Purveyor of Confusion

cvanwey · May 13, 2020

SPF said:
It completely addressed your inquiry.

'Fraid not.. See below.

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

Nice tautology. "If someone whom is not going to heaven commits this act, it does not matter. If a Christian never commits this act, then it does not matter."

Duh

Is this what [you] conclude about the 'translation of Matthew 12:32; that you agree with @dcalling ? "Non-Christians cannot commit this sin, and true believers never would?

SPF said:
One problem you will inevitably experience in your consistent attacks on Christianity VIA quoting singular verses is that you do not actually take the time necessary to look into Scripture.

Context matters, and one cannot just look at a singular verse and make assumptions. Also, Scripture informs Scripture, and so you need to take the totality of Scripture into account when seeking to understand something.

Oh yea? Kool

First of all, I'm challenging Christians, and their faith; in line with the CF rules of this forum. So when you say 'attack', you might want to find other more suitable and/or be-fitting 'words.'

Second, please tell me why my conclusion for Matthew 12:32 is incorrect, but @thomas_t , I mean @dcalling , I mean @Silly Uncle Wayne 's rendition is correct?

Third, I find it funny how you, along with some other Christians, seem to use this mode of 'defense', when we doubters bring up Scripture which makes you uncomfortable.... Reminds me of a youtube skit.

cvanwey · May 13, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
Regarding Matt. 25, they are saved by true faith and the sign of true faith is doing those works and not doing those works is a sign they did not have true faith.

I already addressed this in post #280. Nothing references 'faith'. Christ judges them by how much they help others; period.

the iconoclast · May 13, 2020

Hey @BigV, hey @cvanwey

I'm watching this thread and reading your replies.

I disagree with things you say

cvanwey · May 13, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
There isn't? Really? And what commentators on the Bible do you rely upon who say what you're saying here regarding blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and say it for the same exact reasons that you do?

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

I already said it. The verse eludes to 'speaking against' the Holy Spirit as an unforgivable sin. This is my translation of this verse. It appears axiomatic. I'm reading it literally. Furthermore, as stated much prior, 'blasphemy' is not well defined. The fact that God cares not to elaborate, seems to mean that the verse very well might mean what it says. Tell me WHY I'm wrong?

2PhiloVoid said:
Verses (or sentences in ANY written work of any kind) don't always and, by necessity, mean only that which they appear to mean when they are isolated from their respective place in a literary passage and subjected to an overly rigid prima facie reading. Or didn't you know this? C'mon, cvanway! You can do better than this.

Please see above.

cvanwey · May 13, 2020

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

False. I do not congregate in a religious setting, and follow any type of dogma. Unitarians do.

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

What does one being older than the next, matter in this scenario? Is Mark 'truer' than John, because it was presumably written before?

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

Not if Matthew 25:31-46 has anything to say about it.... Maybe a doubter, but in the back of their mind wonders or keeps their options on the table, and helps others often, is maybe revered above and beyond a claimant of 'true faith', whom lacks helping others as much.?.?.?

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
There are certainly different extremes, a spectrum and even an umbrella, but Unitarians are out in the rain.

Not if Matthew 25:31-46 has any hand within THE criteria

cvanwey · May 13, 2020

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

Post #363

"In my opinion, this is a passage spoken to Jews and then regurgitated in a Jewish gospel for the sole purpose of pointing out to Jews that their ideas of righteousness are completely wrong. See also Matthew 6:1"

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

How about if you have extreme doubts, ....someone like 'Richard Dawkins'...., whom has not 100% taken the claim off the table --- but helps others quite a lot? Then compare this to Matthew 25:31-46.

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

I'm afraid you are 'knee deep' in it...

So what IS your take on Matthew 12:32, if this was not all, in post #363?

Ed1wolf · May 13, 2020

cvanwey said:
Disagree. And I mentioned the entire passage (31-46), not just parts.

31 - When Jesus returns
32-33 - He will separate the saved from the unsaved; saved = right, unsaved = left
34 - The ones to the right, come with me
35 - 36 Because you helped me
37 - 39 The ones to right responded, "Jesus, we did not help you"
40 - Jesus states "no silly, by helping others, you helped 'Me' - it's a metaphor guys, get with the program"
41 - 43 - Jesus tells the ones on the left, you did not help, so I'm sending you guys to burn

etc.......

Even as a Christian, this parable looks to send the message that helping others IS the criteria for which Jesus will judge you. Thus, at BEST, to support [your] position, it's a combo of faith and works. But then the question becomes... How much faith, how much works?

And at worst, meaning, for all the ones whom read this passage and scratch their heads - (both Christians or just curious onlookers), it's quite possible Jesus' meter-stick for salvation is based upon humans helping other humans. -- Which is not necessary a 'bad' thing, in 'my book.'

The 'bad' part remains, is that we have confusion, from both believers and 'nitpickers', whom might be here to merely chastise Chapter and Verse.

No, if you read the very similar passage in John 5:28-29, you see what that means in more detail just before he says this. In John 5:24, He explains who is actually doing the good and who is doing the evil. Those who believe in Him and follow His teachings are doing the real good. So obviously you are taking Matthew 25 out of context.

Tom 1 · May 13, 2020

cvanwey said:
How is Matthew 25:31-36 odd? And why must I consider it less pronounced, verses say... John 3:16-18 or Romans 10:9-10?

‘odd’ as in random, picking this part and that randomly.

Tom 1 · May 14, 2020

cvanwey said:
Um, because He said 'what is' true. Thus, when He makes an assert, it means 'what is', true, whatever that may be... and not...

"Hey guys, I'm throwing out some general ideas. Why don't you humans hash things out, and see what you guys like, don't like, and want to augment accordingly."

As @thomas_t said prior, which seems to make sense; you read a verse. If the verse looks literal, you treat it literal. If you need to bring it into a specific context, you might need to do so accordingly (i.e.) parables, metaphors, etc...

The verse only means one thing. Thus, going back to Matthew 12:32, have we figured out what this one conclusion is????

You can look at my earlier post on that verse and respond to the question there if you like. Teach what is true - although I’m not sure which translation you are using there - is a long way from substantiating your notion that ‘god says truth is not debatable’. You’re making quite a leap there. That’s what happens when you don’t have a good grasp of the material, whatever it might be, that you’re trying to address, hence my suggestion earlier that, assuming you are trying to arrive at some understanding here rather than just pursue some trite point of your own invention, you try and develop a broader understanding of what you are asking about. Your mindset here is something like someone who, hearing about the existence of atoms and the forces (known and unknown) that lead them to configure into certain materials or shapes, refuses to accept that a table is anything other than a table - it’s solid, real, it’s a table - not a collection of atoms with space between them. For whatever reason your mind has locked in to some basic notion you think is supported by elements of a much broader picture, and that you can pursue your notion without having any understanding of that broader picture. To put it concisely, it doesn’t work.

thomas_t · May 14, 2020

BigV said:
No baptism required for salvation?

no. Baptism as I see it, is but the second step, it makes you enter the church.
Repentance is what you expect from someone declaring Jesus as Lord. See Luke 5:32.
That's the first thing he tells everyone to do.
I assume, if somebody does not want to repent... he won't declare Jesus as Lord in the first place.

2PhiloVoid · May 14, 2020

cvanwey said:
I already said it. The verse eludes to 'speaking against' the Holy Spirit as an unforgivable sin. This is my translation of this verse. It appears axiomatic. I'm reading it literally. Furthermore, as stated much prior, 'blasphemy' is not well defined. The fact that God cares not to elaborate, seems to mean that the verse very well might mean what it says. Tell me WHY I'm wrong?

Sure. I'll be more than happy to tell you 'why' you're wrong. You're wrong because the narrative offered involves blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in an instance where the Holy Spirit indeed "shows up" and does something superlative and marvelous (....like, say, healing an amputee or something), but then all the onlookers (Pharisees) can do, being the rigidly minded, envious, pompous spiritual bastards that they are, is to then spew out something like the following, in articulations befitting a 5 year old ....

.........."NO! NO! NO! NO! ................ IT'S THE DEVIL'S WORK !!!"

And then we know they've committed something rather dastardly because we see, then, Jesus saying in that same narrative to those unfortunate criticizers of the Holy Spirit that they are refusing the very person they so say they...............................worship.

So, IF they refuse, directly and essentially to the face, the very God they think they worship, then there's really nothing else that can be done for them, or in them, by which they can be reconciled to God. They've cut themselves off from God.

But to blasphemy God simply because one hasn't been directly demonstrated to by God, or to do so because one isn't in a good frame of mind, is bad and a form of blasphemy, but it isn't necessarily 'blasphemy' of the Holy Spirit.

So, again, Context(s) is King as it always is when we read and attempt to understand the Bible.

Please see above.

No, you see the above. And then, see about a dozen books and/or sources on hermeneutics and the bible.

dcalling · May 14, 2020

cvanwey said:
Second, please tell me why my conclusion for Matthew 12:32 is incorrect, but @thomas_t , I mean @dcalling , I mean @Silly Uncle Wayne 's rendition is correct?

We already addressed it multiple times, and I showed you again and again (to the point you starting to ignore me since you don't like what I said), that when the text clearly separated blasphemy against God and against Holy Spirit, you keep mixing the 2.

So while @thomas_t @dcalling, @Silly Uncle Wayne 's rendition MIGHT NOT be totally correct, we all know your rendition is incorrect since you are trying to mix what's clearly different (but related), i.e. God and Holy Spirit.

It is like when I say that spit on my foot is forgivable but spit on my face is not, you insist that food and face is the same.

BigV · May 14, 2020

thomas_t said:
no. Baptism as I see it, is but the second step, it makes you enter the church.
Repentance is what you expect from someone declaring Jesus as Lord. See Luke 5:32.
That's the first thing he tells everyone to do.
I assume, if somebody does not want to repent... he won't declare Jesus as Lord in the first place.

Thanks for that clarification. So, when you said earlier that to be saved, an Atheist needs to believe and declare Jesus Christ to be Lord, they ALSO need to repent.

Now, what is repentance, in your view, now that we've established it's necessary to salvation?

BigV · May 14, 2020

the iconoclast said:
I'm watching this thread and reading your replies.

I disagree with things you say

Well, I think we can agree to disagree.

Silly Uncle Wayne · May 14, 2020

cvanwey said:
Believe it or not, when I was a believer, I was more in your camp....

However, when you read Matthew 25:31-46, show me where it refers to faith? You will not find it. Hence, it leaves the reader scratching their head.

It does, however, mention righteousness and righteousness requires Faith. You can't be right before God if you don't trust him. So when you say 'the reader' you mean yourself, rather than everyone. And this wouldn't be an issue if you already understood salvation is by faith in Jesus.

I've already pointed that a) parables aren't a good method of determining theology: they generally have a purpose that isn't necessarily about the story being told but rather the story is an analogy for real life; and b) this parable was spoken to Jews in a Jewish context and later written down in a gospel aimed at Jews. It does not appear in either of the other synoptic gospels, both written with a gentile audience in mind.

So as a Jew (1st century at least) this is an indictment on the idea that the rich and privileged are more righteous than the poor and despised. And as a Christian we see it in the light of Faith and Works; i.e. faith in Jesus has consequences.

BigV · May 14, 2020

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
It does, however, mention righteousness and righteousness requires Faith. You can't be right before God if you don't trust him. So when you say 'the reader' you mean yourself, rather than everyone. And this wouldn't be an issue if you already understood salvation is by faith in Jesus.

Nope. In Matthew 25: 31-46, there is a story about a King (God, the Judge) who will decide on the destiny of people based solely on what they had done. And we are told the people will be suprised by the outcome. Those who are going to heaven will be surprised and those going to hell will be surprised too.

cvanwey · May 14, 2020

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
I'm not actually sure what the issue is here. I can't speak on behalf of every Christian group on every issue. I tell you what I think and why it is a reasonable stance to hold.

Well, for three reasons.

1. You claim you are a theologian.
2. You answered the question.
3. You choose what you will and will not engage upon.

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

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

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

It's been said that Catholics currently, or once thought, that if an infant died without baptism from original sin, they end up in 'limbo' eternal. I was brought up in this 'thought' process as well. Not sure how many still think this?.?.?

But the bigger question remains... Truth is unchanging. Hence, what IS the right answer? Were the Catholics wrong then, or are they wrong now? And how do you know?

You see how the confusion mounts, at virtually every turn?

cvanwey · May 14, 2020

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

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

Then there would be many, whom I have spoken to first hand, whom teach Hermeneutics none-the-less, whom would state [you] are mistaken. And that the Bible IS the perfect Word of God. They are armed and ready to 'support' every supposed contradiction, tell me that all verse is literal, and also will tell both me and the rest how they are not well versed enough to interpret - if they conclude something different than their view(s).

Which begs the question....

If Hermeneutics IS the standard, how can some read the same very verse, but get differing answers?

A few years ago, I was attending my wife's chosen church, a non-denominational branch. I noticed one pastor there was a young-earther. I noticed another pastor was an old-earther. I requested to debate both of them simultaneously, to get to the bottom of the matter. I wanted to find out how they could view the same text, and get differing conclusions, and both support them with evidence just-the-same.

Their answer.... 'We will not invite discord among us brothers."

Seems as though religion is often sheltered in such a way; from inquiry and investigation. Maybe this is one of the reasons why I hang out so much here....?

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

Why is it [your] provided verse, and NOT instead John 1:1? Just curious?

agapelove said:
As stated above I think it becomes a problem when we begin to idolize the Bible too much and believe that it is the only way God can talk to us. God reaches people through prayer,

Not me. And I tried for 3 decades. The only thing I've seen, with tangible evidence, which is claimed to be from Him, is the Bible. Everything else is anecdotal. And these claims are a dime a dozen.

agapelove said:
And if you think that God's primary purpose is to be understood by all people then you do not know God.

Well, I've never met God, so I would not know. But it seems like He wants to know us, based upon what I've read.

agapelove said:
Take the story of the Tower of Babel. I think God fits the title of Purveyor of Confusion fairly well. I don't know why God intends to keep us ignorant of His intentions but I believe He has good reason.

Seems kind of 'cruel', if you ask me. He wants you to know Him, but then plays hide-and-go-seek.

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

I understand that some assert we are saved by some, or all, of the following... grace, faith, works.

Now, if we can just get to the bottom of which one(s) is/are the ones, in regards to salvation, then we are golden

cvanwey · May 14, 2020

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
However I think if you weigh up over 2000 years what Christians have done you will find it far from hindering.

If 'human flourishing' is the goal, take a look at some of the hindrances, caused by religion:

- no condoms, which result in disease.
- no blood transfusions with some, which result in death.
- women < men
- slavery
- homosexuality = sin
- The teaching of incorrect science, which may cause many of our brightest not to innovate

This is off the top of my head...

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
It is sad that Christians do think like Ken Hamm,

Not according to the millions whom believe. And yet, he is protected under the blanket of 'religion'. Sure, it's a free country. However, do tax dollars have to support it?

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
but I've listened to the likes of Dawkins and his vitriol warps young impressionable minds also.

Sure. I guess I would agree, [a bit], here...

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

Please see above - (the list). Helping the homeless is just one facet. And furthermore, 'atheists' do help the homeless: Atheists Helping The Homeless - Austin

As well as non-religious affiliations....

Sure, it's great to help the homeless, but the atheists are not requiring them to set through a sermon to get their sandwich.

Silly Uncle Wayne · May 14, 2020

cvanwey said:
False. I do not congregate in a religious setting, and follow any type of dogma. Unitarians do.

But then so do Hindus but somehow you excluded those. Make up your mind.

Purveyor of Confusion

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Optimistic sceptic

Optimistic sceptic

Blessings Collector

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency