Purveyor of Confusion

[cvanwey]

What were you asking for when you adhered to these scriptures which you posted?

The same things as you, I'm sure. He never responded to me. So now, I ask others to pray for me. In line with Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23, would you pray for me?

You could kill two birds with one stone, really fast.

Pray for God to give me a sign that He is listening and responding. Have Him tell me the way to salvation. And once I receive it, I will relay this information to you. I will not only have a rather large topic resolved, but I will then believe He exists. And if you cannot furnish me with this request, then I truly have to ask.... What does God answer to; in reference to the verses listed?

Seems as though clarification in verse, and knowledge of His mere existence would be reasonable and humble requests?

 

[cvanwey]

So you will let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, sir? You mean the works that you do will be robotic with a motive behind them? And not done specifically because of love?

Because sir, if you recall, those whom HE blessed were those who didn´t even know that they had fed, or clothed HIM , or gave HIM to drink. They just naturally did what was noble and right because it was noble and right to do...

Let me elaborate. Many doubt a postmortem Jesus exists, but genuinely strive to help others. Do they have ANY shot?

 

[cvanwey]

Really? Is that what you see? I don´t see it that way at all. You make a comment, and I know what to write...and if you do not understand why I respond in such a manner, that is entirely because of another reason...

You did it again. Please please please back up your assertion:

"Do you care to substantiate the claim, that 100's of eye-witnesses saw Jesus after His dead?"

 

[cvanwey]

The only way I can affirm that is to say this

the same outpouring that happened then...still happens today...

This does not address the poster's assertion, nor your follow-up...

I'll repeat... The claim is that 100's of eyewitnesses saw a postmortem Jesus. That He resurrected. Can you substantiate this claim?

Claiming that many speak to Jesus now, is not my question.

 

[cvanwey]

I don´t believe they do...
For they are following this...if we confess our sins one to another, HE is just to purify us of all unrighteousness.

Did you, somehow think, that the priests somehow believe that they are the ones capable of forgiving sins?

It's more than just this. They believe in works based salvation. You don't. How do we resolve accordingly?

 

[cvanwey]

No, as I demonstrated John 5 explains the parallel passage in Matthew 25.

Please see post #554. I do not care to repeat myself. And no, John 5 explains John 5.

 

[cvanwey]

Somewhere in the multiverse there is a New Testament that consists only of Matthew 25:31-46.

However back here in the real world this passage is only a small part of the 27 books of the New Testament, it was not even the first so sensibly you can only understand it as a part of the whole and the whole makes it clear (very clear) that righteousness is a result of faith in God.

Please make up your mind. Before, you seemed concerned that I dropped a subject, by stating you
gave a sensible answer'. And now, you complain when I bring it up.

Please see post #554.

 

[cvanwey]

If you are off the top of your head, you should probably see a psychiatrist.

In the meantime:

- no condoms is a Catholic only doctrine and it also accompanied by a doctrine of abstinence. Those countries where both are taken seriously actually have less STD than those that adopt only one. Madagascar was the example I remember. Additionally, since the lack of condoms is likely to result in more births, it is also going to end up resulting in human flourishing, whereas condoms by their nature are going to result in suppression!
- no blood transfusions is from a minority cult which has defined its own ideas (that are not in the Bible). Bear in mind that blood transfusions came about because Christian Groups encouraged hospitals. One could make an argument that this group should win a Darwin Award.
- Women < Men hasn't stopped women flourishing and while it is atrocious, arguing that it prevented human flourishing is a very difficult thing... because humans did flourish and had more flourishing when Christianity was the dominant religion than when say the Roman gods were at the fore. You only have to look at China where religion is not a huge factor and see the huge numbers of girls that were abandoned to see that religion has very little to do with it.
- slavery. In some cases slavery has been a good thing - for starters it has caused the spread of ethnicity to the extent that most people have DNA from those who have been forcibly removed recfrom their own countries. On top of that it was Christian groups that planted the seeds of abolition as far back as the 5th century (that's an educated guess, I seem to recall reading one of the great early leaders making the point that Christians really shouldn't have slaves). The abolitionists in the UK were all motivated by their Christian faith (see the movie Amazing Grace for example). I'm not sure about the situation in USA, but I generally get the impression that it was Christian groups that opposed it there too.
- homosexuality = sin is true, so one can argue this one both ways - in other words those that opposed homosexual behaviour contributed to human flourishing.
- the teaching of incorrect science wasn't made by religious groups, it was made by scientists. 150 years ago scientists were still teaching that there were four elements. In fact any survey of science will see that both Islamic and Christian scientists were at the forefront of defying the scientific conventions many of which came from the time of Aristotle.

In order to make a case for religion preventing human flourishing you have to be extremely selective - picking only those items that support your view and conveniently ignoring anything that would disagree.

We might try to make a case for secularism and atheism preventing human flourishing (e.g. the Killing Fields of Cambodia, or the imposition of Communism on China). The best example of this would be Albania which declared itself an atheist state in 1967 and by the time this was overthrown in the 1990s, it was almost medieval in its living conditions. Following this Christianity grew phenomenally with one former atheist saying something along the lines of 'we tried atheism and it didn't work'.

Whether religion is better or worse is always going to be a matter of speculation, however the track record of atheistic countries isn't going to win over anyone who compares it with the flourishing of Christian countries, particularly after the Reformation/Enlightenment.

I'll cut to the chase here. If such things were not written in.... 'Book', then millions/billions would not have, and continue to, followed them.

Alternatively, to say 'atheist', you might as well just say 'aBigFoot-ist'. "Atheist' can mean virtually anything. There exists no universal atheist manual for which atheists could even adhere to, even if they wanted to. Sure, rogue individuals could read a book/books, and ascribe to those ideas, ('good' or 'bad'). But these individuals are one-off events.

However, we have a Book, which condones slavery, men > women, homosexuality as a sin, etc, which millions utilize as their 'truth' Book.

 

[cvanwey]

See sir, someone also had already explained the connection of John 5 to Matthew 25.

Just because someone posts a response, does not mean the response resolves the matter.

 

[cvanwey]

Please excuse my insight, but if it is okay for you to continue dropping the same verses even after someone had already responded to them and given you sound truth, then you should either stop repeating the same question or move on to another question for FURTHER clarification to what was said in answer to your FIRST question..not keep repeating the FIRST question over and over again..

I hate to say this, sir...but the title of your thread....if this continues, your dropping the same few verses and then not listening to those who post to you, and repeating the same questions again, I can come to no other conclusion then this...

You are the one who is the purveyor of confusion...

Answer the question sensibly, and I'll at least stop asking. Or, tell me you are not going to answer it. To my knowledge, there exists 3 types of salvation; either in a mix, or stand-alone..

Grace
Faith
Works

I've listed verses for faith and works, with you. There exists no need to bring up ALL the verses about faith. Much as there exists no reason to list all the verses relating to works based salvation.

My point is simple. Read the Bible, and come away scratching your head. Some verses mention faith, and nothing of works. Some verses mention works, and nothing of faith.

Then other posters mention passages about grace....

Seems as though we have, at least, 3 separate ways to salvation?.?.?.?

 

[cvanwey]

Yes I do think that is his intent. It is not about finding answers, he is desperate to show how these passages are contradictory, despite the fact that Christians don't have much problem with them when seen in the context of the whole New Testament ideas of salvation.

What bubble do you live in?

First of all, I'm not desperate. I am a curious spectator, watching from the side-lines now, after being in the game for decades. I'm posing these questions, and watching, as virtually none of you agree; even when you think you do.

Heck, a person even PM'd me, stating that after they read the Bible, there exists many things they cannot reconcile. We had a poster, early in this thread, whom made points - backing up what I have brought to the table. He prolly got tired of all the side-show, and no longer engages in this thread.

Salvation is an important topic, I gather. This is why I bring it up.

 

[miknik5]

Maybe God deems you "on the fence?" Maybe the fact that you do not give up everything to follow Him, means that your faith is just a word? Jesus lays down criteria to demonstrate faith.

No HE doesn´t...If HE deemed me on the fence, HE would not have chosen me from the beginning...for as Luke 14 clearly states...who builds a tower without FIRST counting the cost?

 

[miknik5]

Again, maybe the fact that you have no intention of giving up everything to follow Him, as He specifies in Luke 14:25-33, means that your faith is weak.

Again, read ALL of Luke 14

 

[miknik5]

Then I doubt your faith is genuine right now Maybe Jesus thinks the same thing; since you are not willing to give up all to follow Him?

I will not read any of your posts sir...Not only do you offer snippets of GODŚ WORD, but here on this post, you offered only a snippet of what I said and then went on to a response and a qusuggest something completely different as well as asking a question, disregarding MY question tied to this comment, and skirting the topic and question I had asked you...


My complete and original comment to you was in Post 522. I will repost it..

If you would like to continue in any discussion, you will have to ANSWER the questions I have posed to you...Not distort them and then THINK you have a right to ask questions of me...


And if you WOULD like to continue to discuss, DO NOT offer a portion of my post...I won´t respond.

You see, I doubt it, is not characteristic of me...I would NEVER just say, I doubt it...

 

[miknik5]

Actually, you have done it to a number of my posts...so, now I will have to go back and review the FULL of what I said, in context to YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION and repost them tied to each of the posts which you have made which do NOT include the full of my post and question...

Sir, YOU are the ONE who is purposely causing the confusion...and I do not know how I began answering the first two new posts from you, and then had the post Ï doubt it, show up...

But I saw it, and now I see a few more others where you found it was OK to truncate my response and answer what you wanted and ask a question while disregarding what I had asked in the ORIGINAL POST....

This is dishonest, and this is why I will no longer reply to any of your posts going forward...

 

[dcalling]

I wasn't aware God's official language was Greek?

God chose to express in many languages, but the original langue used for this book is greek.

And yes, it is different. A and B are different We've been over this many times now:

"32 Anyone who speaks a word against the (A) will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against (B) will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

Finally we agree.

More regurgitation... You don't think a true believer can ever 'speak against' God in times of turmoil, stress, tragedy, despair, etc...? Only to later attempt to go back? And IF NOT, then the verses, again, is like saying something as redundant or useless as...

"All non-Christians are not Christian, and all Christians are Christian."

It is the same as saying "Satan will never be forgiven".

I thank you for this. I'll let you know if I receive anything. And you would think, that in your heart felt request, and also in line with Scripture (i.e.) Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23, that something might actually happen?



Please see above

If you read just 1 or 2 lines above what you quoted, you will notice those are for true believers or those apostles, who has faith and no doubt.

Sure, and this individual could then again turn away, for the various reasons listed above (i.e.) turmoil, stress, tragedy, despair, etc.... Seems as though God will not forgive such actions.

I thought you got it but you don't. A true believer will never turn away, no matter what turmoil, stress, tragedy etc. So once saved, always saved, even under the most horrific situations. It is a concept rather hard to be understand by those who is not saved, i.e. they will ask "why the 11 apostles die under such horrendous conditions for God? Or in book of Job, when Satan take away Jobs's money/kids/health, his wife told him he is a fool to keep following God, Job never cursed God or turn away. I have answered this multiple times and you kept bring it up

 

[cvanwey]

Yes, I see what you mean. I've met a few people who just get stuck on one idea or another, I'm not sure what the remedy is for that really. It requires being able to assimilate a lot more of what is relevant to the idea, but you have to be open to that I suppose.

Not sure if you are implying that I'm stuck on this one thing? This is essentially the thread topic here. Thus, my goal here is to drive home the point, that you can read the Bible, and come away not knowing what it takes to be saved.

As I stated prior, I'm a casual observer nowadays. But my goal here, as well, is to challenge theists, and to get them to recognize that the tenets for salvation is not as clear as you might want or hope.

 

[cvanwey]

Sure I answered it, as you read. What you responded with was another tangent, that isn't really addressing it. Here it is again, from my earlier post:

- '...the same incident appears in all of the synoptic gospels, with Mark adding the explanation 'he (Jesus) said this because they were saying, 'he has an impure/unclean spirit'. Again as you presumably have read, the situation is that people have accused Jesus of doing good 'by the prince of demons'. They are saying when Jesus acts in the spirit of doing good, promoting life and healing, he is doing evil - calling good evil, inverting the fundamental meaning of the two. A person whose mindset is that the actions of the holy spirit are in fact evil will never seek and so never get forgiveness from that spirit or any person associated with it, that person's mind is entirely closed off from the possibility of seeking forgiveness, as who (in the Hebrew culture of the time particularly) would seek forgiveness from a spirit they believe to be impure or unclean - whatever that happens to mean to that individual, the context being one of Jewish cultural and religious notions of impurity/uncleanness, the absolute rejection of Christ as an 'unclean thing' that should be expelled from the community. You cannot reject and accept forgiveness at the same time.'

I can spell it out a bit more if you really interested in arriving at an understanding, but essentially this is what happens:

Jesus heals/challenges some religious people to answer whether it is good to do good on the Sabbath. They respond with silence

Jesus casts out some impure spirits. The same religious people begin to say that Jesus is doing these things through an evil spirit.

This leads to another confrontation where Jesus tells the people who are saying these things that such blasphemy cannot be forgiven.

Mark adds the explanatory note that he was saying these things because the group of religious people had been saying that he, Jesus, had an impure spirit.

So, the people Jesus was speaking to were assigning the good Jesus did to evil, calling evil good/good evil (as elsewhere). A person who rejects the spirit of God as evil cannot at the same time seek forgiveness from that spirit.

A response to this would be you giving your own understanding of the respective passages and why you find them confusing. Going off on some other tangent is not really a response, it's just a random bit of information without relevance. A response to a post would be a response to what is in the post.

Looks as though you are sticking to the notion that 'blasphemy' is essentially the sin of unbelief? That Jesus was not the Messiah, but instead really some evil man whom was there to deceive? I want to be perfectly clear before I respond here

 

[Tom 1]

I'm stuck on this one thing?

Bit more general than that. A lot of churches have the habit of building doctrines around small numbers of verses. These are sometime approximations of an idea, sometimes carefully constructed ideas that have their own internal logic but are for the most part 'extra-biblical' and take little account of Jewish culture and other relevant issues. Sometimes when a member of this kind of church realises the doctrines don't really represent an adequate picture they just get stuck in a loop, repeating the same pattern of asking 'what does this verse mean? What about this one?' etc, round and round, without ever making the time to absorb the bigger picture, the picture that tells you what the pieces mean.

 

[cvanwey]

You're mixing ideas here. For a useful discussion you need to break this down a bit, and separate out for example what is in the text and what your general thoughts about some more or less related notions are. It's the lack of that separation that makes these discussions confusing and circular, I think. You start off with some short quote from the bible but then it quickly becomes evident that what you are asking to be clarified is a whole load of other stuff that you think about, tangential to the initial point. If you want to actually address the point first you need to present all of the directly relevant text and explain what it is about the text that you find confusing, and not what you find confusing about your own thoughts. That would be a good starting point.

Let's start with post #598. And no, I did not just pluck a few verses out of the sky. I'm aware of context.