the right religion

[waitasec]

I seem to attract people especially women that suffered something real or imagined that had hurt them to which they then attribute to Christianity.

christianity is ultimately interpreted by fallible people and "god" should know better. my reasoning is like this...
if it rains...the rain speaks for itself
where is the god of the bible?
as god cannot speak for himself and relies on fallible interpretations.
unless of course one is to say their interpretation is the right one...so who isn't wrong in their own eyes when faith is a part of the equation?

I believe you have indicated this is the case with you but I have never encountered this level of negativity before (with the exception of one remarkable incident). If I have misstated your position I apologize.

i am no more irked now then before and
i have given you reasons..most of which you have yet to address

the one i am more concerned about is the reason that included people who are willing to dismiss their loved ones in the here and now and are capable of using WMD's in order to please their god...it doesn't really matter if they are christian or not..it's that they purposefully want to be ignorant because this idea called faith is somehow something one must strive for in order to please their particular abrahamic god...it is a dangerous belief and one i will continue to challenge...

 

[1robin]

One is not cleansed of all sins by accepting Christ--Repentence gets sin blotted out-acts 3:19--- these accepted christ-matt 7:21-23-- it didnt work for them to accept Jesus. they didnt repent--a worker of iniquity( lawlessness) is a practicer of sin. Repentence is the stopping of the doing of a sin as shown in 1 cor 6:9-11-- where it says-- that is what some of you were( past tense) they stopped practicing sin.

Then by your definition only a person who reaches sinless perfection will get to heaven. God being perfect and sinless will not dwell with sin eternally so we must become perfect to do so then something must be done to make us perfect. Since our achieving sinless perfection by effort is out of the question as the bible says:
New International Version (©1984)
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
1 John 1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
Then some other solution must be appealed to. When we REPENT and accept Christ then his perfect record is applied to our account and we are legally declared perfect. Even though we are still sinners. Since your doctrine makes what Christ did meaningless except for some superficial effect then IMO your view is not biblical. Any system dependant on works is not only wrong it is impossible.
I assumed repentance as existing as part of the salvation event and did not emphasize it. The bible says:
Acts 3:19

Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,
Ephesians 1:7

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace
http://bible.cc/1_timothy/1-15.htm

What do you do with verses like this:

New International Version (©1984)
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst
http://bible.cc/1_timothy/1-15.htm
Again by your standard the apsostle who wrote more of the new testament than any other apparantly won't be in heaven either.


It seems that forgiveness is inexorably tied to Christ and is not the simple human effort you seem to suggest. The bible says he forgives all sins. Past, present, and future when we are saved. Any effort on our behalf to earn or merit heaven is reason for boasting and ruled out by the bible. I usually do not debate Christians in a public forum, I think it does no credit to God, but for now please continue and if I feel you have a reasonable counterpoint I will PM you or request you to PM me and we can hash it out. Shalom,

 

[1robin]

answer me this please.
are you saved and i am not?
yes or no.

my answer will depend on your yes or no response...

I didn't have time right now to address the longer posts but I will answer this one if only out of curiosity of what my answer will produce in that strange processor you employ.

1. I believe I am saved. My experience matches the bible's account of salvation. It IMO is permanent but I will not know with the exception of the brief and far between experiences I have in God's presence, until I die.
2. I do not know if you are saved. IMO from your responses I would say no. However I believe if you were born again, (If it is possible, you have not commited apostasy) then you will be in heaven drug complaining, kicking, and screaming all the way probably. In short in my opinion no but I have no absolute knowledge either way.

Since I have always said no one merits or earns heaven I wonder how you are going to get to where I know you are trying to go. Even Paul said:
New International Version (©1984)
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst.
1 Timothy 1:15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst.

Good luck.

 

[1robin]

Here's the way I honestly look at it.

Grace is like a river, a current. That current is going to pull you irresistible along.

You can think what you want do what you want. Swim against the current, try to grab onto some random log floating by. Relax and let the current pull you along or even perhaps, if you are smart enough or perhaps just lucky, swim with the current so you'll get to your destination faster. However you are going to get their one way are another. Up to you to exhaust yourself fighting it if you want.

It's the current that pulls us along. That is not of our own doing. Us splashing about, perhaps foolishly. That's us.

Likely many Christians think they are swimming with the current. Maybe they are and maybe not. Me I like to relax and try to gauge the direction of the flow. Maybe test a few strokes here and there and observe the results. Splashing about when you don't know what you are doing just kind of confuses things. makes it difficult to be aware of the current.

Regardless the river is going to continue to carry you down stream. I think spiritually, the idea is to not judge your situation by what you see rushing by on the river banks but get a view of the river from ten thousand feet. From there you can see where you've been and perhaps see where you are going.

However there is nothing that allows you to alter or change the river/current in anyway. You are more or less along for the the ride. The only thing that changes is your awareness.

I am sorry I missed this post today I will address it as soon as I can.

 

[waitasec]

I didn't have time right now to address the longer posts but I will answer this one if only out of curiosity of what my answer will produce in that strange processor you employ.

1. I believe I am saved. My experience matches the bible's account of salvation. It IMO is permanent but I will not know with the exception of the brief and far between experiences I have in God's presence, until I die.
2. I do not know if you are saved. IMO from your responses I would say no. However I believe if you were born again, (If it is possible, you have not commited apostasy) then you will be in heaven drug complaining, kicking, and screaming all the way probably. In short in my opinion no but I have no absolute knowledge either way.

one more question...
is being saved being favored?

Since I have always said no one merits or earns heaven I wonder how you are going to get to where I know you are trying to go. Even Paul said:
New International Version (©1984)
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst.
1 Timothy 1:15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst.

Good luck.

paul also said this:
1 cor 6:1 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels?

he isn't consistent...this is irreconcilable with 1 tim.
unless the worst of the worst of sinners will be judging the world...but at least they are godly sinners :sarcastic

 

[InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect]

The right religion argument usually goes like this... hey did you know 10,000 years ago there were people with different gods and have never heard of the god you believe in today? Really?

What does that mean?

In 10,000 years there will be people worshiping gods you have not yet heard of because they have not yet been discovered. (Invented?)

Thousands of religions compete today as the one true one does your decision have more to do with examining all the choices in depth or with how you were raised?

Are you smart enough to logically state why you think your religion is the one true one based on your examination of all religions or will you resort to a more basic emotional or personal freedom argument?

I'm at the point where when people argue that their religion is true I just nod and say so does every other Zealot of their religion.... What are you going to do logically to prove your point or are you going to resort to crashing planes into building to prove to me how fervently you believe because no one cares how fervently you believe green is red or your god is true if you can't logically explain why that is... if you are at such a loss for words that you have to kill people to prove how strongly you believe your argument than that still doesn't help your position.... We might assume that yes this bloke really believes this superstitious bunk but he can't prove it he can just prove how much he or she believes it...

The right religion indeed. What about the Aztec gods? Or the Neanderthal faiths? I would prefer a person have faith in themselves and their country rather than a person who thinks they got where they are only because of some imaginary friend...

 

[waitasec]

I must be misunderstanding you. To have objective empirical proof negates the need of faith.
I will add that it is a well-known fact that great amounts of what we universally acknowledge as true is based primarily of faith concerning secular matters.

then why did you say this...

What strange response. I mention several factors (among hundreds and thousands)that make faith a very reasonable proposition

you are the one who seems to be interchanging facts and faith.

Any book as in any testimony that is backed up by vast amounts of historical corroboration, explanatory power, hundreds and hundreds of fulfilled prophetic claims, philosophic consistency, and able to withstand incredible scrutiny suggests it is reliable even in the improvable claims.

there you go again.
faith isn't fact. it's no wonder this discourse is going in circles.
can we agree that faith =/= objective empirical evidence..?
guess not.

Why do you expect I can accurately describe details that no man on earth has ever done.

because you have.

The only thing that has been given says it is a very good place where there is no pain and misery neither is thare any death and so your claims concerning details are even more meaningless than mine. That does remind me of something though. I reject 99% of claims of NDE. I however heard a well-documented case of a guy in Africa who was declared dead for almost a day.

then he didn't die.

 

[1robin]

one more question...
is being saved being favored?

You are setting up a trail of bread crumbs that lead to a semantic trap. I am unsure what you mean by favored but by my understanding of that word no.

paul also said this:
1 cor 6:1 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels?

he isn't consistent...this is irreconcilable with 1 tim.
unless the worst of the worst of sinners will be judging the world...but at least they are godly sinners :sarcastic

His worst of sinners comment is not meant to be taken literally. Just by probability alone he could not possibly be the worst of sinners. He didn't gas 6 million Jews or anything. He meant that he was just as undeserving of heaven as the next person. You have discovered the highly concealed fact that Christians are not perfect. Since God appointed sinful men to carry out his ministry I find your complaint unconvincing. As for our fallability if you take a large group of Christians and compare them with an equal number of non believers in the worst case I do not think the Christians would be more sinful, in most cases I would bet less so. Since God has a choice in this case between a sinful group that denies him and a sinful group that believes and has the Holy Spirit to help. then him choosing the believers to carry out some of his purposes is not an issue. To make doubly sure he sent a perfect person to give us a perfect example.

Your bias is also creating a problem where there is none. When Paul talks about Christians judging angels and the world, that happens after the ressurection when we are made perfect and do not have these terrible faults. The other point he makes is that since we will eventually be entrusted with great judgements then why do we look else where to make trivial judgements.

 

[1robin]

then why did you say this...

you are the one who seems to be interchanging facts and faith.

The two statements in no way contradict. The bible contains tens of thousand of factual empiricle claims. I do not claim that it's supernatural claims are empiricle because they left no evidence of that sort. Supernatural events are simply not accessable to natural science. I was saying that just like every court case every day what can be verified is used to establish the reliablity for what can't. You are looking so hard for hairline cracks you are inventing them where they do not exist.

there you go again.
faith isn't fact. it's no wonder this discourse is going in circles.
can we agree that faith =/= objective empirical evidence..?
guess not.

Why ask a question that you then answer? The above statement I made makes your point pointless.

because you have.

I have given what ever the bible supplies. I have added and qualified as opinion some other possible explanations. I do not remember claiming as fact details I have no revelation or access to.

then he didn't die.

Produce you medical degree and your case notes concerning your witnessed tests you performed and I will consider your opinion meaningful. You wrongly accuse me of supplying details I do not have and then in the next sentence actually do it yourself.

 

[waitasec]

You are setting up a trail of bread crumbs that lead to a semantic trap. I am unsure what you mean by favored but by my understanding of that word no.

can you explain the difference between being favored and being saved is?

His worst of sinners comment is not meant to be taken literally. Just by probability alone he could not possibly be the worst of sinners. He didn't gas 6 million Jews or anything. He meant that he was just as undeserving of heaven as the next person. You have discovered the highly concealed fact that Christians are not perfect.

[/QUOTE]
jesus said to be perfect....guess flawed christians aren't going to heaven, unless their faith says different...

Since God appointed sinful men to carry out his ministry I find your complaint unconvincing.

excellent!!!! god put his plan into the hands of fallible men...what a wonderful idea

As for our fallability if you take a large group of Christians and compare them with an equal number of non believers in the worst case I do not think the Christians would be more sinful, in most cases I would bet less so.

i thought you said being saved isn't contingent on works but rather on faith...so what are you exactly boasting about?
and you answered my question here...
this is where you imply believers are better than non believers.
thank you.

 

[waitasec]

The two statements in no way contradict. The bible contains tens of thousand of factual empiricle claims.

i just saw spiderman and they make references to NY, does that make the story any more real?

I do not claim that it's supernatural claims are empiricle because they left no evidence of that sort. Supernatural events are simply not accessable to natural science.

how convenient for you.

I have given what ever the bible supplies.

which is completely unverifiable.

I have added and qualified as opinion some other possible explanations. I do not remember claiming as fact details I have no revelation or access to.

and i am here to challenge your opinion.

Produce you medical degree and your case notes concerning your witnessed tests you performed and I will consider your opinion meaningful. You wrongly accuse me of supplying details I do not have and then in the next sentence actually do it yourself.

if you can prove to me that his brain waves were being monitored...you may have a case...but until then anyone who has died..hasn't come back sorry...

 

[1robin]

can you explain the difference between being favored and being saved is?

probably

jesus said to be perfect....guess flawed christians aren't going to heaven, unless their faith says different...

You have already flogged all the hide off this horse and it didn't make any more sence back then.

excellent!!!! god put his plan into the hands of fallible men...what a wonderful idea

I didn't say that. I said God entrusted some aspects of his plans to man. The all imortant core he sent the only perfect example of conduct in history to carry out. He then empowered men to perfectly record it.

i thought you said being saved isn't contingent on works but rather on faith...so what are you exactly boasting about?

What are you talking about? My statement had nothing to do with obtaining salvation. Do you do this missinterpretation thing puposefully?

and you answered my question here...
this is where you imply believers are better than non believers.
thank you.

I said in my opinion people who follow a belief system which demands the highest standards of morality ever issued would certainly be no worse and should be somewhat more comitted to moral behavior. I have no idea whether this is true. Since you are taking too long in the desperate attempt to claim I contradicted myself somewhere I will do it for you. In the context of deserving heaven Christians are no better than anyone. Faith that Jesus died does not make that person less sinful than one who does not. However as Christianity is founded on a moral understanding in my opinion that should result in better behavior by a biblical standard. I have no frame of reference to state whether that is reality however. I will say specifically that whatever the behavior of the individual the religion has the only valid justification for any ultimate moral meaning at all. For that reason having the religion is better than not. I have no idea where you were actually striving so hard to land the conversation so I covered every aspect I could think of that deals with this issue. Even if you could find a contradiction somewhere in the volumes of claims I have made you will have managed to prove the unbelievable conclusion that I am not perfect and have left the religion untouched which I guess you will consider an accomplishment. So rock on, and do your worst, this aught to be good.

 

[waitasec]

probably

why are you being coy?
this says it all...you can't explain the difference between being favored and being saved... thats why you didn't.

:slap:

:beach:

 

[1robin]

i just saw spiderman and they make references to NY, does that make the story any more real?

The spiderman fallacy is it's self a phallacy and is only found in the urban dictionary. It however seems to be a popular favorite with someone who can't actually counter a claim with logic and reason and so appeals to an incorrect technicality and punts. The principle of establishing the reliablity of testimony by examining what can be verified is a part of every major form of jurice prudence in the civilised world and has been for thousands of years. Your pop culture philosophy doesn't cut it.

how convenient for you.

Does this equal you have no counter claim but must reply with something? You have made this inapplicable and meaningless statement many times already.

which is completely unverifiable.

Since much of the bible can and has been confirmed and I did not say what claims I refered to you had no frame of reference that enables you to make this claim.

and i am here to challenge your opinion.

With comic book philosophy. I do not find that challenging.

if you can prove to me that his brain waves were being monitored...you may have a case...but until then anyone who has died..hasn't come back sorry...

This is silly. There are many many cases of people coming back to life after being declared clinically dead. Some of them longer than 24 hours later. Your position is no more valid than mine but I might just dig into this a little for the Heck of it. There is another one that I find reliable about a guy who went to hell. He came back a few minutes later but that isn't the interesting part. He refused to speak about it for years. He was talked into writeing his account down by his preacher. He then got an artist to draw what he had seen there. Years later he was on a show with a lady he never heard of before and she said she went to hell as well. She was an artist herself they both eventually showed their drawings and one of the beings was identicle between them. It was very well researched and I have never heard a counterclaim to this story. I do not claim to know about any of these one way or the other I just didn't see any reason to reject them. No matter what your arbitrary claims are about death it can not claim to explain how a kid described in detail a teen version of a grandfather he had never met and never saw a picture of and it doesn't account for two identicle drawings of people who never met or heard of each other. Both of these are well documented, researched, and have been on primetime sincere news shows like 20/20. For what it's worth.

 

[1robin]

why are you being coy?
this says it all...you can't explain the difference between being favored and being saved... thats why you didn't.

:slap:

:beach:

No, lazy. I am debating a Baha'i person who is having a word fit and taking all my time up. Plus the Air Force test system I am redesigning went nuts earlier today and I still have not patched it up. Government crap!!! However I did find this a little harder for me at least to explain. I usually know why your position is invalid off the top of my head in about 30 seconds. This one is a little bit more tricky. You may remind me if you find this meaningful for some unknown semantic reason.

 

[waitasec]

I didn't say that. I said God entrusted some aspects of his plans to man. The all imortant core he sent the only perfect example of conduct in history to carry out. He then empowered men to perfectly record it.

yes you did...here i'll remind you...

Since God appointed sinful men to carry out his ministry

i don't see anywhere in this statement of yours that implies this

What are you talking about? My statement had nothing to do with obtaining salvation. Do you do this missinterpretation thing puposefully?

so what did the christians represent in your statement?

I said in my opinion people who follow a belief system which demands the highest standards of morality ever issued would certainly be no worse and should be somewhat more comitted to moral behavior.

no you didn't
this is what you said...boy you sure need to be reminded of your own words a lot....

As for our fallability if you take a large group of Christians and compare them with an equal number of non believers in the worst case I do not think the Christians would be more sinful, in most cases I would bet less so.

:foot:

 

[waitasec]

Since much of the bible can and has been confirmed and I did not say what claims I refered to you had no frame of reference that enables you to make this claim.

what has been confirmed? that god is concerned with mankind....bzzzzzzzzt wrong try again.

This is silly. There are many many cases of people coming back to life after being declared clinically dead. Some of them longer than 24 hours later. Your position is no more valid than mine but I might just dig into this a little for the Heck of it. There is another one that I find reliable about a guy who went to hell. He came back a few minutes later but that isn't the interesting part. He refused to speak about it for years. He was talked into writeing his account down by his preacher. He then got an artist to draw what he had seen there. Years later he was on a show with a lady he never heard of before and she said she went to hell as well. She was an artist herself they both eventually showed their drawings and one of the beings was identicle between them. It was very well researched and I have never heard a counterclaim to this story. I do not claim to know about any of these one way or the other I just didn't see any reason to reject them. No matter what your arbitrary claims are about death it can not claim to explain how a kid described in detail a teen version of a grandfather he had never met and never saw a picture of and it doesn't account for two identicle drawings of people who never met or heard of each other. Both of these are well documented, researched, and have been on primetime sincere news shows like 20/20. For what it's worth.

prove it...
i recommend national geographic's; moment of death available on demand with netflix

 

[waitasec]

No, lazy. I am debating a Baha'i person who is having a word fit and taking all my time up. Plus the Air Force test system I am redesigning went nuts earlier today and I still have not patched it up. Government crap!!! However I did find this a little harder for me at least to explain. I usually know why your position is invalid off the top of my head in about 30 seconds. This one is a little bit more tricky. You may remind me if you find this meaningful for some unknown semantic reason.

interesting. the truth isn't concerned with how it come across...
seems that is the purpose of disclaimers, which is what you are so desperately trying to conjure up...to cushion the ugly truth of the matter.

 

[1robin]

yes you did...here i'll remind you...

Waitasec is not a descriptive term is it. You must have minions spitting out these multiple posts. Why the multiple posts everytime anyway?

You said his plans as in all his plans in totality. I only said certain aspects were entrusted to men. I specifically said he trusted the most important issues to a the only perfect being in human history.

i don't see anywhere in this statement of yours that implies this

A ministry usually involves a minister and is only one aspect of many in which God has revealed his will and plans. I will admit that ministry does have a wider definition among other more limited meanings which is what I meant. The bible is known to be 95% accurate with the oldest manuscripts in existance. The textual tradition is believed to contain all the original revelation. This is an almost supernatural accuracy and vastly exceeds any other work of ancient literature and many of modern literature. The obvious fact that preachers are imperfect is hardly worth the effort of claiming.

so what did the christians represent in your statement?

That has nothing to do with how a person is saved.

no you didn't
this is what you said...boy you sure need to be reminded of your own words a lot....

The two statements mean exactly the same thing and since I wrote them I am the world's greatest expert on what they mean. It is good to be the best at something.


I have no idea what 95% of these emoticons mean and so it is wasted effort.

 

[1robin]

what has been confirmed? that god is concerned with mankind....bzzzzzzzzt wrong try again.

You can't possibly mean what you wrote here. I have never even heard a single other atheist or agnostic make this claim.

prove it...
i recommend national geographic's; moment of death available on demand with netflix

I never claimed I could verify it as fact but then neither can you claim your view as factual. I thought and said it was simply interesting. Why is national geographic more reliable than the individual testimony of the actual people. They were there national geographic wasn't.