Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[Underhill]

PS. You've read Job, right?

The whole "Yes, clearly I am the problem. The proud man who has built a life around charity and helping society..." was Job's statement over and again in the book before God appeared to Him personally!

Yes, thanks for reminding me. Exactly an example of what I am describing. A man god called righteous. Who watched his life become a ruin because god got in a pissing match with the devil. Makes perfect sense for a loving god to treat one of his best beloved creations that way doesn't it?

 

[Pudding]

Rape is inherently wrong. Most societies tack on their taboos and cultural understanding to rape. Any culture promoting rape is wrong, like where it is currently used as a wartime weapon overseas.

How does your statement answer my question "Why do you think rape is not a societal misdeed?" ?

Please define 'societal' and 'misdeed' and explain why you think rape is not a societal misdeed.

Do you mean 'rape' is currently used as a wartime weapon overseas?

If you do, then please provide evidence to support your claim that 'rape' is currently used as a wartime weapon overseas.

I’ll settle for YOU saying rape is inherently/always/100% wrong.

Your statement does not answer my demand:
Please provide evidence to support your claim that in the other thread (you mention in your op) those atheists say "rape isn't inherently bad".

Please provide evidence to support your claim.

An atheist is someone who says, “I lack evidence for the existence of a god(s).”

Which god(s)?

(I take it that what you mean by 'lack', have the same meaning as 'don't have')

A god(s)?
As long as a person say they don't have evidence for the existence of a god or multiple gods, then they are an atheist?

If John believes god A exist; but don't have evidence for the existence of god B,C,D,E and F. Is John an atheist?

If Jenny believes god A, B and C exists; but don't have evidence for the existence of god D,E and F. Is Jenny an atheist?

Denomination/shenomination. What does the Bible say? Righteous people love God. Unrighteous people serve themselves, not others. You and I fall somewhere on that number line.

What is 'shenomination'? Maybe you mean non-denominational.

I fall somewhere on that number line...? And what is your reason for thinking so?

Your statement doesn't answer my previous question:
So which denomination's version of God are you referring to in your sentence 'a righteous person reverences God'?

Which denomination's version of God are you referring to in that sentence of yours?

Self-righteously – acting as though being a good human is good enough for all practical and eternal purposes.

Righteousness – Doing the laws, precepts and commands of the Bible, honoring parents, the Sabbath, God, men.

Sinfulness – An excessive amount of sin.

Thanks for answer, now it is clear what you mean for those terms in biblical terms.

Your op say:
"How can an atheist behave self-righteously when they believe neither in righteousness nor its opposite, sinfulness?"

What you mean is that:
If an atheist don't believe it is correct to do the laws, precepts and commands of the Bible; and if they don't believe it is correct to honoring parents, the Sabbath, God and men; and if they also don't believe it's wrong to practice an excessive amount of biblical sin - then how can they acting as though being a good human is good enough for all practical and eternal purposes?

Is that what you mean?

Old Atheism – the good old kind I grew up with – everything is subjective, “good, evil, bad and moral” are nonsense words.

Please provide evidence to support your claim where all atheists from Old Atheism says that everything is subjective, “good, evil, bad and moral” are nonsense word.

(Note: It'll be useful if you can give notation to the terms in your post when you're using them in biblical terms, e.g. for the terms like good, evil, bad, moral, righteousness. I frequently find that it's hard to tell whether you are using a biblical terms for them or not.)

New Atheism – Following the misstatements of Hitchens et al to “prove” how people can believe in righteousness, judgment, morals, etc. without any god at all. Hitchens was a genius who combatted the old apologetics against old atheism with new refinements.

You previously said:
those atheists from New Atheism say they can be not just ethical, but moral, while using subjective standards and no absolutes.

What you actually means is that:
those atheists from New Atheism say they can believe in righteousness, judgement, morals and etc. without any god at all.

Is that what you mean?

(Please inform me if you're using the terms righteousness, judgement and morals in your post in biblical terms)

Please elaborate how Hitchens combatted the old apologetics (who're atheists from Old Atheism) against Old Atheism with new refinements.

Please provide evidence to support your claim that Hitchens combatted atheists (who're from Old Atheism) against Old Atheism.

The OP

The OP?

My previous questions are:
"Throughout 'the thread'?
You mean this thread? Or do you mean the other thread which you mention in your op?"

So, by 'throughout the thread', you are referring to (a) this thread (which the title are 'Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists'), or are you referring to (b) the other thread which you mention in your op?

Your answer is (a), or (b)?

– I bet atheists won’t say “rape is wrong” without equivocation, backpedaling, justification.

Which 'atheists' you're referring to in your statement?

Why do you bet those atheists won’t say “rape is wrong” without equivocation, backpedaling and justification?

Please elaborate the 'equivocation, backpedaling and justification' you're talking about.

I didn’t mention the Bible in the OP or after until multiple atheists said, “Buh-buh-buh the Bible says rape is cool, so there! Take that!” which is a misquote for sure.

If you think they misquote the Bible, then please response to their post one by one and explain to them why they have misquote the Bible and why their interpretation for those Bible verses is wrong.

Additionally, your op is the first post in this thread and you did mentioned Bible in your op:

(snip)

Then I watch as atheists (in error) criticize the Bible for not condemning rape, when it most certainly does (as usual atheists point to the Bible and miss). If two fornicate in the Old Testament, they both receive capital punishment but if a woman cries for help while assaulted, only her rapist is punished . . . by death. Of course both passages regarding consensual sex and rape are collocated in the Bible, but why bother to ask an atheist to actually read more than a verse or two? It's taking for them, poor souls.

Of course, we would say that the atheists who say on one hand "rape isn't inherently bad" but on the other hand, "the Bible is inherently bad for not condemning rape" are behaving both ignorantly (quick, name every American President and Supreme Court Justice on record for condemning rape--are the ones not on the list bad?) and SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY.

(snip)

You aren’t, you are asking me to define terms, which is a good and fair thing. I stand corrected.

No problem.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Paul said of himself that he was the chief of sinners.

Paul was referring to his life, before he became a Christian. Otherwise, his advice to 'imitate him', at 1 Corinthians 11:1, wouldn't be acceptable.

I think the average Christian and the average non-theist are probably similar in a moral context

Then that's pretty bad! One aspect of morality, or rather lack of, is sex without commitment, practicing it that is, and unfortunately it is a common occurrence in today's world, indirectly leading to many of society's problems. If those claiming to follow Christ have such a lifestyle...do you really still consider them 'Christian'?

In Christ's view (John 14:21-24), you can only be a Christian if you strive to be obedient. Notice, I said "strive", i.e., work hard at it. We may at times fail, but we won't make a practice of what is bad! At 1 Corinthians 5, there was one in that congregation who was 'practicing'....Paul said to kick him out! (Later (2 Corinthians), he repented, i.e., stopped doing it, and was accepted back.) Willful wrongdoing should not be tolerated!

Christians have begun or dominated everything from Nobel Laureates to the red cross.

That's great, as Christians we should show concern for all people, regardless of race, culture, even nationality. But during times of war, that genuine concern flies out the window. Support of their narional heritage becomes more important than supporting their spiritual one, to the point of killing their brothers! That cannot be justified, not according to 1 John 3:10-15. Strong language, I know, but it's an important issue.

John 13:34-35; Matthew 5:44....you just can't get around it.

Take care, my friend.

 

[1robin]

Paul was referring to his life, before he became a Christian. Otherwise, his advice to 'imitate him', at 1 Corinthians 11:1, wouldn't be acceptable.

I can understand why you may think that to be so, but I do not think so. As far as I know the bible does not contain any quotes from pre-conversion statements of Paul unless it was about the event it's self. Regardless the issue is what does 1 Timothy 1:15 say. Let's start with English.

New International Version
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst.

If you click the link you will see about 24 mainstream bible versions and they all translate the original language into the present tense. Now for me having 24 all agree on the present tense would satisfy me but I will dig a little further in your case. The original was given in Koine Greek as εἰμι and is one very common verb (perhaps the most common) and it means to be or I am. My college English teacher told me to write a paper without using any form of the verb "to be", I nearly tore my hair out in the attempt.

So the hermeneutics agree with my claim about Paul's statement but what about proper exegesis?

1. Paul at no time actually was the worst sinner on Earth, he is not being absolutely literal here.
2. While Paul was not the worst of sinners he was in fact a sinner. For the bible states that anyone who denied that he was a sinner is a liar.
3. So it appears here Paul was simply using a common tool of language called speaking in the superlative.

So I am on solid etymological, hermeneutical, and exegetical ground here. If an apostle admitted to his own failures then why should I expect Christian history to be free of failure.

Then that's pretty bad! One aspect of morality, or rather lack of, is sex without commitment, practicing it that is, and unfortunately it is a common occurrence in today's world, indirectly leading to many of society's problems. If those claiming to follow Christ have such a lifestyle...do you really still consider them 'Christian'?

In Christ's view (John 14:21-24), you can only be a Christian if you strive to be obedient. Notice, I said "strive", i.e., work hard at it. We may at times fail, but we won't make a practice of what is bad! At 1 Corinthians 5, there was one in that congregation who was 'practicing'....Paul said to kick him out! (Later (2 Corinthians), he repented, i.e., stopped doing it, and was accepted back.) Willful wrongdoing should not be tolerated!

I agree it is bad. I wish the statistics for immoral deeds like Christian abortions, atrocities or statistics for healing among Christians were much better than the same statistics among atheists but they simply aren't. There are many points of evidence that do reflect well on faith. In fact the problem of gratuitous suffering is the greatest impediment to faith there is. Thankfully we still have a mountain of data in other areas where are enough to convince the willing.

If you want to say we lose our salvation based on a word like practice or willful then your first going to half to give the specific objective definitions for those words. There are 3 camps among those who believe in heaven and it is important to know which one we are in.

1. The works camp - these are people who think enough good deeds will be rewarded with heaven.
2. The grace plus works - these are people who believe we must be born again by grace but must keep it by merit.
3. The grace alone camp - these are those the believe they must be saved wholly on Christ's merits through our faith in them and what was received by grace is kept by grace and grace alone.

I am more firmly planted in camp 3 than you could possibly imagine. I can defend camp 3 and condemn camps 1 and 2 with more argumentation that I could for any other subject on Earth. So please let me know what camp you fall in with so I know what context my responses need to be in. If it is in camp 1 or 2 then you can go ahead and explain exactly where the line is for concepts like practicing, obedient, willful, or any other word you would use to suggest the point the Christian ceases to be a Christian.

Also bear in mind that if anyone ever strove as hard as any mortal ever has to be a Christian they would be Nicodemus and Martin Luther. What flesh could accomplished both did, yet Christ told one that could not even see the kingdom of God, and the other only began to feel Christ when he ceased striving and simply believed.

That's great, as Christians we should show concern for all people, regardless of race, culture, even nationality. But during times of war, that genuine concern flies out the window. Support of their narional heritage becomes more important than supporting their spiritual one, to the point of killing their brothers! That cannot be justified, not according to 1 John 3:10-15. Strong language, I know, but it's an important issue.

John 13:34-35; Matthew 5:44....you just can't get around it.

Take care, my friend.

There would be little disagreement between us as to what a Christian should do. However it seems we may disagree on what a Christian must do, to keep his citizenship in the kingdom of God. I claim that salvation is by grace and grace alone through faith in Christ, and that once granted it can never be lost. Do you disagree with this? If you do, then please state specifically what it is you do believe.

Good to hear from you again.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I can understand why you may think that to be so, but I do not think so. As far as I know the bible does not contain any quotes from pre-conversion statements of Paul unless it was about the event it's self. Regardless the issue is what does 1 Timothy 1:15 say. Let's start with English.

New International Version
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst.

If you click the link you will see about 24 mainstream bible versions and they all translate the original language into the present tense. Now for me having 24 all agree on the present tense would satisfy me but I will dig a little further in your case. The original was given in Koine Greek as εἰμι and is one very common verb (perhaps the most common) and it means to be or I am. My college English teacher told me to write a paper without using any form of the verb "to be", I nearly tore my hair out in the attempt.

So the hermeneutics agree with my claim about Paul's statement but what about proper exegesis?

1. Paul at no time actually was the worst sinner on Earth, he is not being absolutely literal here.
2. While Paul was not the worst of sinners he was in fact a sinner. For the bible states that anyone who denied that he was a sinner is a liar.
3. So it appears here Paul was simply using a common tool of language called speaking in the superlative.

So I am on solid etymological, hermeneutical, and exegetical ground here. If an apostle admitted to his own failures then why should I expect Christian history to be free of failure.


I agree it is bad. I wish the statistics for immoral deeds like Christian abortions, atrocities or statistics for healing among Christians were much better than the same statistics among atheists but they simply aren't. There are many points of evidence that do reflect well on faith. In fact the problem of gratuitous suffering is the greatest impediment to faith there is. Thankfully we still have a mountain of data in other areas where are enough to convince the willing.

If you want to say we lose our salvation based on a word like practice or willful then your first going to half to give the specific objective definitions for those words. There are 3 camps among those who believe in heaven and it is important to know which one we are in.

1. The works camp - these are people who think enough good deeds will be rewarded with heaven.
2. The grace plus works - these are people who believe we must be born again by grace but must keep it by merit.
3. The grace alone camp - these are those the believe they must be saved wholly on Christ's merits through our faith in them and what was received by grace is kept by grace and grace alone.

I am more firmly planted in camp 3 than you could possibly imagine. I can defend camp 3 and condemn camps 1 and 2 with more argumentation that I could for any other subject on Earth. So please let me know what camp you fall in with so I know what context my responses need to be in. If it is in camp 1 or 2 then you can go ahead and explain exactly where the line is for concepts like practicing, obedient, willful, or any other word you would use to suggest the point the Christian ceases to be a Christian.

Also bear in mind that if anyone ever strove as hard as any mortal ever has to be a Christian they would be Nicodemus and Martin Luther. What flesh could accomplished both did, yet Christ told one that could not even see the kingdom of God, and the other only began to feel Christ when he ceased striving and simply believed.


There would be little disagreement between us as to what a Christian should do. However it seems we may disagree on what a Christian must do, to keep his citizenship in the kingdom of God. I claim that salvation is by grace and grace alone through faith in Christ, and that once granted it can never be lost. Do you disagree with this? If you do, then please state specifically what it is you do believe.

Good to hear from you again.

Hey, 1robin! Hope you've been well, my friend!

Regarding 'εἰμί', look at John 3:28, in the NASB. "Have been" is an acceptable translation, depending on context.

As to which "camp" I belong to, we need to have and exercise our faith, but faith "without works is dead", right? (James 1:26) And Jesus said, "The one who endures to the end will be saved." (Matthew 24:13) So what would happen if we don't keep on enduring? Even Paul, nearing the end of his ministry, stated Philippians 3:12-16.(Vs.13) We can't give up! Some did, and Paul 'mentioned them with sadness.' -- Philippians 3:18.

In fact, you can't read the Greek Scriptures (NT) without finding some sort of counsel on how to act! It's important.

In fact, referring to 'rebellious' Christians, some of whom were 'adhering to the circumcumsion (Titus 1:10)', Paul said they "disown [God] by their works." (Bad ones, of course!)

More later. Have a great evening!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because I'm not a selfish person, and I am aware of the suffering and happiness of other people, and appreciate the fact that I was born into a society that, by and large, that treated me well, and that societies (and the lives of people in those societies) are better when they function in a way that is fair and treats people well. Ergo, I would rather leave the world functioning better than I would leave it functioning worse. It's no different to being asked "Would you rather somebody 1,000 years n the future died painfully or that they lived a comfortable and happy life", only a sociopath would opt for the former, regardless of any gain they get out of it.


But we aren't. We're improving people's quality of life.


Because hell doesn't exist, obviously.


We can.


Firstly, I didn't judge you. I just think that fear of heaven or hell is a poor and selfish motivation to do go. I have no idea of your motivation.

Secondly, look at this thread. You yourself have been judging the motivations of non-believers this whole time.


And I think it would be a better place if people generally followed SOME of the ideas of Jesus (if they were his ideas initially), but by and large ignored some of the teachings that are demonstrably nonsensical or not required and didn't believe in their divinity but instead the objective value of some of their teachings, and place no more stock in them than the other moral philosophers of history, and that people's motivations weren't drawn from a selfish desire to avoid a suboptimal afterlife.

You're not a selfish person?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You have to be among the most annoying people I have ever dealt with on the forums. And that is saying something.

Suffering is not in question. It exist. I don't have to be some faith based entity to see that.



You need to go back and read what was wrote. The point is the inevitability of it. If you give a 2 year old a knife, you are criminally negligent. If you allow murder to happen and don't stop it, or warn someone, or do something... you are guilty. That is an all knowing creator in a nutshell. You can try and claim I just don't understand. But the reality is that a god who would knowingly create a world full of cancer and suffering beyond our control... isn't worthy of my respect.



Then the answer is no.



Christian household, father a deacon, mother a youth leader, 8 years of private christian school education where we had to memorize a chapter a week (unless it was a long chapter like those in Psalms). 2 years at bible college. I've read the book cover to cover at least a dozen times. Used to stand on the street witnessing to people walking by.

I know what the book says. But when I started, after my 2nd year at bible college, to look a bit deeper I found it coming up short. Jesus taught some good ideas. Much like Ghandi. But the old testament describes a petulant child of a god, while the new testament treats him like a powerless drifter.

Why did you witness on street corners, if you don't mind my asking?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, thanks for reminding me. Exactly an example of what I am describing. A man god called righteous. Who watched his life become a ruin because god got in a pissing match with the devil. Makes perfect sense for a loving god to treat one of his best beloved creations that way doesn't it?

I've never heard Job described that way before. How did you come to the conclusion that Job was loved extra much above others?

What I mean by that is this - I often hear skeptics claim they will convert if God personally, visibly, appears before them and commands their trust. Yet I've never had that happen to me--and frankly, it's never happened to 99 of 100 Christians whose testimonies of salvation I've heard recounted. Why are skeptics special? Should God love them more or favor them more?

I would think of Job differently. 1) He's a person. 2) All people have trials. 3) All people somewhere in their life seem to have very challenging, very difficult trials. 4) Job had exceptional trials and an exceptional visitation from God. 5) Instead of discussing God's pissing match with Satan or God's inability to X, or whatever, Job says, "Your appearance to me and your questions are awesome, I no longer question you on these points," which is sort of a summation of every Christian testimony I've heard--"I didn't believe Jesus immediately when the gospel was presented to me, I doubted, but now I don't, after being exposed to God at some level."

I have had a personal encounter, sure--with the scriptures. Since that time, I see God as cause and effect and THE uncaused cause. He's awesome. I have questions for Him, but they are often trivial concerns, nothing major.

 

[viole]

I think you may misunderstand me. Rape is wrong. If the Bible condones rape, the Bible itself is utterly wrong IMHO.

Well, then IYHO the Bible is utterly wrong.

But you are confusing the question, "Viole, is rape objectively/inherently/100% of the time wrong?" with "Does the Bible say rape is sometimes right?"

I told you. I am not a moral realist. Nothing is objectively/inherently right or wrong.

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

How does your statement answer my question "Why do you think rape is not a societal misdeed?" ?

Please define 'societal' and 'misdeed' and explain why you think rape is not a societal misdeed.

Do you mean 'rape' is currently used as a wartime weapon overseas?

If you do, then please provide evidence to support your claim that 'rape' is currently used as a wartime weapon overseas.


Your statement does not answer my demand:
Please provide evidence to support your claim that in the other thread (you mention in your op) those atheists say "rape isn't inherently bad".

Please provide evidence to support your claim.


Which god(s)?

(I take it that what you mean by 'lack', have the same meaning as 'don't have')

A god(s)?
As long as a person say they don't have evidence for the existence of a god or multiple gods, then they are an atheist?

If John believes god A exist; but don't have evidence for the existence of god B,C,D,E and F. Is John an atheist?

If Jenny believes god A, B and C exists; but don't have evidence for the existence of god D,E and F. Is Jenny an atheist?


What is 'shenomination'? Maybe you mean non-denominational.

I fall somewhere on that number line...? And what is your reason for thinking so?

Your statement doesn't answer my previous question:
So which denomination's version of God are you referring to in your sentence 'a righteous person reverences God'?

Which denomination's version of God are you referring to in that sentence of yours?


Thanks for answer, now it is clear what you mean for those terms in biblical terms.

Your op say:
"How can an atheist behave self-righteously when they believe neither in righteousness nor its opposite, sinfulness?"

What you mean is that:
If an atheist don't believe it is correct to do the laws, precepts and commands of the Bible; and if they don't believe it is correct to honoring parents, the Sabbath, God and men; and if they also don't believe it's wrong to practice an excessive amount of biblical sin - then how can they acting as though being a good human is good enough for all practical and eternal purposes?

Is that what you mean?


Please provide evidence to support your claim where all atheists from Old Atheism says that everything is subjective, “good, evil, bad and moral” are nonsense word.

(Note: It'll be useful if you can give notation to the terms in your post when you're using them in biblical terms, e.g. for the terms like good, evil, bad, moral, righteousness. I frequently find that it's hard to tell whether you are using a biblical terms for them or not.)


You previously said:
those atheists from New Atheism say they can be not just ethical, but moral, while using subjective standards and no absolutes.

What you actually means is that:
those atheists from New Atheism say they can believe in righteousness, judgement, morals and etc. without any god at all.

Is that what you mean?

(Please inform me if you're using the terms righteousness, judgement and morals in your post in biblical terms)

Please elaborate how Hitchens combatted the old apologetics (who're atheists from Old Atheism) against Old Atheism with new refinements.

Please provide evidence to support your claim that Hitchens combatted atheists (who're from Old Atheism) against Old Atheism.


The OP?

My previous questions are:
"Throughout 'the thread'?
You mean this thread? Or do you mean the other thread which you mention in your op?"

So, by 'throughout the thread', you are referring to (a) this thread (which the title are 'Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists'), or are you referring to (b) the other thread which you mention in your op?

Your answer is (a), or (b)?


Which 'atheists' you're referring to in your statement?

Why do you bet those atheists won’t say “rape is wrong” without equivocation, backpedaling and justification?

Please elaborate the 'equivocation, backpedaling and justification' you're talking about.


If you think they misquote the Bible, then please response to their post one by one and explain to them why they have misquote the Bible and why their interpretation for those Bible verses is wrong.

Additionally, your op is the first post in this thread and you did mentioned Bible in your op:




No problem.

Well, now you're asking me to define too many terms. This is getting a bit much, and I apologize if it sounds like I'm judging you. Let's streamline.

I think rape is always wrong, for any reason, any "circumstance". If the Bible condones rape rather than repudiating it, the Bible itself is wrong.

Do you agree that rape is always wrong on its face?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hey, 1robin! Hope you've been well, my friend!

Regarding 'εἰμί', look at John 3:28, in the NASB. "Have been" is an acceptable translation, depending on context.

As to which "camp" I belong to, we need to have and exercise our faith, but faith "without works is dead", right? (James 1:26) And Jesus said, "The one who endures to the end will be saved." (Matthew 24:13) So what would happen if we don't keep on enduring? Even Paul, nearing the end of his ministry, stated Philippians 3:12-16.(Vs.13) We can't give up! Some did, and Paul 'mentioned them with sadness.' -- Philippians 3:18.

In fact, you can't read the Greek Scriptures (NT) without finding some sort of counsel on how to act! It's important.

In fact, referring to 'rebellious' Christians, some of whom were 'adhering to the circumcumsion (Titus 1:10)', Paul said they "disown [God] by their works." (Bad ones, of course!)

More later. Have a great evening!

You chaps are far afield from the OP, unless you are tying right behavior to the avoidance of rape. The OP: Is rape always wrong or not?

 

[1robin]

Hey, 1robin! Hope you've been well, my friend!

Hello HC.

Regarding 'εἰμί', look at John 3:28, in the NASB. "Have been" is an acceptable translation, depending on context.

For the sake of simplicity lets say that "εἰμί" can be translated as "have been" in John 3.

Why did none of the following interpret Paul in the past tense? We were talking about 1 Timothy 1:15:

New International Version
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst.

New Living Translation
This is a trustworthy saying, and everyone should accept it: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners"--and I am the worst of them all.

English Standard Version
The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.

Berean Study Bible
This is a trustworthy saying, worthy of full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the worst.

Berean Literal Bible
Trustworthy is the saying, and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.

New American Standard Bible
It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.

King James Bible
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
This saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners"--and I am the worst of them.

International Standard Version
This is a trustworthy saying that deserves complete acceptance: To this world Messiah came, sinful people to reclaim. I am the worst of them.

NET Bible
This saying is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners"--and I am the worst of them!

New Heart English Bible
The saying is faithful and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
This is a trustworthy saying and worthy of acceptance: “Yeshua The Messiah came to the universe to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation
This is a statement that can be trusted and deserves complete acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and I am the foremost sinner.

New American Standard 1977
It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.

Jubilee Bible 2000
This is a faithful saying and worthy of acceptation by all, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first.

King James 2000 Bible
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

American King James Version
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

American Standard Version
Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief:

Douay-Rheims Bible
A faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief.

Darby Bible Translation
Faithful [is] the word, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am [the] first.

English Revised Version
Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief:

Webster's Bible Translation
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Weymouth New Testament
Faithful is the saying, and deserving of universal acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; among whom I stand foremost.

World English Bible
The saying is faithful and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Young's Literal Translation
steadfast is the word, and of all acceptation worthy, that Christ Jesus came to the world to save sinners -- first of whom I am;

Every single mainstream bible version interprets "εἰμί" in the present tense.

BTW if you look at the translations of John 3:28 you would find the majority are in the present tense as well. The few versions that interpret "εἰμί" in a sort of hybrid past present tense are simply wrong. John was speaking about something that was true at the very moment he spoke about it.

As to which "camp" I belong to, we need to have and exercise our faith, but faith "without works is dead", right? (James 1:26) And Jesus said, "The one who endures to the end will be saved." (Matthew 24:13) So what would happen if we don't keep on enduring? Even Paul, nearing the end of his ministry, stated Philippians 3:12-16.(Vs.13) We can't give up! Some did, and Paul 'mentioned them with sadness.' -- Philippians 3:18.

Before we really get into this I need you to take a more emphatic stance. Do you believe that the salvation which comes by grace through being born again (from above) must be maintained by works?

I usually find those that think works are necessary for salvation to back peddle and claim that that was not what they meant when pressed. So lets get what we believe nailed down before we begin. There are 3 possible world views for those that believe that we can be saved unto some desirable eternal state after death, and only three. A person of faith must hold 1 and only 1 position from the 3 possible worldviews.

1. The works camp - these are people who think enough good deeds will be rewarded with heaven.
2. The grace plus works - these are people who believe we must be born again by grace but must keep it by merit.
3. The grace alone camp - these are those the believe they must be saved wholly on Christ's merits through our faith in them and what was received by grace is kept by grace and grace alone.

Don't worry, we can get deep into individual scriptures, metaphysics, and philosophy but first we need to know where each of us stand. My position is #3 above. Please choose from those 3 possible positions above that you support, once our positions are established it will inform of us of the context our discussion should take place in.

In fact, you can't read the Greek Scriptures (NT) without finding some sort of counsel on how to act! It's important.

It's very important. I do not mean to say that that temporal sin does not have temporal consequences, it can even have eternal consequences. However my failures will never cost me what was purchased by Christ's merits. He died to save us from all sin, not merely some finite number of sins, not merely a specific type of sin, and definitely not merely our past sins.

In fact, referring to 'rebellious' Christians, some of whom were 'adhering to the circumcumsion (Titus 1:10)', Paul said they "disown [God] by their works." (Bad ones, of course!)

More later. Have a great evening!

Your translation is so radical I must guess at what verse your quoting. I think your referring to Galatians 5:2. If so lets look at it in more context.

Freedom in Christ
1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not be encumbered once more by a yoke of slavery. 2Take notice: I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I testify to every man who gets himself circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole Law.…

I believe Paul was referring to Jews who came to be born again through faith in Christ but then looked back to the previous covenant of the law by attempting to gain salvation by works. Paul was saying: Look you idiots you were saved by grace, why are you trying to go back to a covenant (that even God himself found fault in) of works, doing so makes what Christ did appear to have no value. Put more simplistically, the great physician has already healed you, why are you still using the crutch.

I will leave it here, but can and will go more in depth once I have clarity concerning your formal position.

As previously stated we can start really getting into details once you firmly establish your position. Please choose from the 3 options above so I know in what context your statement are made in.

 

[Underhill]

Why did you witness on street corners, if you don't mind my asking?

Because I was a believer through and through and was convinced people were going to hell. Nobody is perfect.

 

[Underhill]

I've never heard Job described that way before. How did you come to the conclusion that Job was loved extra much above others?

"And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?"

What I mean by that is this - I often hear skeptics claim they will convert if God personally, visibly, appears before them and commands their trust. Yet I've never had that happen to me--and frankly, it's never happened to 99 of 100 Christians whose testimonies of salvation I've heard recounted. Why are skeptics special? Should God love them more or favor them more?

If god came along tomorrow and talked to me, I would react exactly the same way. If he is real he has some serious crimes to answer for. We could start with Genocide and go from there.

I would think of Job differently. 1) He's a person. 2) All people have trials. 3) All people somewhere in their life seem to have very challenging, very difficult trials. 4) Job had exceptional trials and an exceptional visitation from God. 5) Instead of discussing God's pissing match with Satan or God's inability to X, or whatever, Job says, "Your appearance to me and your questions are awesome, I no longer question you on these points," which is sort of a summation of every Christian testimony I've heard--"I didn't believe Jesus immediately when the gospel was presented to me, I doubted, but now I don't, after being exposed to God at some level."

Job's trials were the direct result, according to the bible, of god and the devil getting in an argument. It was not just "exceptional trials". It was a targeted attack on a man god described as perfect and upright.

I have had a personal encounter, sure--with the scriptures. Since that time, I see God as cause and effect and THE uncaused cause. He's awesome. I have questions for Him, but they are often trivial concerns, nothing major.

I had the same encounter. The first time as a result of terror as a child. Later as a result of raw emotion tapped by a good preacher.

If all you have are trivial concerns, then you need to do some soul searching. A god who would turn people to pillars of salt for looking back at their life long home? A god who orders a man to kill his son? A god who orders every man, women and child (even the goats, wth did goats ever do to anyone?) slain by his chosen people? A god who orders the first born of every household of Egypt slain because one man was stubborn? This is not a good god. He's evil.

 

[1robin]

You chaps are far afield from the OP, unless you are tying right behavior to the avoidance of rape. The OP: Is rape always wrong or not?

I have never been in a thread that remained specifically on the OP. BTW it does not appear that the OP was specifically about rape, to me anyway. It appeared to me to be about the ontology of morality concerning God's existence.

The classic argument is that objective moral values and duties can only exist if God exists.

Objective moral values and duties do exist (including prohibitions against rape, murder, being a drunkard, etc....).

Therefore God exists.

Or

If you do not believe God exists.

Therefore objective moral values and duties can't possibly exist.


I think you were in the objective moral values do exist - camp, so we must agree that God exists.

Arguments about "if" "then" moral ontology are actually simplistic and absolute, which is probably why the discussion drifted away at some point.

 

[1robin]

You can try and claim I just don't understand. But the reality is that a god who would knowingly create a world full of cancer and suffering beyond our control... isn't worthy of my respect.

Are you arguing that God can't exist because evil and or suffering exists?

Jesus taught some good ideas. Much like Ghandi. But the old testament describes a petulant child of a god, while the new testament treats him like a powerless drifter.

1. Gandhi's closest followers did not suffer a lifetime of abuse for their claims that he rose from the dead.
2. That powerless drifter said he could call down legions of angels to spare him from crucifixion if he wished, yet chose to be merely accompanied by a few when he conquered death its self.
3. You should have stayed for that second year of bible school or at least invest in a good library card:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. . . . Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. (Mere Christianity, 55-56)

 

[Underhill]

Are you arguing that God can't exist because evil and or suffering exists?

No, the two are distinct. I think the god of the bible is a angry child who I could not follow even if I did believe he exist. I don't for other reasons. But my path to where I am started with the realization that the god of the bible is not loving in the least.

1. Gandhi's closest followers did not suffer a lifetime of abuse for their claims that he rose from the dead.

No, they endured a lifetime of abuse for disobeying those they fought against.

2. That powerless drifter said he could call down legions of angels to spare him from crucifixion if he wished, yet chose to be merely accompanied by a few when he conquered death its self.

How is that relevant to anything? So the bible would have us believe that the god who created a world of horror felt bad about it, after millenia of allowing the non jewish to go to hell, so he sent his kid down to die (another evil notion if I ever heard one).

The bible should read, "God, being so arrogant as to not accept the smallest disagreement, ordered thousands of years of misery thanks to the inevitable failure of 2 people.

3. You should have stayed for that second year of bible school or at least invest in a good library card:

Funny stuff.

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. . . . Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. (Mere Christianity, 55-56)

That's a silly statement through and through. There is no evidence that he was god. So this notion that one has no choice is absurd. Jesus, or whoever ghost wrote for him, said some incredibly insightful things. He also ignored a lot of injustice and evil in the world.

But most of my issue with the god of the bible is based in the old testament where god is a maniacal monster.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're not a selfish person?

Correct.

 

[Pudding]

Well, now you're asking me to define too many terms. This is getting a bit much, and I apologize if it sounds like I'm judging you. Let's streamline.

I only ask you to define two terms in that post which you're quoting.

You haven't answer any of my questions in that post which you're quoting.

You haven't provide any evidence to support any of your claims which i have mention in my post which you're quoting.

I think rape is always wrong, for any reason, any "circumstance". If the Bible condones rape rather than repudiating it, the Bible itself is wrong.

Do you agree that rape is always wrong on its face?

Yes, I think rape is always wrong.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Your translation is so radical I must guess at what verse your quoting.

Didn't I mention Titus 1:10? It's a few verses down, in that context.

[Christ] died to save us from all sin, not merely some finite number of sins, not merely a specific type of sin, and definitely not merely our past sins.

Yes, I agree, from these types. But Christians can stop following Christ, i.e., lose their faith, by committing deliberate sins. That's what I meant, in referencing 1 Corinthians 5.

That's why the Greek Scriptures (NT) writers were constantly admonishing their brothers, on building up and strengthening their faith. Their genuine faith, in turn, will impel them to good works.

But, as James said, if good works aren't evident in a person's life, their faith "is dead". Then how would John 3:16 apply to us?

Before we really get into this I need you to take a more emphatic stance

Camp #3. It is God's gift. But it's not given to the ungrateful.

With that in mind, It's through our faith that we "gain grace", and attain a righteous standing. But a dead faith, is no faith!