire, tried by fire and saved by fire and that God is a consuming fire.
One could rightfully say that it is God who will baptise us, salt us, try us and save us.

The purity of gold? Is Satan gold for you?

The gold is good things. I would not expect you to understand.

Anyway, the full definition:

1. to test (metals) by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal
2. to question by applying torture
3. to torture
4. to vex with grievous pains (of body or mind), to torment
5. to be harassed, distressed
   1. of those who at sea are struggling with a head wind

I hope you didn't mean to quote only the definition that you liked...

I quoted the primary, the one that fits the scripture.

The first definition cannot be used for Satan and his children. Cf. the next definitions

You think not? So you think that you are better than those who you think of as Satans children? What about Peter are you better than him as well?

Did Satan obey God in the story of Job? Did Peter do well or was he unsavable?

All creatures contain both good and evil, wheat and tares, gold and stubble. Every last one of them. The bible goes on to say that all things shall be made new, that there shall be no more suffering [would be a lie if there was eternal suffering] no more death [would be a lie if there was eternal death] no more tears [would be a lie if there was eternal weeping] That God will give freely of the waters of life to any who is athrist. That every creature on earth, under the earth and in heaven shall praise him. Every knee shall bend and every tongue shall swear. Every man shall be tried by fire and every man will gain reward and/or suffer loss but every man will be saved as by fire. This is what the bible says.

Yes, see the FULL definition above...

Yes I am fully aware of the variants of the definition but when we let scripture interpret scripture or as you say let God interpret scripture we are pointed to the 1st definition which shows it to be a good and constructive thing which is exactly what one would expect from a God who cares about his creation and wants to save them.

If you enter the narrow gate, you will suffer in repentance, but you will be saved. But if you don't enter by the narrow gate, you will suffer forever in hell.

Nonsense. The bible says no such thing.

When a creature is not pure, God does not test him; He JUDGES him with eternal hell.

More nonsense. No creature is pure, not one, all creatures are tested every single one of them and there is no such place as eternal hell. You are wrong in every facet.

A fallen angel.

I guess now you are going to tell me that his name was Lucifer and he was a perfect angel of light.. or in other words more nonsense that does not appear in the bible.

Mark 16:16 is part of the Bible, and if you have any problem with that, you can go discuss it in its place.

Mark 16:16 is part of bibles. I would guess most of them not sure about all of them but it is not part of the oldest manuscripts which means that it was added later by most likely a different person. The fact that it is there now only shows that those who compiled the bible picked the wrong copy.

As for John's passage that you are mentioning, I prefer to comment when you quote it.

So don't comment then.

The Bible is clear about the COMING Day of Judgment.

Yes it clearly speaks of a coming judgment of that there is no doubt.

And, no dear friend, no one is thrown in hell without judgment. And Jesus clearly says that whoever doesn't believe in Him is ALREADY judged.

No he did not. You are changing words again aren't you. The bible says that he who does not believe is condemned already. Yet that does not mean what you seem to think that it means, in fact it is not even close to what you seem to think. That same person who does not believe today may believe tomorrow. Then what? Your logic is not logical and does not follow the bible.

The dead today do not have bodies. Souls are in hell. But they wait for their bodies in which they will be judged with the eternal judgment.

So they are in hell but they have not yet been judged, but yet hell is eternal, yet hell shall give up the dead and they shall be judged and then thrown into hell which no longer exists and tortured forever for no apparent purpose other than to fulfill your dogma or satisfy some unquenchable anger from a God of love?

Nonsense.

So you must repent of your self-righteousness as you think you live a godly life and do not need to repent.

You are without a doubt the most annoying and arrogant person I have ran into yet. I do not go around judging everybody like you seem to be doing. Take your own advice and stop trying to pick splinters until you can see.

The problem with many people is that they don't know that ALL humans need to repent, whether they are Christians or pagan, whether they think they are good or bad.

The problem is with many "so called" Christains that preach for others to repent is that they do not even know what it means.

We have seen that hell is the lake of fire.

We? hell is tossed into the lake of fire according to the bible. Hell is never referred to as the lake of fire anywhere in the bible. They are clearly not the same thing and you are incorrect as usual.

I am a big sinner and I repented. I live in repentance. I don't have anything good in me to boast of, so how can I be self-righteous? I trust in Christ who is all in all.

You seem to think that you can see others hearts and know that others have or have not repented. You keep reapeating your repent or burn message and you have no clue what you are talking about. If you want my opinion you need to repent of your actions right here on this forum. You do not seem fit to judge others and frankly none of us like it.

And I call you to repent now before it's too late. Sin leads to eternal hell.

And what is my sin mr knowitall but don't know anything?

 

[KCDAD]

"God repented means God turned from what He would do."

So I repent if I don't do what I say I am going to do? I thought that was was being dishonest, untrustworthy and a liar... I am supposed to be like God, right?

 

[Soul Searcher]

First, I want to remind you that you were opposing the fact that there is a FUTURE judgment. I hope this verse that YOU quoted helps you be convinced.

Well as usual you are wrong. I have never said that there is no future judgment. Where do you get this from? Do you have any clue what you are talking about?

The version you used - and clearly mentioned the version this time - gives a wrong translation of the Greek word "hades". Hades is not exactly gehenna ( hell, the lake of fire ) . As I told you before, the souls of the wicked are in hell now, and that's hades. They are waiting for their bodies, and then hades will deliver them up to be judged to eternal hell ( gehenna ) .

Actually the word hell comes from a word that is more similar in meaning to the words sheol and hades and nothing at all like Gehenna. In case you didn't know [I will assume you do not] Hel is where we get hell and Hel is both the goddess of the underworld and the place of the underworld just like Hades is the god of the underworld as well as the underworld. Ironically hel is a frigid place not hot at all hence the phrase cold as hell. Hades became known as the unseen because he [the god hades] rarely ventured forth above ground and was thus unseen. Sheol referred to a hidden place of the dead of shadow, Hell also meant to cover or conceal. Therefore all three words had a meaning of somehow conceled from sight and most accurately could be considered grave or tomb or the hidden place of spirits.

Gehenna on the other hand was a real physical place and translating this as hell is actually a very poor translation but that is beside the point. You have been telling us again and again that the Bible is the Word of God. Now you say that the Bible is in error because it literally says that Hell shall give up its dead. Then you go on to say that Gehenna is the lake of fire. There is no lake in Gehhena of scripture it was a garbage dump and now it is a park and quite lovely.

So the Bible NEVER says that hell will give up its dead.

So I guess now the looming question is what is "THE BIBLE" the KJV is the most widely recogizned version and you say it is wrong so what is the bible in your view and what makes you think that it is the right one?

I don't see where hell is thrown in the lake of fire. The lake of fire itself is hell, where physical death and the dwelling of souls in hades find their place for all eternity.

Yes.. because apparently you picked a different version of the bible. Yet the bible does say what I said it did. I can not help it if you deny that the bible is the bible.

So I don't see how you imagine that hell will be empty.

The lake of fire is never referred to as hell in any bible that I have ever saw. Yet it is almost always referred to as hell by the blind turn or burn crowd who do not understand scripture such as yourself.

All sinners need to repent. And all humans are sinners.

As you feel bad when I tell you that you need to repent, this shows that you didn't repent yet.

What makes you think I feel bad? You have no such power. I feel insulted that you keep presuming to know me when you do not. You keep insinuating that everyone here is an unrepentant sinner. No it does not make me feel bad. It makes me angry and I would suggest that you stop doing it.

Why are you always failing?

I fail to see your interpretation because I refuse to lie to myself. I see that the bible actually says one thing and I see you say that it clearly says something else that it does not actually say at all. I guess I was being kind to say I fail to see how you arrive at that interpretation. It actually seems like you are just to proud to admit when you are wrong.

That passage clearly says that Jonah knew that God would forgive them if they repent, because He is a Compassionate and Gracious God. That's His nature. And that's why He sent Jonah to Nineveh, and Jonah knew it since he was in his hometown.

No it doesn't.. Let me give you a clue here..

If a sentence says I will forgive them if they do this.
Then it clearly says I will forgive them if they do this.
If the sentence says I will destroy them in 40 days
It does not clearly say that I will forgive them if they do this. It does clearly say that I will destory them in 40 days.

If you don't see this in that text, then I wonder if you know English.

Apparently a lot better than you do.

And I have explained this in detail. God accepted their repentance.

God changed his mind.

The Bible is written by God through men in the language of men. God repented means God turned from what He would do. Did He change anything? No. He accepted their repentance that didn't surprise Him.

So when you call us to repent you mean that we should turn from what we would provided they repent to us? Or are you just making it up as usual?

And why does the text say that? Did you even think about that? Did you think why God sent Jonah to tell them that? Was it not to lead them to repentance?

I think the story wasn't thought out real well to be honest.

1) ...

as usual, no complete quote.

Where did He lie? Didn't He tell Jonah to go preach to the people of Nineveh??

He said to tell them in 40 days the city would be destroyed. It wasn't. Do you have another definition?

By the way: How did you know that God didn't lie? Who told you that?

God didn't write it

Friend, Jonah clearly said that he knew God would forgive them when they repent. What are you now inventing?

No he did not say any such thing. Funny how you claim not to interpret scripture yet you change it quite a lot and claim that it clearly says things that it does not say.

Why don't you like to accept what God clearly says in His Word? Is it because you are not humble?

Apparently we have a huge difference in the understanding of what clear means. For example to me a clear stream would be one where one can easily see through the water all the way to the bottom. Yours seems to be one that is brown with mud and the bottom totally hidden.

After all, the blind cannot see the sun.

I'll take your word for it since I am not blind and can see.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

What? Powers=Army

I think Yaqubos is saying that this is the case in some particular (unspecified) indo-european language. I don't doubt that may be the case, but it's just a random example to demonstrate that sometimes a word can be derived from another but with a somewhat different meaning. So what?

So how do you interpret and not interpret? You talk in circles and say little of meaning.

So, you noticed that, too, huh?

Fire is a sign of God, of repentance, of purification, of light and warmth of life. Brimstone is or was thought of as a purifing agent and God himself is said to be a consuming fire. J.T.B. said that he who comes after me will baptise you with fire [lake of fire?] and the holy spirit.

To summarize the bible says that we shall be salted with fire, baptised with fire, tried by fire and saved by fire and that God is a consuming fire.

Hmm. That's a really interesting idea... I need to think about that!

No I have one of my favorite pieces from Handel's Messiah in my head ("for He is like a refiner's fiiiiiiiire!") Thanks!

You seem to think that you can see others hearts and know that others have or have not repented. You keep reapeating your repent or burn message and you have no clue what you are talking about. If you want my opinion you need to repent of your actions right here on this forum. You do not seem fit to judge others and frankly none of us like it.

Glad I'm not alone there. Quibble: *no-one* is fit to judge others. And I seem to remember that the Bible says so... so where does that leave Yaqubos, then...?

 

[Soul Searcher]

KCDAD & SS: do you find this as offensive as I do? Just curious? Maybe I'm overly sensitive.

Yes I find it offensive as well.

I think it is about time to make use of the ignore feature once again.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Hmm. That's a really interesting idea... I need to think about that!

No I have one of my favorite pieces from Handel's Messiah in my head ("for He is like a refiner's fiiiiiiiire!") Thanks!

Glad I could be of service

Glad I'm not alone there. Quibble: *no-one* is fit to judge others. And I seem to remember that the Bible says so... so where does that leave Yaqubos, then...?

Agreed *no one*.

 

[KCDAD]

"God repented means God turned from what He would do."

So I repent if I don't do what I say I am going to do? I thought that was was being dishonest, untrustworthy and a liar... I am supposed to be like God, right?

I want you to respond to this...

 

[YAQUBOS]

Let's take a look at your logic.


If God is not responsible for his creation, would you also say that parents are not responsible for the actions of their children?

God didn't create sin. Sin is not a certain creation about which we are talking. Sin is our rebellion against God's Will by our free will.

How would God be responsible of what YOU did?

Your mature son kills a person, and you enter to jail... Do you find this right?

OK.. more on this late. Here is the real problem.



Where did Adam's sin come from? Eve? Who created Eve? The serpent? Who created the serpent? The apple tree? Who created the apple tree?

Adam's sin was not a visitor that came from somewhere. As soon as Adam disobeyed God, that was SIN.

By the way: There is not an apple tree in the whole matter...

God is not responsible again, because we "inherited" sin nature... not the sin itself...

Do you know what you are talking about? Yes, we inherited the sinful nature from Adam. Where exactly is your problem here?

What is this? Now I am responsible for the rest of mankind's sin and forgiveness?

No, you're not. But when you ask God not to create humanity just because you don't want to repent, then you show how much you prefer all mankind to perish than you to repent!

Good creation? What about the serpent, tree or Eve... which ever you want to blame for the original sin... If it were good as you say... can evil come from God?

The serpent was not evil.
No tree in the garden was evil.
Eve was not evil.
And original sin didn't come from somewhere.

So I don't see what is your argument.

Do you think God is responsible for stillborn babies?

No, God is not responsible negatively of the results of our sinfulness.

Tell that to the millions born or sold into slavery.
If he knew we would sin, why be upset about it?

God is not responsible of our sins.

Wow. I don't hate my parents at all... not even a little... you sure this isn't about your problems with your parents and not about God?

Go to the context of my answer that you quoted here, and you will know how much irrelevant is your comment here.

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Well at least we have some new logical fallacies to play with (red herrings and strawmen were getting tedious). This one, however, is pretty standard for you: semantic shift. (Unfortunately this is a form of red herring because the point is you're completely ignoring the meat of the argument and instead playing with some words.) "Interpret", in the context of textual analysis, does not imply perfect understanding of the intent of the author. That's why it's *an* interpretation, not *the* interpretation. Everyone does this when reading; everyone *has* to do it because no-one can read the mind of another. Go back and read what I actually wrote: "You read words, you try to understand what they mean, you then decipher the meaning of the text". That's what "interpret" means.

And I am saying that we can't interpret God's Word. We better ask HIM what He means, and no need to speculate about His intent.

Another new fallacy. And this one's pretty easy to spot. Let's look closely... "

the Bible interprets the Bible". Yes, folks, we have a Begging the Question. Or Circular Reasoning, if you prefer. Not only is that statement a perfect example in and of itself, but it also works so nicely in the context. I say "when you read the Bible, you make an interpretation" and you reply "but the Bible makes an interpretation of itself" to which I say something like "but then how do you get *that* interpretation?" By reading the Bible? Hey, look at that nice circle we just completed -- we appear to be right back where we started. And if not by reading the Bible... how exactly?

You just said that we can't say anything that doesn't need interpretation.

For example: The bird's color is yellow.

Please, tell me about the different interpretations of this sentence

Then take this interpreting sentence: When you look at that bird, you see its beautiful yellow color on its wings.

You still didn't get this sentence. You still need interpretation...

You forgot that I didn't mean that we will read only sentences in the Bible. We have whole contexts.

So you get your "perfect" interpretation directly from God? Or from reading the Bible? Sounds like you just said the latter. So, that's begging the question, as I've just demonstrated.

What if God tells you something directly. Don't you also need an interpretation ( according to your logic ) ? And when He explains it to you, don't you need an interpretation of that explanation?...

Well, we conclude that you mean we can't understand anything.

From a little later:

So now your interpretation comes directly from God. OK, so if it's the former, then why even enter these arguments, let alone quote the Bible in them? In that case, you have all the answers via a source unavailable to us, so your participation in these debates is unhelpful and, in fact, inflammatory. I might as well say "Adam had three legs because God told me so",

Yes, the Bible is what God tells us directly as His Word written through men of God led by the Spirit.

By the way: Quote the Bible saying that Adam had three legs, and I will certainly believe that. But the problem is that you can't quote the Bible saying that. You are just inventing problems.

then dodge and weave while others try to disprove me, safe in the knowledge that I always have the safe escape "I know I'm right and you're all destined for hell for not believing me/God". (Hmm, sounds like the behavior of someone in this thread...)

As I am not right, that's why I prefer to listen to what GOD says. God is right.

The interesting part in your arguments is that they are built on nothing. As soon as we take a concrete example, your arguments fall down very quickly. Example: How much it is difficult to understand the following:

"Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent" ( Acts 17:30 )

Can we say that the part in bold may mean that some humans can continue without repenting?

So, simple question: is there any point to discussing things using the rules of logic and debate, and starting with the bare text (the Bible) available to us? If so, why do you refuse to do so? If not, why are you wasting our time?

Yes, let's listen to what God is telling us, instead of objecting to what He is saying.

Oh I see what you did there: you didn't address the question (and threw in a subtle ad hominim for good measure, along with a repeated fallacy from above). You're *VERY* good at that. So let me repeat the question, in the vain hope that you'll actually answer it one day: "

Do you or do you not possess the humility to believe that someone else might have useful input to a discussion? If not, have the guts to say so, so that I can ignore you from now on. If so, how about demonstrating it?"

Yes, many people SURELY have useful inputs to a DISCUSSION. But I am not here to object to what God is saying. I am here to declare what He says.

And while we're here, I also notice (believe it or not, I'm moderately good at noticing logical flaws) that you haven't actually answered a single one of my logical critiques. I called all your logical fallacies by name, but you haven't yet disproven a single one. You haven't even tried.

Because I am not trying to interpret or discuss God's Word. I am accepting it just as it is said.

Which is the same thing as threatening me with hell. If you think I have already repented then why are you bothering to say this? If not (and I can provide plenty of examples that demonstrate that this is the case) then you are judging me (which is not for you to do) and declaring that, as a result, I will go to hell.

ALL humans need to repent. There is nothing called "I have already repented, so now I can disobey God as much as I want and not live in repentance".

So calling you to repentance doesn't mean that I am judging you.

But you're not, so stop it. I've asked you once, I won't ask again.

I am, but you never called me to repentance.

The Bible calls us to test ourselves to see whether we are in the Faith:

"Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?" ( 2 Corinthians 13:5 )

I am not doing anything more than reminding you of this verse.

Good. So then I'll use your standard of not judging anyone except for what they've written, and I'll conclude that I see Jesus Christ in me more than I seem Him in you... so then... what? I guess I should start telling you to repent before you go to hell, right?

Quote the Bible saying that we should repent or else we go to hell, then tell me that as much as you want. But don't ever preach me your human ideas and words. So it's not enough to "see Jesus Christ in you more than me". You must read God saying something in His Word and then preach it to everyone. Don't preach YOUR words, but the Word of God.

See how this can work both ways? See why it's repugnant that you're the only one doing it?

You never quoted the Bible about the fact that I must repent. When you do it, we will see if it is repugnant.

Oh, right, because you're in full possession of the perfect truth. I keep forgetting that. There's no possibility that you're wrong about something. So you can patronize me by claiming that you think my beliefs are sincere, but wrong, so it's ok to keep preaching at me, against my wishes.

ONLY God possesses the Truth.

To be continued...

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Again, how can you not see that that cuts both ways? "I possess the Truth! I know I do, because God said so! And God says to you, Yaqubos, that you must stick a pencil up your nose or be forever infested by head lice. I know you sincerely believe that's not true, but God told me it is! I don't want you to be infested with lice (honest!), so please stick a pencil up your nose before it's too late. And every time you disagree with me, I'll tell you to stick a pencil up your nose instead of rebutting your arguments with logic!"

See how annoying that might get?

Just quote the Bible saying that, and we will see if it annoys me.

Furthermore, all that aside, I have now asked you to stop that behavior. Whether or not it was a breach of CF protocol, I have now formally and clearly asked you to stop. That request does not impinge upon your rights or beliefs, so if you do not, *that will* be a breach of the rules.

That's YOUR interpretation of the rules.

Oh puleeeease. Being a wee bit overdramatic are we? Or are you honestly comparing yourself to the first Christian martyrs? Get a grip.

I am not COMPARING myself. I am telling you whose disciple I am. I am the disciple of that same Lord whose martyrs were those first Christians.

Oh the irony. I thought we could read without interpretation? Or is that just the Bible, for some magical reason?

And who said that those rules are put by God?

Oh woe! Woe!!! WOOOOE!

And the Oscar goes to...

To your credit, you did find a way to at least pause on carrying through with my threat: I'd hate to actually get you banned, because that would just reinforce your martyr complex.

You are so weak before the courage of a Christian.

No-one. That's why this is yet another strawman. The whole point is that a loving God would *hate* to see His creations suffer.

Yes, He doesn't want to see you suffering. That's why He calls you to repent.

Oh, fortheloveof..., I guess I'll restate the argument one more time. (Like you'll actually read it carefully this time, when you haven't the last 28 times, but still...) God would hate to see His creations suffer b/c God is Love. God knows in advance that this will happen b/c God is omniscient. So why does God through with the plan? It would be more humane (so to speak) to not create the universe at all, or to ensure somehow that no-one ends up suffering (infinitely). A perfect God would have realized this.

He had known this. And that's why Jesus Christ died and rose so that no one who believes in Him will suffer that eternal punishment.

So then how does anyone avoid hell?

By being cleansed of all his sins.

It can't be through works, b/c human nature is sinful and no amount of good works will change that. So it must be through... letmeguess... faith in Jesus. Am I right? OK, great. So why does that work? It doesn't change our nature.

It doesn't change your nature. It crucifies your old nature, and gives you a NEW nature:

"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." ( 2 Corinthians 5:17 )

If it did, no Christians would ever sin again, and we know that's not true.

And who said that Christians have already received the glorified bodies? Did the resurrection already happen?

(And if that's proof that you haven't really put your faith in Jesus, or something similar, then we still all end up in hell, b/c everyone continues to sin, ergo no-one has put their faith in Jesus.)

No, that's not the proof that you have not put your faith in Christ. On the contrary! If you say you have not sinned, you prove that you don't have faith.

So we still have a sinful nature. By your argument, we can't enter Heaven. So it has to be something more. Like, say, God accepts Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf and *forgives us*. That last bit's fairly important because if implies that God has the option to forgive us. So why all the rigmarole with the crucifying and the baptizing and the magic creeds and so forth? Why not just forgive, based on His examination of our hearts?

He has examined our hearts and found that we all are SINNERS and deserve eternal hell.

Believing "magic" creeds does not save. You need to be born of God. "For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation." ( Galatians 6:15 )

But you're assuming a lot about the Nature of God right there, which is effectively begging the question. Oh, right, except that you know everything about God already. Sorry. See, I told you I keep forgetting that. If you weren't perfect in your knowledge, I might suggest that perhaps God is perfectly capable of perfecting us, or perhaps God is perfectly capable of forgiving us and then perfecting us, or... an infinite number of other possibilities.

Yes, that's what I am saying: God is able to perfect us. And NOW is the time for that. You need to be saved of your sins NOW. Repent and believe the Gospel.

I can forgive someone without requiring them to make full restitution of their wrongs; why can't God (who is, y'know, a bit better than me in ... let's see... oh, right, every way imaginable).

Yes, God is calling you to accept His FREE forgiveness of all your sins, without any restitution you may make to earn that forgiveness and perfection. Do you accept that forgiveness? If yes, then repent and believe the Gospel. If no, then you think you don't need that forgiveness and Salvation.

See, unlike you, I'm happy to admit that I can't know all the possibilities in the Mind of God. I don't know what the right answer is; that's why I'm searching for it.

Yes, but humility means to accept what God says about what His mind is about all this.

Having someone yak on repeatedly about how they've got the right answer and here it is, without any logical structure to back it up, doesn't really help.

Listening to what GOD says helps the most.

It certainly isn't going to sway me. So if you're genuinely concerned about my eternal welfare, please stop preaching and start addressing my points logically. Or just admit that you can't and at least impress me with your honesty.

You ask me to stop preaching and to use human wisdom. Look what the Word of God tells you:

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;
but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,
but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." ( 1 Corinthians 1:18-24 )

If you will repent, it is by hearing the message preached, not by human wisdom.

Quibbling. I understand that. Move on.

Oop. Looks like I hit the word limit. Alright. Cut and paste into two posts. Grr.

May the Lord bless you richly, dear friend.

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

(Continuing...)


Ahahaha. So, again, now who's interpreting? (Oh, right, God, I'm sure, via his perfect conduit: you.)

No, God interprets His Word by His Word. Read the context.

Look, follow closely here. You quote the Bible ... a lot. You do so to make a point. You even underline specific phrases or words and then say "ergo: my point; see, God says so". OK, fine. So then you must admit that that's a valid argument technique. And to do that, you have to claim that each word in the Bible is unambiguously chosen by God. If not, then 90% of your arguments are on very shaky ground, because you haven't proven that the word you've underlined in your argument is reliable.

No, each word in the Bible is not chosen by God, but it is the exact written Word of God. And the Word of God is not words here and words there, but the whole Word of God is ONE Word. So each time you read a word, look to its context and don't try to give it the meaning YOU want.

So, which is it? (So far) Are the words of the Bible precise and reliable? Or are 90% of your arguments now open for revision?

All the words of the Bible are precise and reliable as parts of the ONE Word, and not as subjects to human interpretations. ONLY God can interpret His Word.

Let's assume that you'll take Reliability for $100, Alex. OK, so then why am I not allowed to do exactly what you do? I took a passage and I highlighted a word.

And then added YOUR interpretation. And when I quoted the Bible to interpret that passage, you didn't like it.

That word was mankind. That means mankind. Everyone. All of Man. Every descendant of Adam. Man. Kind. Mankind. There are other words available, you see, if you don't mean "everyone". You could say "I will wipe the unrighteous from the face of the earth". Or "I will wipe the wicked" or "those who haven't repented" or "everyone except Bob" or ... But God didn't say that. God said "mankind". So, again, which is it: (A) the Bible isn't the inerrant Word of God, (B) God misspoke/lied/couldn't think of the right word/etc, (C) God meant "mankind" when He said "mankind"?

God meant the mankind about which the context is talking. Which mankind? The only mankind available and who are SINNERS. So God judges sin, and saves the repentant sinner.

And if that doesn't convince you (because, y'know, it's just logic and stuff -- that's never convinced you in the past), how about this:

Let me requote that verse: So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

OK. Now let me quote this same passage IN CONTEXT, and let's see how much it is bad to quote passages without their context:

Gen 6:7 "The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."
Gen 6:8 "But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD."

Alrighty then. "Men and animals". Interesting. Does God wipe out all the animals? I seem to remember something about Noah having some animals on board the ark. So now we're in the same dilemma. Did God lie? Or did He change his mind? Or, using your very own ad hoc workaround, did He just spare the righteous animals? And there just happened to be exactly two righteous kangaroos, two righteous elephants, two righteous ring-tailed lemurs, etc. (Every other lemur was a right *&$^# -- they got what was coming to 'em.) Also, it doesn't say that any animals found favor with God.

And who said that those animals were perishing because of THEIR sins???

And when they are saved from the Flood, it is not for THEIR righteousness.

So answer that, please. With no red herrings or other dodges of the question. God said He would wipe all the animals from the earth. He didn't. Explain:

Done already.

Oh goody. Let's see what fun lies in store.

You're playing here? What about your soul?

No, it said "mankind" which means righteous and unrighteous alike. Because it means "everyone". I'm not going over this again. See above.

No, it doesn't mean the righteous and unrighteous alike, because there is NO ONE righteous. So make sure you read the context carefully. Noah was not saved because he had a righteousness of his own.

Seriously. I am being very patient. Stop. This. Now.

I'll skip the repetitions. I've made my argument pretty clear. Until you refute it logically, there's no point in me beating my head against a wall.

It's not me who is finding it ambiguous to choose between sin and God. Yes, it's about choosing between God and sin.

Begging the question. (Is that today's Fallacy of the Day? Are you in a mail-order club or something?) KCDAD has already dealt with this.

You gave no argument here. So I just pass.

To be continued...

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

I have stated that this is a strawman. Stop repeating it.

OK. So God created all humans because that doesn't forbid you from repenting.

So I don't see where your problem is.

DO. NOT. QUESTION. MY. BELIEFS. AGAIN.

I don't question your beliefs. I really believe you when you say that the Bible is not the Word of God. I really believe you.

Unless you go to hell for eternity. In which case it's infinitely bad.

Hell is the second death, and not life. So make sure you don't go off topic...

Yes, life is good in all cases.

Why couldn't a loving and omnipotent God prevent that?

He could. He is now calling you to accept what He did, or else He respects your free choice to go to hell.

(And do NOT bring up the possibility of salvation unless you are willing to take SS's view of the *certainty* of salvation. *Possible* salvation doesn't answer the question.)

The Salvation of those who repent and believe the Gospel is not only a possibility, but a CERTAINTY.

And, again, you are yet to convince me that you lose anything by not living at all. If the universe was never created, would you care?

I wouldn't exist to care. But in that case, God would not be God. God is a LOVING God. He is the Creator. That's His Nature.

(A) you have no evidence that I haven't, so stop it. Yes, my posts may *imply* that I haven't but I am arguing about a logical position -- I have not revealed my current beliefs about atonement (although I've raised the question in this post -- but not until this post).

Great. So if you believe in the Atonement, then you have the solution of God. We don't need to discuss it, but we only need to accept it, because it is GOD's solution.

(B) more importantly, see above. Possible salvation does not address my (repeated about 15 times) main argument; only certain salvation does (or some other non-atonement-based theology).

Atonement is a CERTAIN Salvation. But it is not a Salvation in which God disrespects human freedom.

Ah, so if someone in Tajikistan thinks "wow, people are really bad; there must be an infinite and perfect God that created the universe and, if so, that God must be really irked at me...; from now on, I swear I will be a better person" and honestly means it and really follows through with it..., they won't go to hell? Even if they don't say anything about Jesus? (And, just for argument's sake: they've heard the gospel, but it didn't do much for them. It sounded like some pretty fairly tales to them.)

If he really believes that ( that he will be able to be a better person ) , then he will certainly go to hell.

Salvation is not by good works and beautiful resolutions.

You did not just say that.

Either that was directed at me or it wasn't. If it wasn't, then it was irrelevant and inflammatory; I wait to hear your retraction of that worthless statement.

Thank you for admitting that this kind of speach is irrelevant and inflammatory. So stop saying it about my God, even if you just say it for the sake of argumentation, just as I did it here.

Or if was... I will wait for your apology. And report you if it doesn't come. That's defamation and that is definitely against CF rules. (And to heck with your persecution complex.)

OK. Let's agree on something: Be courageous and REPORT Poor fellow! It is YOU who needs to apologize for the bad things you said about my God! If you accept it when people say bad things about God, why don't you accept it when I say the right thing about you, i.e. that you are a sinner??!!

So then why are you so set on preaching at me repeatedly? If it doesn't matter what I believe or whether I'm baptized, what, precisely, is your point? That we will be judged according to the contents of our hearts? OK, cool. So why do I need to be baptized (at all)? Because your other posts say that baptism goes with "true repentance".

Yes, repentance and baptism go together. Please, try to get what I am really saying before you conclude wrong things! I never said that whether you believe or not it is the same. I said it's not a belief in any system, and it's not a bath. I didn't say it's not faith in a Person. And I never said that baptism is a bath. On the contrary, I clearly said that baptism is NOT a bath.

Please make a coherent argument. Please.

Look who's talking... Your strongest argument is a threatening to report...

When did I change my mind on this? And (oh look, back to red herrings), what does it matter if I did:

You keep refusing the Solution of God, although it is the same thing you are asking: purifying us from sin.

I don't know. See. I can say that. I can't know the workings of the Mind of God. That doesn't invalidate any of my arguments. I've presented an argument that I find compelling against your theology (of a loving God that willingly creates a universe knowing that it will result in ultimate suffering for some of His creations).

God has given the Solution. And He is NOT responsible for your sins.

By the way: Your argument has already fallen. You couldn't complete it by telling us how many years you need post mortem to purify yourself from all your sins and make your nature totally good.

You are yet to present a logical counterargument that proves your view is right. And just saying "well, what's your alternative?" doesn't achieve that. Analogy: you say "there are 5 stars in the universe"; I reply "but I can go outside at night and count at least 6"; responding "well, how many are there, then, smartypants?" doesn't save you.

I didn't give such an argument. YOU gave an alternative to contradict the solution of God. But we have seen that your alternative does not work: Even if you pass all the eternity trying to change your sinful nature by your sinful nature, that will not change anything.

So thank you for admitting your failure. And now use your strongest ( weakest ) weapon and report

May the Lord bless you richly!

YAQUBOS†

 

[KCDAD]

YAQUBOS;43616239God didn't create sin. Sin is not a certain creation about which we are talking. Sin is our rebellion against God's Will by our free will.

Sin is not a specific behavior is the attitude of rebellion... ok

How would God be responsible of what YOU did?

Where do attitudes come from?

Your mature son kills a person, and you enter to jail... Do you find this right?

Mature? How could Adam be considered mature... what was he... 3 or 4 days old?

Adam's sin was not a visitor that came from somewhere. As soon as Adam disobeyed God, that was SIN.

Where did the rebellion come from? Where did the attitude or idea to rebel come from?

By the way: There is not an apple tree in the whole matter...

Cute. Feel free to substitute fruit wherever you see apple, if it makes you more comfortable. APPLE APPLE APPLE

Do you know what you are talking about? Yes, we inherited the sinful nature from Adam. Where exactly is your problem here?

We inherited our attitude of rebelliousness? So it is genetic... that is, it is in our make up... who made us?

No, you're not. But when you ask God not to create humanity just because you don't want to repent, then you show how much you prefer all mankind to perish than you to repent!

Repent for what? Inheriting bad genes and attitudes? How is that our fault? Do you repent for being born with freckles or curly hair?

The serpent was not evil.
No tree in the garden was evil.
Eve was not evil.
And original sin didn't come from somewhere.

That is good to know.

No, God is not responsible negatively of the results of our sinfulness.

" If an Omnipotent God wants to stop your birth and the birth of many others, He would have to stop humanity. But He is a loving God. He created us to LIVE. And, although you don't know it, but life is GOOD."

If God created us to live, what is with stillborn babies? Are they going to hell? Are they human? How are they the result of our rebellious attitude?

God is not responsible of our sins.

I hear you, and I actually agree with you. The problem is, you have no idea why you are right... but the thing is, it is because sin is our invention.. God doesn't even recognize sin. We invented the whole concept.