FRIHOST ē FORUMS ē SEARCH ē FAQ ē TOS ē BLOGS ē COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Are sins real?





Dialogist
Are sins real or have sins been invented by man to control man and wouldn't such a treacherous invention require a sinful motive?

Is a sin different from a crime against a secular state or an ethical principal?

What does virtue have to do with it? Wouldn't virtue need to have also been invented to draw the distinction?

Is virtue real? And since virtue has no insidious possible outcome, wouldn't the motive to invent virtue require virtue?
catscratches
Dialogist wrote:
wouldn't such a treacherous invention require a sinful motive?
How does that necessarily follow? Surely bad inventions can come from upright, although misguided, intentions.

Sin usually refers to the transgression of some sort of divine law. Since no such divine law exists, neither can sin.
Dialogist
catscratches wrote:

How does that necessarily follow? Surely bad inventions can come from upright, although misguided, intentions.


Which would be a latter invention. It would also beg the question of how it became polluted. I'm talking about that bad invention, if it is to be so believed. It would require deceit in its very conception. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we practice to deceive." is how that necessarily follows. And any conception of aspiring to any intrinsic law (not only infers a separate distinction from ethics and state law) it also aids the argument about virtue. The willingness to conform to certain moral echelon, with the idealistic envisaged goal of moral excellence as its destination. I guess then if that exists, its departure point has to too.

catscratches wrote:

Since no such divine law exists, neither can sin.


If x then y would be both courageous and fallacious but since x then y is kind of pushing the boat out. Inferring the antecedent to affirm the consequent is a bit too much of stretch for me. Hopefully, the initial paragraph presents a fairly adequate case for the existence and actuality of y (if it doesn't, feel free to say why and I'll be happy to amend it). But even in light of that, I wouldn't then claim that since y then x. I could maybe try if y then x, but I don't need to. Why? y indeed.
loveandormoney
Dialogist wrote:
Are sins real or have sins been invented by man to control man and wouldn't such a treacherous invention require a sinful motive?

Is a sin different from a crime against a secular state or an ethical principal?

What does virtue have to do with it? Wouldn't virtue need to have also been invented to draw the distinction?

Is virtue real? And since virtue has no insidious possible outcome, wouldn't the motive to invent virtue require virtue?


Good morning.
What is a sin?
Is there one sin or are there many sins?
Are there big and small sins?
Is sin a behaviour like she is living in sin?

Regards
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:

What is a sin?


A sin is a crime against God, as catscratches rightly said. That's the popular understanding, although if you get into the mechanics of it, its actually much more complex than that. As with most things of this nature, it requires a cause. This requires an agent, conduit and effect too. Once you get past the (self) empirical a priori you need to ask oneself what is causing the phenomenon. What judges it independently of itself and how it can arise perfection from imperfection. Mainly, how it can aspire to a standard that exceeds itself. It then seems to a have an external adjudicator. This is where virtue comes in (logically) and you consult the 'logic' fathers. Much to my dismay, I might add.

What Aristotle does is hide (essentially) behind a veil of paradoxes. It's rather telling to me. He attempts to show virtues can have opposites, but he doesn't actually use the direct opposites of those things, he even says there's many, so he can use whichever ones he wants so he can make a paradox out of them. He does this, in a vein attempt to place virtue dead center with a slight inclination either way. He adopts the paradoxes of heroism (suicidal<-->survive at all costs) and tolerance (narrow-minded <---> weak-willed) and he does so to weasel out of the question: Why are am using Vice as an opposite of Virtue when vice is a sin and virtue makes sins actual? And... how is neutral the default?

loveandormoney wrote:
Is there one sin or are there many sins?


There's original sin, eternal sin, venial sins and mortal sin.

loveandormoney wrote:
Are there big and small sins?


Yeah, venial (small) sins and Mortal (enjoy the lake of fire) sin.

Venial sins are kind of pointless. Like it's wrong to waste food, but it's wrong to stuff your face. I suspect that this is where Aristotle was trying to wedge his virtue in between, but it doesn't work as Dante, a poet, and not a philosopher, had no problem seeing through. A man "staying neutral in times of moral crisis", etc is not virtuous or undecided. Dante has that as vice. The worst he could imagine, in fact.

loveorandmoney wrote:
Is sin a behaviour like she is living in sin?


I guess. A preoccupation with something. A constancy of sin. If you can live by the law, you can live against the law too. If you can live in a house of ill repute, you can live in the state of something immoral which isn't likely to change without virtue (human will to aspire). I'm not referring to living with a partner unmarried, specifically. I am just qualifying the term. If you owned your own concentration camp, for example. And you lived on-site. Would you not be living in sin?
loveandormoney
"A sin is a crime against God, as catscratches rightly said"

This will be a happy day for Atheists.
Because they do not have a god and so never they can do a crime.

Atheists are relaxed.
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:
Because they do not have a god and so never they can do a crime.


I don't have a savings account but that doesn't close all the banks or suggest that I'm wealthier without one.

I wouldn't relax if I was them. Not while sin (problem of evil) and virtue (objectivity) are actual.

I'd be shitting myself.
nickfyoung
Mankind is sin. It is a part of him, in him, the reason he does all things, how he thinks, and what he does.

There is no separating man from sin. He is sin. It is man himself.

There is no 'not sinning' for man. It is every thought, every deed, every part of his lifestyle.

Even if man re-connects with his God he is still sin. If he is born again his spirit or soul may be new but he is still sin.

It is the very nature of man. It is difficult to conceive of a Jesus, who was fully man, to be without sin. As fully man, did he not look at Mary and reckon she looked OK as a woman. Is this sin?
Dialogist
wrote:
Jesus, who was fully man, to be without sin. As fully man, did he not look at Mary and reckon she looked OK as a woman. Is this sin?


Magdalena, one would (sort of) hope? Not his mom. I mean it's still problematic, but in terms of having to nibble at the corners, I'm hoping to make it barely palatable.

It's not a sin if you don't act on it, however, that Scott quote I posted earlier, "Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we practice to deceive." - The popular hearing of that as a child always replaced "practice" with "venture". It went ""Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we venture to deceive." I'm not sure if this was a polutist insertion from the predominantly Catholic schooling and upbringing I had, but when I googled it, I changed it to what I'd thought they had misquoted and then changed it back after independent testimony to do Scott justice. I'm not sure which he actually wrote, but that's anecdotal and neither here nor there.

The church has always taught, no harm, no foul. It has took this stance on homosexuality and it has took it on lust. I personally wish they didn't take it on paedophilia, but I can't accuse them of inconsistencies. If you don't act on the sin, you don't commit the offense.

I accept and agree with man being imperfect and impure by default. I do this philosophically and theologically mainly, not to be congenial with a problematic Genesis account which I have never been able to fully grasp (and not without the want of trying - is it extremely convoluted) but they all concur and settle on the assumption that I had already arrived at - that the default is not pure. And if we are talking in a temporal, causal, chronological sense, it can't stay pure for more than a nanosecond. I have no problem with original sin, in that respect.

What I can't do is hold to depraved man who God doesn't have the omnipotence nor grace to redeem, nor horny/fickle Jesus. They are both relatively dull propositions to me. The first one is a lay-up, and the second, all though we know that Christ endured the full human experience, I dare say it reads like he didn't spend a great deal of time shooting the breeze on ignoramus avenue. If the proposition that say, Martin Luther King, was 'too busy checking out the hoes' seems ridiculous, then I don't know how a Christian reconciles this with what they believe about the nature of the son of God. Who starved for 40 days and nights in the wilderness while being tempted by the devil in Matthew 4:1-11 and came out hungry, tired and with a host of angels, saying, 'And...what else you got?'

So as for you trying to slip Jesus into Mary Magdalene's pants, as "Jesus answered him, "It is also written: ĎDo not put the Lord your God to the test." (Matthew 4:1, also admitting he's God again?) He was talking to satan by the way. I don't know how you feel about doing the same thing, in light of that. Tempting/assuming Jesus to be weak sauce, I mean.

As for the man being damned even after been born-again, one wonders how many times the fatalist has to be born. Kind of resistant to his inertia, no? This process of being born over and over just learn how dead he becomes each time of asking.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
wrote:
Jesus, who was fully man, to be without sin. As fully man, did he not look at Mary and reckon she looked OK as a woman. Is this sin?


Magdalena, one would (sort of) hope? Not his mom. I mean it's still problematic, but in terms of having to nibble at the corners, I'm hoping to make it barely palatable.

It's not a sin if you don't act on it, however, that Scott quote I posted earlier, "Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we practice to deceive." - The popular hearing of that as a child always replaced "practice" with "venture". It went ""Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we venture to deceive." I'm not sure if this was a polutist insertion from the predominantly Catholic schooling and upbringing I had, but when I googled it, I changed it to what I'd thought they had misquoted and then changed it back after independent testimony to do Scott justice. I'm not sure which he actually wrote, but that's anecdotal and neither here nor there.

The church has always taught, no harm, no foul. It has took this stance on homosexuality and it has took it on lust. I personally wish they didn't take it on paedophilia, but I can't accuse them of inconsistencies. If you don't act on the sin, you don't commit the offense.

I accept and agree with man being imperfect and impure by default. I do this philosophically and theologically mainly, not to be congenial with a problematic Genesis account which I have never been able to fully grasp (and not without the want of trying - is it extremely convoluted) but they all concur and settle on the assumption that I had already arrived at - that the default is not pure. And if we are talking in a temporal, causal, chronological sense, it can't stay pure for more than a nanosecond. I have no problem with original sin, in that respect.

What I can't do is hold to depraved man who God doesn't have the omnipotence nor grace to redeem, nor horny/fickle Jesus. They are both relatively dull propositions to me. The first one is a lay-up, and the second, all though we know that Christ endured the full human experience, I dare say it reads like he didn't spend a great deal of time shooting the breeze on ignoramus avenue. If the proposition that say, Martin Luther King, was 'too busy checking out the hoes' seems ridiculous, then I don't know how a Christian reconciles this with what they believe about the nature of the son of God. Who starved for 40 days and nights in the wilderness while being tempted by the devil in Matthew 4:1-11 and came out hungry, tired and with a host of angels, saying, 'And...what else you got?'

So as for you trying to slip Jesus into Mary Magdalene's pants, as "Jesus answered him, "It is also written: ĎDo not put the Lord your God to the test." (Matthew 4:1, also admitting he's God again?) He was talking to satan by the way. I don't know how you feel about doing the same thing, in light of that. Tempting/assuming Jesus to be weak sauce, I mean.

As for the man being damned even after been born-again, one wonders how many times the fatalist has to be born. Kind of resistant to his inertia, no? This process of being born over and over just learn how dead he becomes each time of asking.



Quote:
It's not a sin if you don't act on it



Didn't Jesus say that if you looked at your neighbors wife and fancied her you have already committed adultery.


Quote:
What I can't do is hold to depraved man who God doesn't have the omnipotence nor grace to redeem



Isn't the depraved man the one who God does redeem and does so because he is depraved.


Quote:
Tempting/assuming Jesus to be weak sauce, I mean.



As a man Jesus was tempted but never fell to it. Just quoting Jesus above when he says that to look is almost as bad as doing it.


Quote:
As for the man being damned even after been born-again



One is damned before being born again not after. After being born again man is still with sin. Apart from being a new man he is on a journey of justification and is never free from sin. Some sins fall off at the point of being born again but some take a long time to leave.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
Didn't Jesus say that if you looked at your neighbors wife and fancied her you have already committed adultery.


Yes and no. In your 'version' moreso, perhaps (which I'll get to), but even still, the act of doing something - for a particular purpose, with a particular motive is an intent. It is an act. First we'll take a look at your version and then we'll get into the "act" of it.

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matthew 5:28 (New Intercraptional Version)

"Anyone" is "looking lustfully" here. I don't look at people lustfully. I look at a person, woman for example, and then assess her features or qualities, or other ethereal aura. I then assess whether or not I find her attractive. Sometimes it's instantaneous, but I have to look at her first to register information. In proposing that one could "look lustfully" suggest that one could do so (without meaning to) say, grannies or fuggers. Still at this point, we haven't decided that we want to shag her. We're just finding her attractive. Big (massive) difference. Also, just the wrong interpretation all together...

"Ego autem dico vobis quoniam omnis qui viderit mulierem ad concupiscendum eam iam moechatus est eam in corde suo" - Matthaeus 5:28 (Biblia Sacra Vulgata)

Which would be...

"but as for me, I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart" Matthew 5:28 (Vulgate)

Any clearer? Again:

"But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." - Matthew 5:28 (Douay-Rheims)

Does this not back up what I'm saying? The alternative is looking at everything and everyone lustfully before you decide if you would like to lust at it. The alternative makes a sin out of the latter conceived fantasy too, in that "adultery with her" materialises in her (unknowing) sin too? Does she sin also when you decide to peak down her blouse? Basically Moses says "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" and he uses the word covet to show the envy, greed, pride, lust act/intent of doing so. Similarly, there is no accidental masturbation. Mentally or otherwise.

Nickfyoung wrote:
Isn't the depraved man the one who God does redeem and does so because he is depraved.


I don't know. That's for Calvinistic theology to verify. It's not really of any interest to me because it's not scripture and it fails in gaining my interest because it's not coherent. God chooses the depraved (instant salvation? No wait... Arrrgh! Wait... God chooses the depraved man, through grace, whom, through grace has chosen God (in Lutherian teachings) Perfect marriage? No wait... Arrgggh! This man is not worthy of God's grace, because he is totally depraved, so never worthy of welcoming of God in the first place. So he's doomed then? No wait... Arrgh! God is unable to redeem this man, because he is depraved! Arrggh! No Wait... He is depraved because God has redeemed him! Arrggh... No wa...ARRRRRGH! And you're wondering why we crushed you lot with doors?

Nickfyoung wrote:

Just quoting Jesus above when he says that to look is almost as bad as doing it.


*How you look, after you've looked, is almost as bad as doing it (is as bad as doing it, in your heart).

"One is damned before being born again not after."

Fine.

"After being born again man is still with sin."

Problematic. Venial sins? Mortal sins? Which stones is God incapable of lifting? I'm going to presume Original sin. Fine...

"Apart from being a new man he is on a journey of justification and is never free from sin."

He's not a new man at all. He's the same old crappy one, he's just discovered that protestant god isn't much cop either.

"Some sins fall off at the point of being born again but some take a long time to leave."

Man, the unsavable sin collector, even God Himself can't save. Original Sin, I take it, is never forgiven? The crime that you didn't commit must be an eternal sin and thus Mortal sin because you can never truly repent from something you have no guilt nor atonement for. The jews nailed (sorry) got this one down perfectly. You own up, confess your sins, all is forgiven, you move on. Rinse repeat.

The topic was "Are sins real". I was expecting the atheists to try to show me they are false. I didn't expect a Christian to give me evidence of false ones.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
Didn't Jesus say that if you looked at your neighbors wife and fancied her you have already committed adultery.


Yes and no. In your 'version' moreso, perhaps (which I'll get to), but even still, the act of doing something - for a particular purpose, with a particular motive is an intent. It is an act. First we'll take a look at your version and then we'll get into the "act" of it.

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matthew 5:28 (New Intercraptional Version)

"Anyone" is "looking lustfully" here. I don't look at people lustfully. I look at a person, woman for example, and then assess her features or qualities, or other ethereal aura. I then assess whether or not I find her attractive. Sometimes it's instantaneous, but I have to look at her first to register information. In proposing that one could "look lustfully" suggest that one could do so (without meaning to) say, grannies or fuggers. Still at this point, we haven't decided that we want to shag her. We're just finding her attractive. Big (massive) difference. Also, just the wrong interpretation all together...

"Ego autem dico vobis quoniam omnis qui viderit mulierem ad concupiscendum eam iam moechatus est eam in corde suo" - Matthaeus 5:28 (Biblia Sacra Vulgata)

Which would be...

"but as for me, I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart" Matthew 5:28 (Vulgate)

Any clearer? Again:

"But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." - Matthew 5:28 (Douay-Rheims)

Does this not back up what I'm saying? The alternative is looking at everything and everyone lustfully before you decide if you would like to lust at it. The alternative makes a sin out of the latter conceived fantasy too, in that "adultery with her" materialises in her (unknowing) sin too? Does she sin also when you decide to peak down her blouse? Basically Moses says "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" and he uses the word covet to show the envy, greed, pride, lust act/intent of doing so. Similarly, there is no accidental masturbation. Mentally or otherwise.

Nickfyoung wrote:
Isn't the depraved man the one who God does redeem and does so because he is depraved.


I don't know. That's for Calvinistic theology to verify. It's not really of any interest to me because it's not scripture and it fails in gaining my interest because it's not coherent. God chooses the depraved (instant salvation? No wait... Arrrgh! Wait... God chooses the depraved man, through grace, whom, through grace has chosen God (in Lutherian teachings) Perfect marriage? No wait... Arrgggh! This man is not worthy of God's grace, because he is totally depraved, so never worthy of welcoming of God in the first place. So he's doomed then? No wait... Arrgh! God is unable to redeem this man, because he is depraved! Arrggh! No Wait... He is depraved because God has redeemed him! Arrggh... No wa...ARRRRRGH! And you're wondering why we crushed you lot with doors?

Nickfyoung wrote:

Just quoting Jesus above when he says that to look is almost as bad as doing it.


*How you look, after you've looked, is almost as bad as doing it (is as bad as doing it, in your heart).

"One is damned before being born again not after."

Fine.

"After being born again man is still with sin."

Problematic. Venial sins? Mortal sins? Which stones is God incapable of lifting? I'm going to presume Original sin. Fine...

"Apart from being a new man he is on a journey of justification and is never free from sin."

He's not a new man at all. He's the same old crappy one, he's just discovered that protestant god isn't much cop either.

"Some sins fall off at the point of being born again but some take a long time to leave."

Man, the unsavable sin collector, even God Himself can't save. Original Sin, I take it, is never forgiven? The crime that you didn't commit must be an eternal sin and thus Mortal sin because you can never truly repent from something you have no guilt nor atonement for. The jews nailed (sorry) got this one down perfectly. You own up, confess your sins, all is forgiven, you move on. Rinse repeat.

The topic was "Are sins real". I was expecting the atheists to try to show me they are false. I didn't expect a Christian to give me evidence of false ones.



Quote:
It's not really of any interest to me because it's not scripture



All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

It is by grace you are saved and not by works lest any man should boast.


Quote:
New Intercraptional Version)



I think you will find that the Douey rheems was written with the express purpose of combating the reformers. Could it not be a little biased.


Quote:
God chooses the depraved (instant salvation? No wait... Arrrgh! Wait... God chooses the depraved man, through grace, whom, through grace has chosen God (in Lutherian teachings) Perfect marriage? No wait... Arrgggh! This man is not worthy of God's grace, because he is totally depraved, so never worthy of welcoming of God in the first place. So he's doomed then? No wait... Arrgh! God is unable to redeem this man, because he is depraved! Arrggh! No Wait... He is depraved because God has redeemed him!



You have that in a real tangle. It really is quite simple and explained that way in Romans and Ephesians. God chose some people to go hell and the others
to go to heaven. This was done before time and to bring it into being all were brought to a place of inherited sin.

The ones chosen for heaven were saved by grace through the cross, the others were deliberately blinded and made to sin more and more.


Quote:
Problematic. Venial sins? Mortal sins? Which stones is God incapable of lifting? I'm going to presume Original sin. Fine...



We don't differentiate between sins. Sin is sin and in God's eyes there is no degree of sin. If you steal a pen from work it is sin and if you kill someone it is sin. No difference as far as God is concerned.


Quote:
He's not a new man at all. He's the same old crappy one, he's just discovered that protestant god isn't much cop either.



You are a new man in Christ. The old man has been done away.


Quote:
Man, the unsavable sin collector, even God Himself can't save. Original Sin, I take it, is never forgiven? The crime that you didn't commit must be an eternal sin and thus Mortal sin because you can never truly repent from something you have no guilt nor atonement for. The jews nailed (sorry) got this one down perfectly. You own up, confess your sins, all is forgiven, you move on. Rinse repeat.



Once again. sin is sin and there is no difference. Yes confess your sins. Jesus died for your sins, past, present and future. Only difference, we believe we can do that directly without going to a confession box.


Quote:
The topic was "Are sins real". I was expecting the atheists to try to show me they are false. I didn't expect a Christian to give me evidence of false ones.



Sin is sin, not false, not mortal, not whatever other sort of sin you have.
Dialogist
Oh for the last time...

The Latin Vulgate came out 4th Century. The Douay Rheims is the Latin Vulgate in English. The reason it came out as a Counter-Reform is because Henry VIII was trying to topple Catholicism in England because she excommunicated the evil lump. Henry decided to present English speaking people, statesman and yokel alike, with a Bible they could read. Only it was a bullshit bible. It was actually a cherry pick of two other bullshit bibles written by two Brits and a German. James VI gave his 'translators' specific instructions to change it to bolster the episcopal polity of the C of E. It's a politically motivated propaganda publication. They even threw in apocrypha so it would look bigger and more complete. The apocrypha was removed for a very, very, very good reason. They didn't care, and I doubt they even researched the historicity of the sources. Apostles didn't write your bible. Plain and simple. Medieval Germans and English did. They were not divinely inspired. Period. They completely ignored (even changed) the Hebrew, Greek and Latin on purpose. The reason modern Jews can't stomach you is because in Hebrews 13:8, the 'translators' took 14 different Hebrew words and changed them all into the word "Prince". It's not good enough. It's just not good enough at all. The actual, real Church wasn't having that. And to be honest, I'm not either. You've changed the bible as specifically warned not to in the final verse and you've got the audacity to mock the real one. And criticize the counter-reform? Then, claiming the Douay Rheims followed the King James Bible because it did so chronologically is just a remarkably naive thing to say, but judging by everything else you've said so far, still somewhat of a graduation. So congratulations, you're getting there. I'm just worried about where "where" is, if you get what I mean.



"Gratia enim estis salvati per fidem et hoc non ex vobis Dei enim donum est" - Ephesians 2:8 (Sacra Vulgata)
"Non ex operibus ut ne quis glorietur" - Ephesians 2:8-9 (Sacra Vulgata)

is...

"For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God" - Ephesians 2:8 (Sacra Vulgata)
"Not of works, lest any man should boast" - Ephesians 2:8-9 (Sacra Vulgata)

aka:

"For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God" - - Ephesians 2:8 (Douay-Rheims)
"Not of works, that no man may glory." - Ephesians 2:8-9 (Douay-Rheims)

Do you see how are they carbon copies? How there's little to no loss in translation from the 4th century? I hope so...

Then you might be able to see that you missed a few choice words out (like you did so accidentally). Namely "through faith" and "not of yourselves" and "it is a gift of God". The word "that" here, "and that not of" has scholars in knots but it's really not that complicated. Especially if one decides to leave that whole part out?

"For by grace" (God's grace, because he's nice) you are saved ("saved" not 'toyed with' or 'bestowed more sin on', but "saved") and that (lights the blue litmus paper - and that not of...? What? Grace or faith? A thousand scholars turn in their graves). St. Paul is talking about faith here. He is not talking about Grace. I'm sorry, but even if he was, he'd kill that off right after with "not of yourselves, for it is the gift OF God - and not "from" God and not "by" God. "Not of works, lest any man should boast" Why is man boasting? Braggarts don't make the grade? We knew that already. This verse says nothing about good deeds being meaningless, on the contrary, it draws a distinction between the good deed and the boaster. It says nothing about Grace "alone". The word "Alone" is not even in attendance. And if was to be 'presumed' by Luther then how does he wedge "Alone" in with faith also making an appearance? Does he not do this, merely just to back up Sola Gratia? Hmm? Sounds probable doesn't it? Sounds extremely unsupported and bold too, if you ask me.

That's the literary reading. The meaning reading is simply, God requires faith, nothing more, nothing less. Complex huh? Faith, however, requires belief. God doesn't believe in Himself on your behalf obviously. God doesn't repent your sins, to Himself, on your behalf, obviously. So I guess our good, good, friend Ol' FREE WILL has to make an impromptu appearance again. I guess in doing so, and that the actual reading of the actual verse being what it is, saying nothing about predestination, lack of free will or Sola Gratia (by "grace alone") and I am still reading you say things like this:

Nickfyoung wrote:

the others were deliberately blinded and made to sin more and more.


I can only pray for you. The free Bible study I provide you with clearly isn't working if you are harboring these blasphemous thoughts about your God. I'm not interested in Catholic Vs Reformists, this bible Vs that. I'm worried about your soul. You need to reassess a few things about what and Who you believe in. If you read that last sentence anywhere else, you wouldn't be criticized for thinking it to be written by a devil worshiper or something. It's just that unchristian. Think some things over with this whole Calvin thing. Think about the kind of thoughts he's put into your head. The way he has you assessing your God. You don't need to respond, just think it over. If pride is important to you, you need not say anything about it. Just quietly, slowly but steadily let this harmful nonsense go, please. It's grotesque.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Oh for the last time...

The Latin Vulgate came out 4th Century. The Douay Rheims is the Latin Vulgate in English. The reason it came out as a Counter-Reform is because Henry VIII was trying to topple Catholicism in England because she excommunicated the evil lump. Henry decided to present English speaking people, statesman and yokel alike, with a Bible they could read. Only it was a bullshit bible. It was actually a cherry pick of two other bullshit bibles written by two Brits and a German. James VI gave his 'translators' specific instructions to change it to bolster the episcopal polity of the C of E. It's a politically motivated propaganda publication. They even threw in apocrypha so it would look bigger and more complete. The apocrypha was removed for a very, very, very good reason. They didn't care, and I doubt they even researched the historicity of the sources. Apostles didn't write your bible. Plain and simple. Medieval Germans and English did. They were not divinely inspired. Period. They completely ignored (even changed) the Hebrew, Greek and Latin on purpose. The reason modern Jews can't stomach you is because in Hebrews 13:8, the 'translators' took 14 different Hebrew words and changed them all into the word "Prince". It's not good enough. It's just not good enough at all. The actual, real Church wasn't having that. And to be honest, I'm not either. You've changed the bible as specifically warned not to in the final verse and you've got the audacity to mock the real one. And criticize the counter-reform? Then, claiming the Douay Rheims followed the King James Bible because it did so chronologically is just a remarkably naive thing to say, but judging by everything else you've said so far, still somewhat of a graduation. So congratulations, you're getting there. I'm just worried about where "where" is, if you get what I mean.



"Gratia enim estis salvati per fidem et hoc non ex vobis Dei enim donum est" - Ephesians 2:8 (Sacra Vulgata)
"Non ex operibus ut ne quis glorietur" - Ephesians 2:8-9 (Sacra Vulgata)

is...

"For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God" - Ephesians 2:8 (Sacra Vulgata)
"Not of works, lest any man should boast" - Ephesians 2:8-9 (Sacra Vulgata)

aka:

"For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God" - - Ephesians 2:8 (Douay-Rheims)
"Not of works, that no man may glory." - Ephesians 2:8-9 (Douay-Rheims)

Do you see how are they carbon copies? How there's little to no loss in translation from the 4th century? I hope so...

Then you might be able to see that you missed a few choice words out (like you did so accidentally). Namely "through faith" and "not of yourselves" and "it is a gift of God". The word "that" here, "and that not of" has scholars in knots but it's really not that complicated. Especially if one decides to leave that whole part out?

"For by grace" (God's grace, because he's nice) you are saved ("saved" not 'toyed with' or 'bestowed more sin on', but "saved") and that (lights the blue litmus paper - and that not of...? What? Grace or faith? A thousand scholars turn in their graves). St. Paul is talking about faith here. He is not talking about Grace. I'm sorry, but even if he was, he'd kill that off right after with "not of yourselves, for it is the gift OF God - and not "from" God and not "by" God. "Not of works, lest any man should boast" Why is man boasting? Braggarts don't make the grade? We knew that already. This verse says nothing about good deeds being meaningless, on the contrary, it draws a distinction between the good deed and the boaster. It says nothing about Grace "alone". The word "Alone" is not even in attendance. And if was to be 'presumed' by Luther then how does he wedge "Alone" in with faith also making an appearance? Does he not do this, merely just to back up Sola Gratia? Hmm? Sounds probable doesn't it? Sounds extremely unsupported and bold too, if you ask me.

That's the literary reading. The meaning reading is simply, God requires faith, nothing more, nothing less. Complex huh? Faith, however, requires belief. God doesn't believe in Himself on your behalf obviously. God doesn't repent your sins, to Himself, on your behalf, obviously. So I guess our good, good, friend Ol' FREE WILL has to make an impromptu appearance again. I guess in doing so, and that the actual reading of the actual verse being what it is, saying nothing about predestination, lack of free will or Sola Gratia (by "grace alone") and I am still reading you say things like this:

Nickfyoung wrote:

the others were deliberately blinded and made to sin more and more.


I can only pray for you. The free Bible study I provide you with clearly isn't working if you are harboring these blasphemous thoughts about your God. I'm not interested in Catholic Vs Reformists, this bible Vs that. I'm worried about your soul. You need to reassess a few things about what and Who you believe in. If you read that last sentence anywhere else, you wouldn't be criticized for thinking it to be written by a devil worshiper or something. It's just that unchristian. Think some things over with this whole Calvin thing. Think about the kind of thoughts he's put into your head. The way he has you assessing your God. You don't need to respond, just think it over. If pride is important to you, you need not say anything about it. Just quietly, slowly but steadily let this harmful nonsense go, please. It's grotesque.



Quote:
Then you might be able to see that you missed a few choice words out (like you did so accidentally). Namely "through faith" and "not of yourselves" and "it is a gift of God". The word "that" here, "and that not of" has scholars in knots but it's really not that complicated. Especially if one decides to leave that whole part out?



I was just quoting from memory. Nothing 'accidentally' about it.


Quote:
For by grace" (God's grace, because he's nice) you are saved



Yes by grace and by grace alone. Nothing else can save you. It has to be God's grace by faith.
And where does that faith come from. Do you think that a man depraved in sin is capable of drumming up enough faith to accept Jesus Christ.

No, faith is a gift of God. He gives you the faith to believe and accept that grace and be saved.

No one can be saved unless God gives him the gift of faith so he can accept God's grace.


Quote:
This verse says nothing about good deeds being meaningless,



What part of 'not of works' is difficult.


Quote:
God requires faith, nothing more, nothing less. Complex huh? Faith, however, requires belief.



Faith is a gift of God. You don't generate it yourself by belief or anything else. Read the verse again. No freewill involved.


Romans, "What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath Ė prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for gloryÖ" (v. 22-23)."


"As Christians, we are the recipients of God's grace, and we would never experience his wrath, but he has created the wicked so that as he torments them, he may show forth even his aspect of his glory to us. "Vincent Cheung.
loveandormoney
Dialogist wrote:
loveandormoney wrote:
Because they do not have a god and so never they can do a crime.


I don't have a savings account but that doesn't close all the banks or suggest that I'm wealthier without one.

I wouldn't relax if I was them. Not while sin (problem of evil) and virtue (objectivity) are actual.

I'd be shitting myself.



Where can I buy a saving account?
Is it free of charge?


Look my thread: Is sin fantasy or real?
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

Yes by grace and by grace alone. Nothing else can save you.


As I say, that's a novel opinion, but unfortunately, it's just not scripture. As we've both proved. There's no "alone" read literally or suggestively.

Nickfyoung wrote:

It has to be God's grace by faith.


Which I've said.

Nickfyoung wrote:

And where does that faith come from.


Is this a rhetorical question? Is that why you've omitted the question mark? Or is it rhetorical because it answers itself?

Nickfyoung wrote:

Do you think that a man depraved in sin is capable of drumming up enough faith to accept Jesus Christ.


I think it would be extremely problematic and require some sort of revelation, which I do not put beyond the capabilities of God. However, that's purposeful point-evasion on your part. The point is, "And where does that faith come from?" And I'm glad you asked, even though I've already told you. Let's do it again...

"For by grace you have been saved"

'It is by grace that you been saved'. Pretty straightforward, right? I mean "been" is past tense, but we won't open that Pandora's box just yet, reformists. It is by "grace" that it was able to have happened. Agreed? I hope so. There's no alternative reading.

Next, "through faith". Faith is the reason that this has happened. It is through faith that you have been saved. Still pretty straightforward.

Then it does something a little bit unorthodox. "And not that of yourselves". Not that faith of yourselves? It doesn't mean Grace, as we checked that attribute in at the door. That is God's grace. We're dealing with faith primarily here. "through faith and that not of yourselves" is one sentence. It has a subject, object and clause. So is God believing in Himself on your behalf? No (because that would be redundant and absurd), "it is the gift of God". Gifts. Have you ever had a gift that you weren't given to own? Does your "mnemonic programming" god value the faith he has in himself on your behalf? And why give a gift, really, if you yourself open it and keep it for yourself regardless? Here's where you have to understand the relationship between omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence with credulous, sentient, free will having human being. We have natural, hard, conclusive evidence (here of all places), that people do not believe in God. If the gift was mandatory, they would all believe and would have been saved. But it is a "gift" and not a "stigma". You can refuse gifts. Likewise, it's a "gift OF God". Of is nature. Not possession. And there's no way that can transform "a gift" into "a decree". No matter how hard you try. The faith aspect is how some get the gift and some don't. The grace aspect suggests that "grace" leaves the gift open to all, doesn't Indian-give, and never pulls the availability of it. Because that's what being gracious entails.

It is still a troublesome verse from St. Paul with this reading, as yes, he is clearly saying that 'it isn't your faith, it is a gift of god' which is why I choose to look at the nature "of God" to rationalise it, because faith can only be an attribute of the believer, it's the thing that God's grace has saved, as stipulated and faith is not programmed. Knowledge would be programmed instead, to those, who have already been saved. Actually, this verse keeps getting worse. It does however, tap into the "works" (doesn't say if they are good or bad, just says they are being boasted or glorified). "Not of works, lest any man should boast". "Lest" means "for fear that". That does indeed say that the works (if good) are being devalued by the boast (or glorification of such). It's entirely irrelevant to the fore mentioned though. The premise is faith, and who that faith belongs to.

Now what we do, as Christians who both believe in God's omniscience, Calvinists, more so, as I am constantly being reminded with this "fatalism" dressed as "predestination" patter. Is we ask ourselves, why does God have faith (we'll be saved, when we've already been saved) when he knows all there is to know? The answer, as I have (admittedly obtusely) pointed out, is that the faith is a gift of God. It's not your grace that exalts you, it is His. His faith is of God's nature and it is gifted to you but no matter which way you (or even St. Paul) verbally dices it, the acceptance of the gift of faith still has to be your own and accepted by you via your free will.

While I do admit that my (the standard) reading (I actually think I've outdone the standard reading, honestly) is problematic and has logical inadequacies, the alternative is yours. And yours is incoherent:

"God has saved everyone, through His conditional grace, His omniscient faith, and nothing good you do can matter. This is why you are evil and doomed." Sound familiar? Sound gibberish?

Then you make up some cocknbull about selected/elected chosen to be programmed by God, including those programmed to be doomed, etc. Invent a bunch of theories about "Grace Alone" When it's God's grace that St. Paul was definitely talking about, and ignore the faith part purposefully because it suggest free will and emphasise the "Not by works" part glossing over the "Lest" and "you should boast" parts to hammer home some bizarre "damned if you, damned if you don't" theology. I hope you see why this makes God out to an evil despot. Why it makes the Christian futile. Why it has a lot more logical discrepancies than mine does, and ultimately, why it beholds the nature of God himself to be something not worthy in itself of even a depraved's faith. If you don't see any of these things, I'm afraid I'll just have to do the Christian thing and stop plugging away at you, frustrating you and ultimately just making you cling on to this even tighter and more zealously, because I try to use logic and reason, and when speaking to theists, I try to use the knowledge of self, soul and revelation of God that I consider them to be receptive too. In failing in all, it would then be completely out of my humble reach.
Dialogist
Dialogist wrote:
faith can only be an attribute of the believer, it's the thing that God's grace has saved, as stipulated and faith is not programmed. Knowledge would be programmed instead, to those, who have already been saved. Actually, this verse keeps getting worse.


Actually...

Dialogist wrote:

I try to use the knowledge of self, soul and revelation of God that I consider them to be receptive too.


Revelations.

Sorry, St. Paul. It does work.
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
loveandormoney wrote:
Because they do not have a god and so never they can do a crime.


I don't have a savings account but that doesn't close all the banks or suggest that I'm wealthier without one.

I wouldn't relax if I was them. Not while sin (problem of evil) and virtue (objectivity) are actual.

I'd be shitting myself.



Where can I buy a saving account?
Is it free of charge?


Lool my thread: Is sin fantasy or real?


Sins have a higher currency than savings. You can take those with you. Still, that side of the mortal coil, neither are legal tender.

Happy trails.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

Yes by grace and by grace alone. Nothing else can save you.


As I say, that's a novel opinion, but unfortunately, it's just not scripture. As we've both proved. There's no "alone" read literally or suggestively.

Nickfyoung wrote:

It has to be God's grace by faith.


Which I've said.

Nickfyoung wrote:

And where does that faith come from.


Is this a rhetorical question? Is that why you've omitted the question mark? Or is it rhetorical because it answers itself?

Nickfyoung wrote:

Do you think that a man depraved in sin is capable of drumming up enough faith to accept Jesus Christ.


I think it would be extremely problematic and require some sort of revelation, which I do not put beyond the capabilities of God. However, that's purposeful point-evasion on your part. The point is, "And where does that faith come from?" And I'm glad you asked, even though I've already told you. Let's do it again...

"For by grace you have been saved"

'It is by grace that you been saved'. Pretty straightforward, right? I mean "been" is past tense, but we won't open that Pandora's box just yet, reformists. It is by "grace" that it was able to have happened. Agreed? I hope so. There's no alternative reading.

Next, "through faith". Faith is the reason that this has happened. It is through faith that you have been saved. Still pretty straightforward.

Then it does something a little bit unorthodox. "And not that of yourselves". Not that faith of yourselves? It doesn't mean Grace, as we checked that attribute in at the door. That is God's grace. We're dealing with faith primarily here. "through faith and that not of yourselves" is one sentence. It has a subject, object and clause. So is God believing in Himself on your behalf? No (because that would be redundant and absurd), "it is the gift of God". Gifts. Have you ever had a gift that you weren't given to own? Does your "mnemonic programming" god value the faith he has in himself on your behalf? And why give a gift, really, if you yourself open it and keep it for yourself regardless? Here's where you have to understand the relationship between omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence with credulous, sentient, free will having human being. We have natural, hard, conclusive evidence (here of all places), that people do not believe in God. If the gift was mandatory, they would all believe and would have been saved. But it is a "gift" and not a "stigma". You can refuse gifts. Likewise, it's a "gift OF God". Of is nature. Not possession. And there's no way that can transform "a gift" into "a decree". No matter how hard you try. The faith aspect is how some get the gift and some don't. The grace aspect suggests that "grace" leaves the gift open to all, doesn't Indian-give, and never pulls the availability of it. Because that's what being gracious entails.

It is still a troublesome verse from St. Paul with this reading, as yes, he is clearly saying that 'it isn't your faith, it is a gift of god' which is why I choose to look at the nature "of God" to rationalise it, because faith can only be an attribute of the believer, it's the thing that God's grace has saved, as stipulated and faith is not programmed. Knowledge would be programmed instead, to those, who have already been saved. Actually, this verse keeps getting worse. It does however, tap into the "works" (doesn't say if they are good or bad, just says they are being boasted or glorified). "Not of works, lest any man should boast". "Lest" means "for fear that". That does indeed say that the works (if good) are being devalued by the boast (or glorification of such). It's entirely irrelevant to the fore mentioned though. The premise is faith, and who that faith belongs to.

Now what we do, as Christians who both believe in God's omniscience, Calvinists, more so, as I am constantly being reminded with this "fatalism" dressed as "predestination" patter. Is we ask ourselves, why does God have faith (we'll be saved, when we've already been saved) when he knows all there is to know? The answer, as I have (admittedly obtusely) pointed out, is that the faith is a gift of God. It's not your grace that exalts you, it is His. His faith is of God's nature and it is gifted to you but no matter which way you (or even St. Paul) verbally dices it, the acceptance of the gift of faith still has to be your own and accepted by you via your free will.

While I do admit that my (the standard) reading (I actually think I've outdone the standard reading, honestly) is problematic and has logical inadequacies, the alternative is yours. And yours is incoherent:

"God has saved everyone, through His conditional grace, His omniscient faith, and nothing good you do can matter. This is why you are evil and doomed." Sound familiar? Sound gibberish?

Then you make up some cocknbull about selected/elected chosen to be programmed by God, including those programmed to be doomed, etc. Invent a bunch of theories about "Grace Alone" When it's God's grace that St. Paul was definitely talking about, and ignore the faith part purposefully because it suggest free will and emphasise the "Not by works" part glossing over the "Lest" and "you should boast" parts to hammer home some bizarre "damned if you, damned if you don't" theology. I hope you see why this makes God out to an evil despot. Why it makes the Christian futile. Why it has a lot more logical discrepancies than mine does, and ultimately, why it beholds the nature of God himself to be something not worthy in itself of even a depraved's faith. If you don't see any of these things, I'm afraid I'll just have to do the Christian thing and stop plugging away at you, frustrating you and ultimately just making you cling on to this even tighter and more zealously, because I try to use logic and reason, and when speaking to theists, I try to use the knowledge of self, soul and revelation of God that I consider them to be receptive too. In failing in all, it would then be completely out of my humble reach.



Quote:
the acceptance of the gift of faith still has to be your own and accepted by you via your free will.



I am with you pretty much all the way till this part. What about regeneration. Is man not too far removed from God by sin to know what to do with this gift of faith when he gets it.

I believe that God has to regenerate man first, soften his heart, prepare him to receive this gift of faith.

You have man, depraved in sin, a hater of God and anything Godly, suddenly given a gift of faith without any preparation.

So God moves in this man first. He starts the work of regeneration by his Spirit, softens his hardened heart, brings him to a place where he is receptive, then gives him the gift of faith so he can receive salvation by grace.

As for freewill. You are saying that man has the option to receive or reject the gift of faith. I am saying that by the time God has finished regenerating you and making you receptive, you will not want to reject the offer. God will not give you the gift of faith till you are ready for it and sure to receive it with open arms.

I don't believe he is willing to waste such a precious gift by offering it to just anybody whether they be ready or not. When you look at it logically, if that gift was offered to all, many would reject it. Imagine half the people on here being offered such a gift. They would laugh and throw it back. I suppose that is your freewill in operation.

So the alternative is, wait for it, God offers the gift of faith to those he has regenerated, because they will then accept it, and only to those he has 'chosen' to regenerate.
johans
Dialogist wrote:
Are sins real or have sins been invented by man to control man and wouldn't such a treacherous invention require a sinful motive?

Is a sin different from a crime against a secular state or an ethical principal?

What does virtue have to do with it? Wouldn't virtue need to have also been invented to draw the distinction?

Is virtue real? And since virtue has no insidious possible outcome, wouldn't the motive to invent virtue require virtue?


That all depends on your belief.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
I am with you pretty much all the way till this part.


Nice to see we're making headroom. I see you're still clinging on to no free will! Absolutely not! regardless of:

Nickfyoung wrote:
I suppose that is your freewill in operation.


But the main point of contention of is similar to what we crossed wires on with the the argument about whether looking lustfully is possible, rather than looking, and then lusting, which is how it usually goes. And likewise:

Nickfyoung wrote:
I believe that God has to regenerate man first, soften his heart, prepare him to receive this gift of faith.


That's scripture. I believe that too. However, the softening of the heart still prefixes the acquiring of faith, which is mans own choice to accept or refuse.

Nickfyoung wrote:
I suppose that is your freewill in operation.


Indeed, and

Nickfyoung wrote:

I am saying that by the time God has finished regenerating you and making you receptive, you will not want to reject the offer.


Would be a presumption, that:

Dialogist wrote:
We have natural, hard, conclusive evidence (here of all places), that people do not believe in God.


is false. It's not false, but:

Nickfyoung wrote:

God will not give you the gift of faith till you are ready for it and sure to receive it with open arms.


Still reinforces:

Nickfyoung wrote:
I suppose that is your freewill in operation.


So the problem isn't with free will, or faith being the elect promoter, it's just a tendency to cling on to predestination?

What John Calvin does is conflate fatalism with predestination but predestination doesn't have to be so absolute. I had this book as a child and it was structured like,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choose_Your_Own_Adventure

Have you had one of these? If yes, go to page 42. If no, go to page 29. Needless to say, the author was entertaining but she wasn't Godly. And that's how Augustine understood predestination. Calvin's Choose Your Own Adventure has only one page. In effect, it makes the author less proficient than the lady who wrote my kid's book, which had 7 different endings, all controlled by her. I think I must have read it about 20 times, and still didn't get all of the different endings (reincarnation/regeneration?). I wasn't the first to point out Calvin's paradox of free will and I wasn't the first to point out the problem of restricting God within a time He began, I also wasn't the first to point out that our logical understanding of "destination" isn't limited to fatalism, as Choose Your Own Adventure so simply and obviously points out. Even the bifurcation fallacy presents you with at least two options. These are just the logical concerns. The spiritual concern is much graver. As one knows certain things illogically about what they have faith in and why. And Calvin's proposition then takes on whole new problematic form of incompatibility. And I would fence, a much more damning one to his case. Most Christians believe in predeterminism. However, most don't limit it to fatalism because most believe their God to more loving, capable and considerate than Calvin seemed to be.

Nickfyoung wrote:

God offers the gift of faith to those he has regenerated, because they will then accept it, and only to those he has 'chosen' to regenerate.


I don't really have any problem with this but it does still seem like an elaborate attempt to reconcile fatalism with faith when faith simply being the decider is more than adequate for explaining St. Paul's verse and doesn't lug around all of the paradoxical baggage that accompanies the Calvinistic understanding, which seems to paint God in a less than favourable light. Also, I think with "Faith" being the crux of St. Paul's verse, however God evaluates "faith" that he prepared and implanted, after he predetermined it all along gets us back to square one. In short: If faith is the decider, the faith has be chosen by man in order for man to be eligible in God's eyes. Hence:

Dialogist wrote:
the acceptance of the gift of faith still has to be your own and accepted by you via your free will.


Now go to page 777.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
I am with you pretty much all the way till this part.


Nice to see we're making headroom. I see you're still clinging on to no free will! Absolutely not! regardless of:

Nickfyoung wrote:
I suppose that is your freewill in operation.


But the main point of contention of is similar to what we crossed wires on with the the argument about whether looking lustfully is possible, rather than looking, and then lusting, which is how it usually goes. And likewise:

Nickfyoung wrote:
I believe that God has to regenerate man first, soften his heart, prepare him to receive this gift of faith.


That's scripture. I believe that too. However, the softening of the heart still prefixes the acquiring of faith, which is mans own choice to accept or refuse.

Nickfyoung wrote:
I suppose that is your freewill in operation.


Indeed, and

Nickfyoung wrote:

I am saying that by the time God has finished regenerating you and making you receptive, you will not want to reject the offer.


Would be a presumption, that:

Dialogist wrote:
We have natural, hard, conclusive evidence (here of all places), that people do not believe in God.


is false. It's not false, but:

Nickfyoung wrote:

God will not give you the gift of faith till you are ready for it and sure to receive it with open arms.


Still reinforces:

Nickfyoung wrote:
I suppose that is your freewill in operation.


So the problem isn't with free will, or faith being the elect promoter, it's just a tendency to cling on to predestination?

What John Calvin does is conflate fatalism with predestination but predestination doesn't have to be so absolute. I had this book as a child and it was structured like,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choose_Your_Own_Adventure

Have you had one of these? If yes, go to page 42. If no, go to page 29. Needless to say, the author was entertaining but she wasn't Godly. And that's how Augustine understood predestination. Calvin's Choose Your Own Adventure has only one page. In effect, it makes the author less proficient than the lady who wrote my kid's book, which had 7 different endings, all controlled by her. I think I must have read it about 20 times, and still didn't get all of the different endings (reincarnation/regeneration?). I wasn't the first to point out Calvin's paradox of free will and I wasn't the first to point out the problem of restricting God within a time He began, I also wasn't the first to point out that our logical understanding of "destination" isn't limited to fatalism, as Choose Your Own Adventure so simply and obviously points out. Even the bifurcation fallacy presents you with at least two options. These are just the logical concerns. The spiritual concern is much graver. As one knows certain things illogically about what they have faith in and why. And Calvin's proposition then takes on whole new problematic form of incompatibility. And I would fence, a much more damning one to his case. Most Christians believe in predeterminism. However, most don't limit it to fatalism because most believe their God to more loving, capable and considerate than Calvin seemed to be.

Nickfyoung wrote:

God offers the gift of faith to those he has regenerated, because they will then accept it, and only to those he has 'chosen' to regenerate.


I don't really have any problem with this but it does still seem like an elaborate attempt to reconcile fatalism with faith when faith simply being the decider is more than adequate for explaining St. Paul's verse and doesn't lug around all of the paradoxical baggage that accompanies the Calvinistic understanding, which seems to paint God in a less than favourable light. Also, I think with "Faith" being the crux of St. Paul's verse, however God evaluates "faith" that he prepared and implanted, after he predetermined it all along gets us back to square one. In short: If faith is the decider, the faith has be chosen by man in order for man to be eligible in God's eyes. Hence:

Dialogist wrote:
the acceptance of the gift of faith still has to be your own and accepted by you via your free will.


Now go to page 777.



We are not far away. Sure you have to accept the gift of faith by a freewill choice, or so it seems even though God has prepared you to the point where you couldn't say no if you wanted to.
What man sees as a freewill choice sometimes is set up by God unbeknown to him. He thinks he is making a freewill choice but God has already ordained that he would do so.
The main thing we have to agree on is that salvation by faith is a free gift of God and there is no works we can do to receive it.
darthrevan
I am a Christian, so yes I believe it is real. if you have ever felt the experience of God you will like weight has been taking off of you.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
The main thing we have to agree on is that salvation by faith is a free gift of God...


Yes.

Nickfyoung wrote:

...and there is no works we can do to receive it.


Not on your life. "LEST... ye should boast".

Works are extremely important. A Christian who does no works is a Buddhist.

And likewise, a Christian who has no say in his Christianity is a Muslim (fatalism).

Nickfyoung wrote:
What man sees as a freewill choice sometimes is set up by God unbeknown to him


I'm going to give you this one. My author of Choose Your Own Adventure still had to write out all of the different endings and formulates ways in which the reader could arrive at them. As Omniscient and eternal, infinite Creator of all, my hands are tied, and I'm not struggling.

However, unbeknown free will is still exactly that.
Dialogist
darthrevan wrote:
I am a Christian, so yes I believe it is real. if you have ever felt the experience of God you will like weight has been taking off of you.


This is true and if you ever watch something close to you die you will feel the soul leave that body. You will feel it.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
The main thing we have to agree on is that salvation by faith is a free gift of God...


Yes.

Nickfyoung wrote:

...and there is no works we can do to receive it.


Not on your life. "LEST... ye should boast".

Works are extremely important. A Christian who does no works is a Buddhist.

And likewise, a Christian who has no say in his Christianity is a Muslim (fatalism).

Nickfyoung wrote:
What man sees as a freewill choice sometimes is set up by God unbeknown to him


I'm going to give you this one. My author of Choose Your Own Adventure still had to write out all of the different endings and formulates ways in which the reader could arrive at them. As Omniscient and eternal, infinite Creator of all, my hands are tied, and I'm not struggling.

However, unbeknown free will is still exactly that.



Quote:
Works are extremely important.



Yes, James got it right when he said ' Faith without works is dead.'
loveandormoney
Good morning.

This will be a very funny post.

Thank You for answer.



LOOK: So Nov 11 01:11:12 2012



Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

Yes by grace and by grace alone. Nothing else can save you.


As I say, that's a novel opinion, but unfortunately, it's just not scripture. As we've both proved. There's no "alone" read literally or suggestively.

Nickfyoung wrote:

It has to be God's grace by faith.


Which I've said.

Nickfyoung wrote:

And where does that faith come from.


Is this a rhetorical question? Is that why you've omitted the question mark? Or is it rhetorical because it answers itself?

Nickfyoung wrote:

Do you think that a man depraved in sin is capable of drumming up enough faith to accept Jesus Christ.


I think it would be extremely problematic and require some sort of revelation, which I do not put beyond the capabilities of God. However, that's purposeful point-evasion on your part. The point is, "And where does that faith come from?" And I'm glad you asked, even though I've already told you. Let's do it again...

"For by grace you have been saved"

'It is by grace that you been saved'. Pretty straightforward, right? I mean "been" is past tense, but we won't open that Pandora's box just yet, reformists. It is by "grace" that it was able to have happened. Agreed? I hope so. There's no alternative reading.

Next, "through faith". Faith is the reason that this has happened. It is through faith that you have been saved. Still pretty straightforward.

Then it does something a little bit unorthodox. "And not that of yourselves". Not that faith of yourselves? It doesn't mean Grace, as we checked that attribute in at the door. That is God's grace. We're dealing with faith primarily here. "through faith and that not of yourselves" is one sentence. It has a subject, object and clause. So is God believing in Himself on your behalf? No (because that would be redundant and absurd), "it is the gift of God". Gifts. Have you ever had a gift that you weren't given to own? Does your "mnemonic programming" god value the faith he has in himself on your behalf? And why give a gift, really, if you yourself open it and keep it for yourself regardless? Here's where you have to understand the relationship between omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence with credulous, sentient, free will having human being. We have natural, hard, conclusive evidence (here of all places), that people do not believe in God. If the gift was mandatory, they would all believe and would have been saved. But it is a "gift" and not a "stigma". You can refuse gifts. Likewise, it's a "gift OF God". Of is nature. Not possession. And there's no way that can transform "a gift" into "a decree". No matter how hard you try. The faith aspect is how some get the gift and some don't. The grace aspect suggests that "grace" leaves the gift open to all, doesn't Indian-give, and never pulls the availability of it. Because that's what being gracious entails.

It is still a troublesome verse from St. Paul with this reading, as yes, he is clearly saying that 'it isn't your faith, it is a gift of god' which is why I choose to look at the nature "of God" to rationalise it, because faith can only be an attribute of the believer, it's the thing that God's grace has saved, as stipulated and faith is not programmed. Knowledge would be programmed instead, to those, who have already been saved. Actually, this verse keeps getting worse. It does however, tap into the "works" (doesn't say if they are good or bad, just says they are being boasted or glorified). "Not of works, lest any man should boast". "Lest" means "for fear that". That does indeed say that the works (if good) are being devalued by the boast (or glorification of such). It's entirely irrelevant to the fore mentioned though. The premise is faith, and who that faith belongs to.

Now what we do, as Christians who both believe in God's omniscience, Calvinists, more so, as I am constantly being reminded with this "fatalism" dressed as "predestination" patter. Is we ask ourselves, why does God have faith (we'll be saved, when we've already been saved) when he knows all there is to know? The answer, as I have (admittedly obtusely) pointed out, is that the faith is a gift of God. It's not your grace that exalts you, it is His. His faith is of God's nature and it is gifted to you but no matter which way you (or even St. Paul) verbally dices it, the acceptance of the gift of faith still has to be your own and accepted by you via your free will.

While I do admit that my (the standard) reading (I actually think I've outdone the standard reading, honestly) is problematic and has logical inadequacies, the alternative is yours. And yours is incoherent:

"God has saved everyone, through His conditional grace, His omniscient faith, and nothing good you do can matter. This is why you are evil and doomed." Sound familiar? Sound gibberish?

Then you make up some cocknbull about selected/elected chosen to be programmed by God, including those programmed to be doomed, etc. Invent a bunch of theories about "Grace Alone" When it's God's grace that St. Paul was definitely talking about, and ignore the faith part purposefully because it suggest free will and emphasise the "Not by works" part glossing over the "Lest" and "you should boast" parts to hammer home some bizarre "damned if you, damned if you don't" theology. I hope you see why this makes God out to an evil despot. Why it makes the Christian futile. Why it has a lot more logical discrepancies than mine does, and ultimately, why it beholds the nature of God himself to be something not worthy in itself of even a depraved's faith. If you don't see any of these things, I'm afraid I'll just have to do the Christian thing and stop plugging away at you, frustrating you and ultimately just making you cling on to this even tighter and more zealously, because I try to use logic and reason, and when speaking to theists, I try to use the knowledge of self, soul and revelation of God that I consider them to be receptive too. In failing in all, it would then be completely out of my humble reach.






Here we go.

When You later visit a school and then You look into a bible
You will be very surprised:

Yes by grace and by grace alone. Nothing else can save you.
Yes by grace and by grace alone. Nothing else can save you.
Yes by grace and by grace alone. Nothing else can save you.

Is this:

Yes by discount and by discount alone. Nothing else can save you.

?

Jesus is no supermarket.
Or do You talk again about Jesus Christ Superstar.

Jesus is not jealous, so dont be afraid.


"As I say, that's a novel opinion, but unfortunately, it's just not scripture. As we've both proved. There's no "alone" read literally or suggestively."

Jesus is no novel and Jesus is no folk myth?

Is the devil out of Your sight a folk myth too?

"It has to be God's grace by faith."
How about Stephen? Did You forget him in Your fantasy movie?

"And where does that faith come from. "
Please read Genesis 1,1.

"Is this a rhetorical question? Is that why you've omitted the question mark? Or is it rhetorical because it answers itself?"
You are creating a circle.

"Do you think that a man depraved in sin is capable of drumming up enough faith to accept Jesus Christ."
Read the story Nicodemus, written by John.

"I think it would be extremely problematic and require some sort of revelation, which I do not put beyond the capabilities of God. However, that's purposeful point-evasion on your part. The point is, "And where does that faith come from?" And I'm glad you asked, even though I've already told you. Let's do it again..."
You are talking about therapy. Therapy You can find only in Western countries. Maybe because the people there they are very rich.
And they buy health like Luther discussed it 400 years ago.


"For by grace you have been saved"
Are You selling sugar?

Think about milk and honey.




"'It is by grace that you been saved'. Pretty straightforward, right? I mean "been" is past tense, but we won't open that Pandora's box just yet, reformists. It is by "grace" that it was able to have happened. Agreed? I hope so. There's no alternative readi"
Poor Pete.
Poor Moses.
No grace for You, only for rich people with TV stations.

The god You created does say: Accept me and then go out for hard work.
It sounds very funny.
Like a boss of a big iron company.
Are You Iron-Man?




"Next, "through faith". Faith is the reason that this has happened. It is through faith that you have been saved. Still pretty straightforward."
So You fly through the world, draw Your hair and You can fly.
Very interesting.
Poor Jesus, he take really care of people.


"Then it does something a little bit unorthodox. "
Just a little bit?
I think a shark is more small.


""And not that of yourselves". Not that faith of yourselves? It doesn't mean Grace, as we checked that attribute in at the door. That is God's grace."
What colors do You use for create a god. Does he have brothers and sisters?

"We're dealing with faith primarily here."
I can see. You do big deals.
Really.

""through faith and that not of yourselves" is one sentence. It has a subject, object and clause. So is God believing in Himself on your behalf? "

God is not Your mother, say, You can do more.
Isnt it?

"No (because that would be redundant and absurd), "it is the gift of God". Gifts. Have you ever had a gift that you weren't given to own? Does your "mnemonic programming" god value the faith he has in himself on your behalf?"
Your created God is looking for slaves.
Intelligent slaves?



"And why give a gift, really, if you yourself open it and keep it for yourself regardless? Here's where you have to understand the relationship between omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence with credulous, sentient, free will having human being."
Thought control.
How about, You sing the CD: "The Wall, Pink Floyd." I think, the Cd will make You more free.


"We have natural, hard, conclusive evidence (here of all places), that people do not believe in God. "
Sorry
this is all wrong.
Please read Exodus.
Your god does not need Exodus.

"If the gift was mandatory, they would all believe and would have been saved. "
This it totally wrong.
Please read the story Adam and Eden.
Do You think, Jesus is really Jesus Christ Superstar and You want to dance to his music?
Enjoy it.


"But it is a "gift" and not a "stigma". "
Your words sound different. For You it is suffer, not a gift. You think, Your task is dance Jesus Christ Superstar.

" No matter how hard you try. The faith aspect is how some get the gift and some don't. The grace aspect suggests that "grace" leaves the gift open to all, doesn't Indian-give, and never pulls the availability of it. Because that's what being gracious entails."
George Harrison is preaching in India.

"It is still a troublesome verse from St. Paul"
Poor Paul. Why do You throw dirt on Paul or Moses and never You did read their books?
Are You angry, because there are no movies about the letter from Paul to Titus?


Let us read this, poor Paul:
"It is still a troublesome verse from St. Paul with this reading, as yes, he is clearly saying that 'it isn't your faith, it is a gift of god' which is why I choose to look at the nature "of God" to rationalise it, because faith can only be an attribute of the believer, it's the thing that God's grace has saved, as stipulated and faith is not programmed."
So Your god gives You a 11th finger.
Nice.
Paul never said this.

"Knowledge would be programmed instead, to those, who have already been saved."
The good army. Hell boy is fighting against tax raises.

"Actually, this verse keeps getting worse."
Poor Paul.

"It does however, tap into the "works" (doesn't say if they are good or bad, just says they are being boasted or glorified). "Not of works, lest any man should boast". "Lest" means "for fear that". That does indeed say that the works (if good) are being devalued by the boast (or glorification of such). It's entirely irrelevant to the fore mentioned though. The premise is faith, and who that faith belongs to. "

If You wear red cloth, You are ok.
Is this Churchill preaching?


"Now what we do, as Christians who both believe in God's omniscience"

This way
there is a meaning:

Now what we do, as Christians who both control God's omniscience.

Warning. Dont make Your god a victim. Then Your god is weak.

"Now what we do, as Christians who both believe in God's omniscience, Calvinists, more so, as I am constantly being reminded with this "fatalism" dressed as "predestination" patter."


Are Calvinist better people.
Did Your god create an army with different jobs, and You have the best job? The control of Your god?

" Is we ask ourselves, why does God have faith (we'll be saved, when we've already been saved) when he knows all there is to know?"
Read Genesis Chapter 2 or sing a Rock-Opera.



"The answer, as I have (admittedly obtusely) pointed out, is that the faith is a gift of God."So the Chinese people are victims of Your god, because they have to live in Buddism.
Why do You create a god without being fair?


"It's not your grace that exalts you, it is His. His faith is of God's nature and it is gifted to you but no matter which way you (or even St. Paul) verbally dices it, the acceptance of the gift of faith still has to be your own and accepted by you via your free will."
Buy a ticket. No refund.


"While I do admit that my (the standard) reading (I actually think I've outdone the standard reading, honestly) is problematic and has logical inadequacies, the alternative is yours. And yours is incoherent: "
Who can understand this sentence?
I suggest, read the bible with a friend. Every sentence will surprise You.

""God has saved everyone, through His conditional grace, His omniscient faith, and nothing good you do can matter. This is why you are evil and doomed." Sound familiar? Sound gibberish?"
This is a song or a folk myth.
It is not real.

"Then you make up some cocknbull about selected/elected chosen to be programmed by God, including those programmed to be doomed, etc."
I hope You will have success with Your casting.


"Invent a bunch of theories about "Grace Alone""
You did it here.
Thank You.

" When it's God's grace that St. Paul was definitely talking about, and ignore the faith part purposefully because it suggest free will and emphasise the "Not by works" part glossing over the "Lest" and "you should boast" parts to hammer home some bizarre "damned if you, damned if you don't" theology. "
Do You often walk on frozen lakes? Be careful.
The water is cold.

" Why it makes the Christian futile."
Stop. You want to be a victim.
Esau.

"Why it has a lot more logical discrepancies than mine does, and ultimately, why it beholds the nature of God himself to be something not worthy in itself of even a depraved's faith. If you don't see any of these things, I'm afraid I'll just have to do the Christian thing and stop plugging away at you, frustrating you and ultimately just making you cling on to this even tighter and more zealously, because I try to use logic and reason, and when speaking to theists, I try to use the knowledge of self, soul and revelation of God that I consider them to be receptive too. In failing in all, it would then be completely out of my humble reach."
Why do You throw dirt against the other user of the forum? Did Your god tell You this?

Regards
Relax the sunday.
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:

Good morning.

This will be a very funny post.


Sorry, this is wrong.

loveandormoney wrote:

When You later visit a school and then You look into a bible
You will be very surprised:


That there's a Bible to look into in a school? I'd be astonished.

wrote:

Yes by discount and by discount alone. Nothing else can save you.

?


You've clearly never been through a "10 items or less" checkout with 11 items.

loveandormoney wrote:
Jesus is no supermarket.


I've seen him collecting trollies at Lidl.

loveandormoney wrote:
Or do You talk again about Jesus Christ Superstar.


Homosexuals don't get in, Michael, you know that.

loveandormoney wrote:
Jesus is not jealous, so dont be afraid.


"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God" - Exodus 20:5

loveandormoney wrote:

Jesus is no novel and Jesus is no folk myth?


Was that a rhetorical question.

loveandormoney wrote:

Is the devil out of Your sight a folk myth too?


I'm conscious of entertaining him at any given minute. But then again, you might be an angel, Michael. Hebrews 13:2? I don't doubt the veracity of the verse, but sometimes when folks like yourself knock on my door, I think, "We don't want any pegs!" is usually a fairly well-measured response.

loveandormoney wrote:

How about Stephen? Did You forget him in Your fantasy movie?


Hawkeye? No, he plays the guy in a wheelchair. Sort of typecast, but what are you going to do.

loveandormoney wrote:

Please read Genesis 1,1.


On the sixth day God made Germans, and I do believe He needed a sit down.

loveandormoney wrote:

"Is this a rhetorical question? Is that why you've omitted the question mark? Or is it rhetorical because it answers itself?"
You are creating a circle.


I thought you might need a replacement for the therapy groups that you don't have time for.

loveandormoney wrote:

Read the story Nicodemus, written by John.


Nico got dissed twice and returned to Jesus' corpse to make sure he was dead. Should have doubled checked.

loveandormoney wrote:

You are talking about therapy. Therapy You can find only in Western countries. Maybe because the people there they are very rich.
And they buy health like Luther discussed it 400 years ago.


They aren't that rich, they are just more messed up than anyone else and having a therapist has become like a fashion statement. So those that aren't messed up will find something to be messed up about. Kinda like you, with your lack of faith, chasing down people with faith in a faith forum, like Luther disgust 400 years ago. You don't have the faith to break your fate.

loveandormoney wrote:

Are You selling sugar?


I'm selling sweets, yeah.

loveandormoney wrote:

Think about milk and honey.


Have you been burning bush again, Michael? I told you about that kaneh bosem. Now you're begging for munchies incoherently on a free internet forum.

loveandormoney wrote:

Poor Pete.
Poor Moses.
No grace for You, only for rich people with TV stations.


They have netflix these days. TV is So Nov 11 01:11:12 1995.

loveandormoney wrote:

The god You created does say: Accept me and then go out for hard work.
It sounds very funny.
Like a boss of a big iron company.
Are You Iron-Man?


Jesus would kick Tony Starks' ass. Reason being, Starks always gets away. He's a super-coward. He's had electricity put through him, but not iron nails. He'd whimper at the resurrection. He'd be off into the wilderness to hang himself like Judas.

The work ethic rewards the everyman, whether theist, atheist, agnostic or even unemployed clown therapist. The work ethic begins at Genesis 1.1 (the verse you told me to read). It is the first chapter of humanity. There's nothing more important than getting your head down and there's nothing more rewarding than completing a task and needless to say, nothing more depressing than being too lazy to. This why work is associated with faith. And why sloth is one of the seven deadly sins.

loveandormoney wrote:

So You fly through the world, draw Your hair and You can fly.
Very interesting.
Poor Jesus, he take really care of people.


Faith is not jumping off a cliff. Faith is climbing back up it to jump off it again.

loveandormoney wrote:

"Then it does something a little bit unorthodox. "
Just a little bit?
I think a shark is more small.


A dwarf lanternshark is bigger.

loveandormoney wrote:

What colors do You use for create a god. Does he have brothers and sisters?


I use white for the beard and clothes, pink for the face and blue for the sky. He has no brothers and sisters, but according to some certain well-respected atheists on here, he does have a wife.

loveandormoney wrote:

"We're dealing with faith primarily here."
I can see. You do big deals.
Really.


The beauty of faith is I can not believe now and believe even more the next minute because I didn't believe just then. It's self regenerating and moves faster when it uses less energy. Kind of like a Tachyon.

loveandormoney wrote:

God is not Your mother, say, You can do more.
Isnt it?


No, God isn't my mother. The Immaculate Conception is my mother.

loveandormoney wrote:

Your created God is looking for slaves.
Intelligent slaves?


Only Pygmalion enslaves himself to the created. I have a mother board and it has a primary slave. Except the hierarchy seems askew because the boot device needs it to function. I guess this is why God gives the gift of faith and why Picasso needs people to look at his pictures.

loveandormoney wrote:

Thought control.
How about, You sing the CD: "The Wall, Pink Floyd." I think, the Cd will make You more free.


Pink Floyd were a laser show. Listening to Pink Floyd is like looking at The Pogues.

loveandormoney wrote:

Sorry
this is all wrong.
Please read Exodus.
Your god does not need Exodus.


He wouldn't have been born without it. And you'd be on Jewish site telling Jews how they made Moses up. Just like they told him that he was making Jesus up. And like they told Jesus he was making Moses up. I would have hoped, a German, above all people would understand the need for certain Biblical adjudications throughout certain points in history.

loveandormoney wrote:

This it totally wrong.
Please read the story Adam and Eden.
Do You think, Jesus is really Jesus Christ Superstar and You want to dance to his music?
Enjoy it.


There's too many broken hearts in the world. Too many dreams have been broken in two. And I won't give up the fight for you, Michael.

loveandormoney wrote:

"But it is a "gift" and not a "stigma". "
Your words sound different. For You it is suffer, not a gift. You think, Your task is dance Jesus Christ Superstar.


There's no suffering involved in accepting the Lord God, Jesus Christ as your saviour, Michael. Are we going to have to make you hug the screen again? All this agony and hurt you feel. All this anguish. Just accept the reason you really came here for what it is. You want to buy sweets. You want to learn how to dance like Jason.

loveandormoney wrote:

George Harrison is preaching in India.


George is dead. You're thinking of Paul. Oh wait, Paul died in 64. Poor Paul.

loveandormoney wrote:

Poor Paul. Why do You throw dirt on Paul or Moses and never You did read their books?
Are You angry, because there are no movies about the letter from Paul to Titus?


I've read Blackbird and Many Years From Now and I even own a Wings single, but I forget the title. I'm not sure he ever sent a letter to Titus Bramble. I thought he was an Everton fan. Poor Paul.

loveandormoney wrote:

Let us read this, poor Paul:
"It is still a troublesome verse from St. Paul with this reading, as yes, he is clearly saying that 'it isn't your faith, it is a gift of god' which is why I choose to look at the nature "of God" to rationalise it, because faith can only be an attribute of the believer, it's the thing that God's grace has saved, as stipulated and faith is not programmed."
So Your god gives You a 11th finger.
Nice.
Paul never said this.


Why are you defending a figment of my imagination? Is there something wrong with you? There must be if you have 10 fingers. You might want to get that checked out. See, my God gave me 8 and two opposable thumbs.

loveandormoney wrote:

The good army. Hell boy is fighting against tax raises.


You read a lot of comics don't you, Dr Mindbender? Says it all really. You can't believe in fantasy because that is your reality. Kinda like theists. That's why you're here.

loveandormoney wrote:

"Actually, this verse keeps getting worse."
Poor Paul.


Haha, you're an ex-proddy, isn't it? Or is because I said mean things about German farmboys?

loveandormoney wrote:

Is this Churchill preaching?




loveandormoney wrote:

This way
there is a meaning:

Now what we do, as Christians who both control God's omniscience.

Warning. Dont make Your god a victim. Then Your god is weak.


It's not exactly making Him a victim, but I'm glad you've read my posts about underestimating God. I'll be sure to have Him take mercy on you.

loveandormoney wrote:

Are Calvinist better people.


No. Calvinists suck. Calvinists so suck much that they could moonwalk on quicksand.

loveandormoney wrote:

Did Your god create an army with different jobs, and You have the best job? The control of Your god?


You have control what other armies are saying about your God, or a million souls could rot with yours on the 7th circle for merely turning a blind eye.

loveandormoney wrote:

Read Genesis Chapter 2 or sing a Rock-Opera.


You read a lot of Bible for somebody who doesn't believe in comics.

loveandormoney wrote:

So the Chinese people are victims of Your god, because they have to live in Buddism.
Why do You create a god without being fair?


I think giving them multiple lives was more than charitable since they worship false idols and don't deserve any, as the law of averages says that they will be sure to end up as a Catholic anyway. And probably before reincarnation too.

loveandormoney wrote:

Buy a ticket. No refund.




loveandormoney wrote:

Who can understand this sentence?


The broken English thing is only cute while its being humble.

loveandormoney wrote:

I suggest, read the bible with a friend. Every sentence will surprise You.


No doubt, look at this one from Matthew telling you not to pray with anyone and specifically, not go to Church:

"But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee." - Matthew 6:6 (Nickfyoung must have missed this one).

loveandormoney wrote:

This is a song or a folk myth.
It is not real.


Nothing to get hung about.

loveandormoney wrote:

I hope You will have success with Your casting.


We're getting some plaster of paris moulded for Stephen's legs. Have Penrose sign it about 50 million times.

loveandormoney wrote:

You did it here.
Thank You.


Was it good for you?

loveandormoney wrote:

Do You often walk on frozen lakes? Be careful.
The water is cold.


Do you know why they put ladders across frozen lakes? It's so Sideways Man can climb out.

loveandormoney wrote:

Stop. You want to be a victim.
Esau.


His dad didn't. But his granddad was cool with it.

loveandormoney wrote:

Why do You throw dirt against the other user of the forum? Did Your god tell You this?


I've made friends with Nickfyoung. He's a Roman Catholic now. The reformists have kicked him out since he stated "Non serviam" on the whole free will thing. He's ours now. That's what Christianity is all about.

loveandormoney wrote:

Relax the sunday.


You've clearly never been to church in a Roman Catholic family car.
watersoul
Oh my, what an entertaining thread, denominational in-fighting, insults, vulgar expletives, it's got everything...brilliant example for the Faith forum, this has gotta make the top ten soon.
I'm loving this!
nickfyoung
Yes, very clever reply Dialogist. I can't make heads or tails of what Loveormoney is saying most of the time let alone try and answer him. You do it well.
I even got a mention a couple of times. You are pretty right about praying in private. We don't usually go to church to do any praying unless some one is sick and then some one will pray for healing as per scripture, if any is sick let him come to the elders who will pray. Praying is a personal thing and best done in private.
Good to see we are friends now but not sure about that me being a Catholic bit.

loveormoney or whatever your name is, can you explain where you are at so I can understand you. Would love to reply to your posts if I could work out what they are saying.
Are you claiming to be Christian, Atheist or otherwise. Is your broken English style because it is a second language or a put on. Is your first language German.
If I can understand where you are coming from I may be able to work out what you are saying.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:
I can't make heads or tails of what Loveormoney is saying most of the time let alone try and answer him.


Loveandormoney is a lot smarter than he presents himself to be. This is evident in the particular Biblical references he uses to accompany his replies, some of which would stand as fairly good arguments if he didn't disguise them in Borat-speak. Which is also performed. His English is a lot better than he presents it to be too. It is much better than my rudimentary grasp on German, for example, which could only determine from his internet profile that he considers himself to be a "clown" therapist (his words, not mine). And that he believes that humour is the antidote to cure belief in 'fantasy stories'. If I reply flippantly to him, that's because if both the clown and the clown's audience don't take clowns seriously, why should I?

Nickfyoung wrote:
You are pretty right about praying in private. We don't usually go to church to do any praying unless some one is sick and then some one will pray for healing as per scripture, if any is sick let him come to the elders who will pray. Praying is a personal thing and best done in private.


I think Matthew was writing at a time when, as a blasphemous Jew, he didn't really have anything other than the sanctity of privacy to welcome his Christianity. He certainly didn't have a Christian church to go to. I think it's important to go to Church as most (not all) long-time goers speak of an experience of solace and serenity in being in God's house. I guess some feel (are?) more welcomed than others. In any case, at some of the most critical and pivotal times throughout Christian history, the Christian has been forced to pray in private. And if you only do it at church, you're an.. Anglican? Haha.

watersoul wrote:
Oh my, what an entertaining thread, denominational in-fighting, insults, vulgar expletives, it's got everything...brilliant example for the Faith forum, this has gotta make the top ten soon.
I'm loving this!


Denominational in-fighting, yeah. The insults are all in good spirit. Loveandormoney has a few shockers if you decrypt his Da Vinci Code too. It's all light hearted. There's not any vulgar expletives though. As for what it says about our Faith, or why most of my insults are self-deprecating; I think Chesterton said it best: "The test of a good religion is whether or not it can laugh at itself."
darthrevan
watersoul wrote:
Oh my, what an entertaining thread, denominational in-fighting, insults, vulgar expletives, it's got everything...brilliant example for the Faith forum, this has gotta make the top ten soon.
I'm loving this!


As long as it doesn't get too bad, then even 'arguing' isn't bad since each of us would probably have different Christian views. My favorite denomination is Pentecostal. So it can be different from others.
nickfyoung
darthrevan wrote:
watersoul wrote:
Oh my, what an entertaining thread, denominational in-fighting, insults, vulgar expletives, it's got everything...brilliant example for the Faith forum, this has gotta make the top ten soon.
I'm loving this!


As long as it doesn't get too bad, then even 'arguing' isn't bad since each of us would probably have different Christian views.
Quote:
My favorite denomination is Pentecostal. So it can be different from others.



Yep, Pentecostal, certainly much more fun. Good music, bit of dancing if you want, get a few people healed, kick out a few demons, always lots happening, people all over the floor, catchers trying to keep up with those praying and catch all before they hit the floor, people getting saved, people crying, laughing, it's all happening.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
Yep, Pentecostal, certainly much more fun. Good music, bit of dancing if you want, get a few people healed, kick out a few demons, always lots happening, people all over the floor, catchers trying to keep up with those praying and catch all before they hit the floor, people getting saved, people crying, laughing, it's all happening.


It sounds like studio 54 or a drugs lair. I mean if you arrived late, it could seem indistinguishable from a den of iniquity. I guess rapture and orgy used to mean the same thing in the time when gay and gay meant the same thing. I'm not criticizing passionate involvement, on the contrary, I would envy it but envy is a sin. I have always admired certain church's lively and active participation in the mass (Gospel churches for example) but I suspect fervent impressionability. There seems to be a mass suggestibility apparent with adults suddenly losing all faculties of dignity and uninhibitedness that one would be forgiven for likening to the effects of mass hypnotism or auto suggestion. I'd normally be one of the last people to deny that this is the power of the Holy Spirit, but when we see grown folks writhing around on the floor, pissing themselves and being rendered unconscious, you'd either have to posit that a) The Pentecostals are the only ones worthy of receiving such extreme 'divine' interaction, or b) The Pentecostals are a bunch of frauds and charlatans who need exorcising with an incessant regularity.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
Yep, Pentecostal, certainly much more fun. Good music, bit of dancing if you want, get a few people healed, kick out a few demons, always lots happening, people all over the floor, catchers trying to keep up with those praying and catch all before they hit the floor, people getting saved, people crying, laughing, it's all happening.


It sounds like studio 54 or a drugs lair. I mean if you arrived late, it could seem indistinguishable from a den of iniquity. I guess rapture and orgy used to mean the same thing in the time when gay and gay meant the same thing. I'm not criticizing passionate involvement, on the contrary, I would envy it but envy is a sin. I have always admired certain church's lively and active participation in the mass (Gospel churches for example) but I suspect fervent impressionability. There seems to be a mass suggestibility apparent with adults suddenly losing all faculties of dignity and uninhibitedness that one would be forgiven for likening to the effects of mass hypnotism or auto suggestion. I'd normally be one of the last people to deny that this is the power of the Holy Spirit, but when we see grown folks writhing around on the floor, pissing themselves and being rendered unconscious, you'd either have to posit that a) The Pentecostals are the only ones worthy of receiving such extreme 'divine' interaction, or b)
Quote:
The Pentecostals are a bunch of frauds and charlatans who need exorcising with an incessant regularity.



You are probably right there with many of them and it is a shame that many go to church just to see such stuff. Doesn't seem quite the right motive.

I have done some 'carpet' time, I am usually very reserved, and it is quite an experience.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
I have done some 'carpet' time, I am usually very reserved, and it is quite an experience.


Whatever works for you, Nick.

In my experience, the carpet burns would be the cause of seeking forgiveness, not the effect.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
I have done some 'carpet' time, I am usually very reserved, and it is quite an experience.


Whatever works for you, Nick.

In my experience, the carpet burns would be the cause of seeking forgiveness, not the effect.



The secret of a good Pentecostal church is to have some good catchers in place. They have to be quick off the mark and in place to get everyone on to the carpet without the carpet burns. They have to be pretty nifty at times as things can move pretty fast.

Of course, one has to be aware of some when praying who are a little enthusiastic and almost knock you down. Keep out of their way.

I usually sit in the second row from the front and almost got caught out the other day when someone went down to early and the catcher had to push the front row of seats back as he was lowering her to the floor. I had to get out of the way quick as the front row came back onto me.

It is all happening some times, and at others things are just quiet and 'normal'. Does that mean that it is a move of the Spirit. If it were man made then you would expect it to always be chaotic. Two different Sunday services can be as different as chalk and cheese.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
It is all happening some times, and at others things are just quiet and 'normal'. Does that mean that it is a move of the Spirit. If it were man made then you would expect it to always be chaotic.


But what is chaos? Intermittent? The dictionary has intermittent as: Occurring at irregular intervals; not steady. That's chaotic right? I'm asking because loveandormoney asked me the other day, and I honestly didn't have a clue. How do you define chaos? And by what systematic shape or signature?

I would love to attend and hang out anyway, to see what the deal is. It wouldn't be entirely cynical on my part, as from what you describe, I would be guaranteed some form of amusement in any event. I'd just like to see if the pastor is suggesting/triggering it. And look for the tell tale signs, like language of induction, connective keywords, barnum statements, etc. Honestly though, I really doubt a man of God has a hypnotism handbook. I think the patrons are basically attending for the sole purpose of a rapture, and that's what happens. Tourists usually see what they came to see.

I know I probably sound like an atheist, but I did need one 2 miles away from the Miracle of the Sun to verify that for me. Quite an absurd requirement on my part, conferring my faith to one of none, but when they've got no reason to lie and a pretty big reason to lie, take it to the bank and cash it.
watersoul
Wow, I clicked [PageDn] a lot there, good luck with it Dialogist, you have previously described yourself a lexical genious and wordsmith in the past, but wow, you need some 110v power tools to work on that reply.
I'd be impressed if you served the time at 'HMP Split The Text'

...doesn't mean I share any views differently than previously discussed with you, but on dealing with that in your topic, yep Laughing
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
It is all happening some times, and at others things are just quiet and 'normal'. Does that mean that it is a move of the Spirit. If it were man made then you would expect it to always be chaotic.


But what is chaos? Intermittent? The dictionary has intermittent as: Occurring at irregular intervals; not steady. That's chaotic right? I'm asking because loveandormoney asked me the other day, and I honestly didn't have a clue. How do you define chaos? And by what systematic shape or signature?

I would love to attend and hang out anyway, to see what the deal is. It wouldn't be entirely cynical on my part, as from what you describe, I would be guaranteed some form of amusement in any event. I'd just like to see if the pastor is suggesting/triggering it. And look for the tell tale signs, like language of induction, connective keywords, barnum statements, etc. Honestly though, I really doubt a man of God has a hypnotism handbook. I think the patrons are basically attending for the sole purpose of a rapture, and that's what happens. Tourists usually see what they came to see.

I know I probably sound like an atheist, but I did need one 2 miles away from the Miracle of the Sun to verify that for me. Quite an absurd requirement on my part, conferring my faith to one of none, but when they've got no reason to lie and a pretty big reason to lie, take it to the bank and cash it.



Chaotic in the sense that no one knows what is going to happen next. No two services will be the same. Had a pastor once who was really quite brilliant. In the sense that he would not get up on the platform until he was filled with the Spirit. Now he was a man who lived by that code. You could go to the church office and he would come out of his office to use the photo copier and he would be in full communication all the time, photo copying, "Thank you Jesus, praise your name, etc etc ' I never saw him finish a sermon. Half way through the Spirit would take over and he would start getting words of knowledge and stuff, calling out people with specific health problems and having them healed on the spot. So no two services were the same.

There is a pattern though and the secret is in their music. Their music is very professional with top instruments and performers all very talented. They are led by a very talented 'worship leader' and a group of very good singers. They have a musical director and every service is pre-rehearsed and down pat.

The service starts with some very lively songs led by this professional and lively team who get most up and moving, hand clapping at the least and literally dancing by most as they get caught up in the euphoria of it all. That is an experience of it's own.

Now you are relaxed, your inhibitions are down, your worship level is up, the words you have been singing with gusto all add to that. The music team then very subtly move into a slower number, a worship song, the first bracket is praise songs, praise and worship. These worship songs are very moving in word and music and you are led into praising your God by the traditional hand raising and eyes shut, you will see tears and pure emotion. By the way, to lift your hands right up high in church is a sign of complete surrender and does something to you. You are communing with your God, reaching as high as you can and just praising him. You will see shaking and trembling, tears and laughter as the emotion takes a hold.

At this stage the people have a high level of faith and submission and surrender. Praying for them and touching them in this state will cause most to go down and out, some for very long periods up to an hour and it is then that healing s happen both in body and mind.

Sometimes, if the preacher is high profile he will go straight into a sermon while the people are in this high state of faith and reinforce it, drive it home and that is when you see the big stuff like people getting out of wheelchairs etc.

He will also use this time to make the traditional alter call and call people out for salvation. Average Pentecostal church with several hundred people will see several of these salvation's every Sunday and so continue to grow.

Yes, you would certainly be amused if you sat in on the right one. The shame of it is of course that some people attend just for the amusement.
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:
Good Morning. This will be the same style my last post. Please, dont split to much. [1] Exodus 20,2. [2]Exodus 20,3. [3]Exodus 20,4. [4]Exodus 20,12. [5]Exodus 20,13. So in Your imagingation of God and Jesus, god and jesus are the same. Then Stephen has a big problem in his mind, he saw jesus and god together and in relationship. Acts Acts 7,55. [6] Exodus 20,14. [7]Exodus 20,15 Its a game, husband and wife like to play. [8] Exodus 20,16:Look Acts 7,55 Thank You. [9] 100 people sing: This is funny. Exodus 20,17. [10]Exodus 20,18, 200 people. [11] Now a littel bit more serious, maybe teachers are around. [12]This is one point. [13] Do poor people like fashion? [14]And this is funny for me and also the other users like it here. Thank You. [15]You see Moses sweeties. [16]Soory, I forgot this sweety. [17] Did the goverment catch this? [18] This is really entertainment. And if it is boring, You change the channel. [19] I suggest, this ok does make You happy. [20] Does Your god wash himself? [21] Do You make a backup? [22] Does she have parents? [23]You can update Your motherboard. [24]Sorry this is all wrong. Please read Exodus. Your god does not need Exodus. [25] Is still Moses Jewish? [26] This is right, Adam had broken heart. [26] Hurt is funny. [27] I try to understand. [28] John? [29] Your life is music and dance. [30] Many sweeties. [31] Continue Your imaginations. [32] Sorry, I visited a school. 12+1=13. [33] The Fanstastic 4 dewstroy every relationship: Lie like rubber invisible stone and fire=shouting. Please visit a school. [34] These are words, written by a winner. [35] Sorry, I know Matthew. Where is the secret without knowing it. [36]Thank You for Your laugh. [37]Isaac says thank You for sheep. Does Nickfyoung drive Fiat? [38] The meaning of Fiat is Latin. [39]Regards. [40]Dont look so funny.



[1] Exodus 20:2 is a verse about God releasing his people from slavery. Needless to say, the irrelevance of Exodus itself to a Christian should normally take me down to [11]. I think you need to be addressing Judaism with these concerns. However, I know you're alluding to this fantasy you've shared about God enslaving believers. And being that it is scriptural, I have to uphold that God liberated his people from slavery? Okay, fine. Is that all of Exodus done? Would you like me to read it metaphorically? That the liberation of his people was endowing them with free will from fatalism to have the option of faith or not? Okay, fine. That's Exodus. The final book of the Jewish bible. Have a cursory glance and read through the prophecies and just give me a bell when Jesus shows up.

[2], [3], [4], See above.

[5] I'm not sure what the ten commandments have to do with with the First Council of Nicaea, but I'm not sure that you do either. God and Jesus being two parts of 3 is not my imagination. It is not even my belief. It's widely shared and much written about belief. You could even call it a "theory". I theo-ry, in the very least. It is a theology. The theology itself is not being imagined by me or anyone else. The theology is actual. What lies behind the theology itself is not for me to say. It would be, in the sense that I as a believer, have access to certain metaphysical truths pertaining to presence and/or manifestations of God which have no corporeal matter. I guess what I'm saying is that what lies behind the theology is not for you to say. Stephen's account in Acts 7,55 doesn't contradict a belief in a trinity, it bolsters a belief in a trinity.

[6], [7], Ask a Judea apologetic. I've got enough on my plate trying to pacify Leviticus as an eligible prophet without having to make their isopsephy add up. I'm glad you drew the comparison of the "husband and wife" concerning the verse about the "Jealousy" of God, though. That is exactly right and how most theologians explain the verse too. A wife who lets you dote on other woman doesn't care about you, your marriage or the sanctity of your monogamous relationship. So while God endowed you with free will, when you choose colourful comics over other fantasy stories, he can only fold his arms and pout. Poor God.

[8], [9] are just indicative of your paltry worldview and not really applicable to any significant conversation of anyone ages 5 and above. [10] follows suite. Your preoccupation with fear, however, is not inconsistent with angelic visitation, nor with the terribilita of awe itself, as evidenced in the work of Michelangelo. Beautiful, divine and inspiring. Yet also terrifying due its colossal grandeur. See: Shock and awe to understand a fallible human mind that you can't seem to conceive artistry with.

[11] Now you're getting serious? There's no teachers around. Teachers have jobs.

[12] Another noteworthy point is that the 4th century apocrypha, Gospel of Nicodemus is derived from the 5th Century Acts of Pilate. Feel free to say lol when the penny drops. This is what born agains constantly refer to as historical biblical source material because some medieval despot didn't bother to check that it wasn't. I guess if you are against organised institutional dogmatic epicenters, then one "just can't get the staff". Which backs up what I've always said: Organised religion is better than disorganised religion.

[13] Poor people can't afford fashion, Michael. For whatever reasons. Most who would be affected by modern civilisation's demands for fashion trends however, are situated in continents where their inability to afford such things are a result of their own apathy and sloth. So if you're metaphorically asking if the faithless can afford God, then what do you want me to tell you that:



Didn't already?

[14] Am I amusing you, Michael? Should you not be mindful of being amused into being cured of your fantasy beliefs concerning what fantasy beliefs are? Live by the sword, etc, it's usually your own weapon that kills you, etc. This is also what I was saying about spending too much time with lepers. Mutuality is inevitable.

[15], [16] I like you unique character, the value your activity brings and your willingness to engage but I think that's where the affection ends. Don't call me sweety.

[17] The government fully approves of my writings because the government divinely inspired them into their mouthpieces 2000 years ago. I'm just reciting the law to you. Don't shoot the messenger. Especially when they are bringing you tidings of great joy.

[18] You can change the channel, turn the page of the comic book, get a new comic book or failing that, get a Psychology textbook written by Dr. Bobo, Phd.

[19] It makes me happy that there are sharks small enough to enclose in one's fist for philosophical reasons but mainly it makes me happy because the consensus on sharks is that they are large and terrifying. Rather than intimate, holdable and adorable.

[20] I don't think God washes himself because cleanliness is next to Godliness. Maybe at his right hand, maybe right hand man is a regimental rank. Maybe Maverick really just wanted the Ice Man to be "his" in a friendship sort of a way. God did however, sculpt Adam from clay, thump the grand canyon into shape, slid all the tectonic plates together and made Germans. So him needing a shower isn't a terribly ridiculous proposition. If he had a corporeal body, that is. Does he feel guilty, you're asking? Don't ask me. He's the God of Wrath. Piss him off and see.

[21] Tachyons don't require backups, Michael. They are theoretical particles which move faster than the speed of light. If they had a tangible form, it would constantly be regressing itself back in time, forming it's own backup. Wow, that faith analogy has really come into its own. Thanks.

[22] Mary had parents yes. And grandparents. I haven't checked their sin status but I'm sure Immaculate conception doesn't really depend on the sinful participation of sinners to achieve, to still hold to a belief of Immaculate Conception. Needless to say, it doesn't say that was born from non sinners, it says she evaded Original Sin and just didn't add to it.

[23] You can't update God. Updating God causes an infinite regress and the conceivable one depends on a conception of fathomable availability. This doesn't limit it, but it limits the ability to behold it. So no, Michael, you can't update the motherboard. And if you have no motherboard, you may experience an apparent loss of functionality. But that's why you've submitted a support ticket isn't it? Have you tried installing a motherboard?

[24] My God doesn't need Exodus, you're correct. That's what I was trying to tell you.

[25] I don't think Moses changed his ethnicity, no. It's possible that he changed his religious title posthumously as he had no problem writing his own Eulogy. Again, you'll have to ask a Judaism. Let me know what they say.

[26] Hurt is not funny.

[27] You don't try to understand. You try to mock because you can't try to understand. Understanding is beyond you. It takes nothing to view a piece of evidence-less information either way and a assess a neutral viewpoint. And still understanding is beyond you. I understand you. I know exactly where you're coming from. You couldn't hope to understand me, and its not because I'm wacky, crazy or convoluted. It's because you can't access the tools required. How are you going to virtually emulate MS Dos on an Unix system when you don't even have a motherboard?

[28] John is dead, Salome. Now dance. Dance for us.

[29] I don't dance. My verses however are verses for a reason. The language of God is art, music and poetry. And this why your poetry sucks, Michael. It's not a coincidence that there's no atheist artists of any particular dexterous skill. There's plenty of notable mention, but they were only notable because of when and how they sucked. It's all cyclical, Michael. You have to have twenty years of boybands before you can get an Oasis. This is the problem of evil.

[30] The reason that I'm not selling sweets is the same reason that you're diabetic.

[31] I'm splitting your posts next time. This 'don't split my post' thing is a real pain in the arse. I don't imagine something that I feel, Michael. No more than you imagine that you are tired.

[32] If you've visited a school you should have been in some kind of R.E. class, telling you what certain religions believe (but I doubt why they believe because that isn't syllabus and theology is something you'd later have to major in). You learnt 12+1=13. Great. You learned that you have to believe in mathematics for it to function. Bully for you. You entertained a tangible concept axiomatically enabling you to derive qualitative quantities ex nihilo. You multiplied necessity by necessitating multiplication as an entity. Philosophy is also something you have to major in, I'm told. I never bothered with it, myself. I was too busy getting God straight A's in art. And why where they God's grades? Because I barely even did anything. Some days I didn't even show up. I never worked at art one day in my life. It was a piece of cake. A natural, God given talent that I have been eating off ever since. So if sounds like "Lest ye should boast", sorry, but I really can't credit. If it sounds like a fantasy story to you, then how come it can make observations, predictions, draw up a consistent hypothesis that an intelligence (which is not mine, which cannot be taught) is being channeled to produce empirical evidence, and thus it can do tests to prove my theory? Science: Well that's a genetic tribal inheritance. Umm, Science, My parents couldn't draw a curtain. Oh, well then it skips a few generations. My grandparents couldn't draw breath. Oh well, that's obvious. It's memes. Please.

[33] "The Fanstastic 4 dewstroy every relationship: Lie like rubber invisible stone and fire=shouting. Please visit a school" I don't think a school is going to help me with this one. I don't think Allen Ginsburg could help me with this one. Are you just free-writing? Automatic writing? Where is this coming from? Surely they didn't teach you this in school. I mean it's clearly not from God, because it's complete bollocks. But it must be some kind of extra-natural transference. Baldr? Freyr? Loki? You need a new router.

[34] Again, I can't take credit.

[35] Is a secret that nobody knows a secret? Does a secret even exist until somebody becomes privy to it and stops it being a secret? Isn't an unprovable God similar?

[36] You're most welcome, Michael. I don't charge for therapy.

[37] LOL. I challenge any original sin bearing, depraved, post-fall human being to read Genesis 22:7 and not find it just a little bit amusing.

[38] Well I must have missed that memo. I thought it was Latin for decree. Nickfyoung definitely does not drive a fiat. He probably has one of those bogan mobiles as they are ubiquitous in Australia because all their cars suck so I wouldn't blame him. Still, it doesn't really matter what Nick drives.



[38] "Don't look so funny"

As I say, I can't take credit.



Regards.
Dialogist
watersoul wrote:
lexical genious


Yikes, I hope I never said that.

watersoul wrote:
doesn't mean I share any views differently than previously discussed with you


Like darthrevan said, differing opinions are the fuel of the forum. "I have faith. Me too. Me too. Me too. Great isn't it?" Is a Borum. You're more than welcome to give your thoughts on the actuality of sin, whether sin can exist or does exist or whether it infers or requires a soul or not and I'll be happy to engage. If that seems like sidetracking or whatever the new stigma is, just rebirth your soul thread and I will gladly partake there.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
Half way through the Spirit would take over and he would start getting words of knowledge and stuff, calling out people with specific health problems and having them healed on the spot.


Yeah, these are barnum statements. "Do we have a d..? da..? dav..?" *Dennis jumps up* "Praise the Lord! It's a miracle!" What the pastor does first is 'soften the heart', if you'll pardon the reference. He'll already have Dennis in a place where Dennis has been described to a tee. His his pain, his doubts over his faith, how he's basically a good person, his hopes, desires etc. The clincher is usually an emotional link like "loss of a loved one" (or illness?) or something. What Dennis doesn't know is that the old lady next to him has also been described to a tee by the exact same generic sentences. All that's left to have the subject identity themselves, themselves, is to execute the trigger. It's not hypnotism, as Penn and Teller and Derren Brown have graciously broken the magician's code to reveal to us. It's just basic psychology. All auto suggestion is. Look at how verbose loveandormoney has become since he has been challenged with suggestions pertaining to his character, and he's supposed be a trained psychologist. He's supposed to be checking for this stuff.

Nickfyoung wrote:
The shame of it is of course that some people attend just for the amusement.


It is amusing while its just a stage show. But of course when we get into:

Nickfyoung wrote:
people getting out of wheelchairs etc.


Concerning medicine and especially the nature of the event itself:

Nickfyoung wrote:

make the traditional alter call and call people out for salvation.


It becomes a lot more worrying.

It's not that I don't believe in Miracles. On the contrary, I do believe in Miracles. I believe that certain events have been miracles and defined as such by their extremely rarity (that they don't happen every week), "extra-natural" events (as skeptics have now began to almost accommodate them), things which happen once in a life time, that are beyond all tireless debunking. That's still just a freak event though at the minute. It becomes a Miracle when has a religious motive/cause. I have several that I believe are insuperable, inscrutable Miracles. With their religious relevance also, they can then be seen as sacred, in both depth and rarity and I believe their value and integrity should be protected.

My Ufologist friends will tell you the exact same thing. I receive a lot of correspondence from them (mainly because of my graphic/ VFX/ photo manipulation experience and also because I'm an "alienostic") asking me to help debunk UFO photographs that they have given up on. They receive hundreds of submissions a week and they post them all up on their website debunking them, tearing them to pieces, vilifying the culprit etc, worse than any skeptic could hope to, not because they don't believe in extraterrestrials, but because they really do. They have 4 or 5 cases that they consider as facts, pillars and evidence, central to their core of belief and cause. The reason they are so militant about shooting down the blurry hubcaps and frisbees is fairly self explanatory.

Government intelligence agencies have been using Disinformation departments since before the Cold War. It's a highly effective process of information control in itself, and again, it is a methodical process rather than any hypnotic pseudoscience. They don't need to hypnotise anyone to control their perception. They will be asked to visit a donkey for example, with one bag of a truth on it (say a scandal or expose that needs dealing with publicly). They then will systematically load bag after bag of their own carefully crafted bullshit onto the donkey's back until it breaks. That one bag of truth then loses all of its veracity. The truth has effectively been professionally buried in bullshit. So if that is possible on purpose (as it was on D-Day with Garbo etc), isn't it also possible by accident?

And that's how I view these "weekly miracles" performed by people who don't seem to meet the criteria. They, although quite obviously false in most respects, do need exposing so as to protect the integrity of the very few cases which have survived all forms of analytic scrutiny. And from a spiritualistic point of view, also have deeper religious connotations pertaining to prophecy and the sacred ramifications that believers attribute to the event and value from it. What we have in effect with these Pentecostal gatherings, is the belief in Miracles being systematically dismantled from the inside, by its own people. And although they naively probably don't see it as harmful, the manipulation concerned with "bingo salvation", twinned with the integrity-stripping of the faith of salvation itself, is detrimental. Plus, the reported and officially recognized experiences of real epiphanies themselves, are being tarnished by these dime a dozen faith healers (who haven't healed anyone's faith, just exploited their faith's apparent overly-healthy suggestibility and dishonestly manipulated it for their own ends). That's the negative reading of their deeds. What's the positive reading? That there's kind lies? It's hardly a balanced scale is it?
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
loveandormoney wrote:
Good Morning. This will be the same style my last post. Please, dont split to much. [1] Exodus 20,2. [2]Exodus 20,3. [3]Exodus 20,4. [4]Exodus 20,12. [5]Exodus 20,13. So in Your imagingation of God and Jesus, god and jesus are the same. Then Stephen has a big problem in his mind, he saw jesus and god together and in relationship. Acts Acts 7,55. [6] Exodus 20,14. [7]Exodus 20,15 Its a game, husband and wife like to play. [8] Exodus 20,16:Look Acts 7,55 Thank You. [9] 100 people sing: This is funny. Exodus 20,17. [10]Exodus 20,18, 200 people. [11] Now a littel bit more serious, maybe teachers are around. [12]This is one point. [13] Do poor people like fashion? [14]And this is funny for me and also the other users like it here. Thank You. [15]You see Moses sweeties. [16]Soory, I forgot this sweety. [17] Did the goverment catch this? [18] This is really entertainment. And if it is boring, You change the channel. [19] I suggest, this ok does make You happy. [20] Does Your god wash himself? [21] Do You make a backup? [22] Does she have parents? [23]You can update Your motherboard. [24]Sorry this is all wrong. Please read Exodus. Your god does not need Exodus. [25] Is still Moses Jewish? [26] This is right, Adam had broken heart. [26] Hurt is funny. [27] I try to understand. [28] John? [29] Your life is music and dance. [30] Many sweeties. [31] Continue Your imaginations. [32] Sorry, I visited a school. 12+1=13. [33] The Fanstastic 4 dewstroy every relationship: Lie like rubber invisible stone and fire=shouting. Please visit a school. [34] These are words, written by a winner. [35] Sorry, I know Matthew. Where is the secret without knowing it. [36]Thank You for Your laugh. [37]Isaac says thank You for sheep. Does Nickfyoung drive Fiat? [38] The meaning of Fiat is Latin. [39]Regards. [40]Dont look so funny.



[1] Exodus 20:2 is a verse about God releasing his people from slavery. Needless to say, the irrelevance of Exodus itself to a Christian should normally take me down to [11]. I think you need to be addressing Judaism with these concerns. However, I know you're alluding to this fantasy you've shared about God enslaving believers. And being that it is scriptural, I have to uphold that God liberated his people from slavery? Okay, fine. Is that all of Exodus done? Would you like me to read it metaphorically? That the liberation of his people was endowing them with free will from fatalism to have the option of faith or not? Okay, fine. That's Exodus. The final book of the Jewish bible. Have a cursory glance and read through the prophecies and just give me a bell when Jesus shows up.

[2], [3], [4], See above.

[5] I'm not sure what the ten commandments have to do with with the First Council of Nicaea, but I'm not sure that you do either. God and Jesus being two parts of 3 is not my imagination. It is not even my belief. It's widely shared and much written about belief. You could even call it a "theory". I theo-ry, in the very least. It is a theology. The theology itself is not being imagined by me or anyone else. The theology is actual. What lies behind the theology itself is not for me to say. It would be, in the sense that I as a believer, have access to certain metaphysical truths pertaining to presence and/or manifestations of God which have no corporeal matter. I guess what I'm saying is that what lies behind the theology is not for you to say. Stephen's account in Acts 7,55 doesn't contradict a belief in a trinity, it bolsters a belief in a trinity.

[6], [7], Ask a Judea apologetic. I've got enough on my plate trying to pacify Leviticus as an eligible prophet without having to make their isopsephy add up. I'm glad you drew the comparison of the "husband and wife" concerning the verse about the "Jealousy" of God, though. That is exactly right and how most theologians explain the verse too. A wife who lets you dote on other woman doesn't care about you, your marriage or the sanctity of your monogamous relationship. So while God endowed you with free will, when you choose colourful comics over other fantasy stories, he can only fold his arms and pout. Poor God.

[8], [9] are just indicative of your paltry worldview and not really applicable to any significant conversation of anyone ages 5 and above. [10] follows suite. Your preoccupation with fear, however, is not inconsistent with angelic visitation, nor with the terribilita of awe itself, as evidenced in the work of Michelangelo. Beautiful, divine and inspiring. Yet also terrifying due its colossal grandeur. See: Shock and awe to understand a fallible human mind that you can't seem to conceive artistry with.

[11] Now you're getting serious? There's no teachers around. Teachers have jobs.

[12] Another noteworthy point is that the 4th century apocrypha, Gospel of Nicodemus is derived from the 5th Century Acts of Pilate. Feel free to say lol when the penny drops. This is what born agains constantly refer to as historical biblical source material because some medieval despot didn't bother to check that it wasn't. I guess if you are against organised institutional dogmatic epicenters, then one "just can't get the staff". Which backs up what I've always said: Organised religion is better than disorganised religion.

[13] Poor people can't afford fashion, Michael. For whatever reasons. Most who would be affected by modern civilisation's demands for fashion trends however, are situated in continents where their inability to afford such things are a result of their own apathy and sloth. So if you're metaphorically asking if the faithless can afford God, then what do you want me to tell you that:



Didn't already?

[14] Am I amusing you, Michael? Should you not be mindful of being amused into being cured of your fantasy beliefs concerning what fantasy beliefs are? Live by the sword, etc, it's usually your own weapon that kills you, etc. This is also what I was saying about spending too much time with lepers. Mutuality is inevitable.

[15], [16] I like you unique character, the value your activity brings and your willingness to engage but I think that's where the affection ends. Don't call me sweety.

[17] The government fully approves of my writings because the government divinely inspired them into their mouthpieces 2000 years ago. I'm just reciting the law to you. Don't shoot the messenger. Especially when they are bringing you tidings of great joy.

[18] You can change the channel, turn the page of the comic book, get a new comic book or failing that, get a Psychology textbook written by Dr. Bobo, Phd.

[19] It makes me happy that there are sharks small enough to enclose in one's fist for philosophical reasons but mainly it makes me happy because the consensus on sharks is that they are large and terrifying. Rather than intimate, holdable and adorable.

[20] I don't think God washes himself because cleanliness is next to Godliness. Maybe at his right hand, maybe right hand man is a regimental rank. Maybe Maverick really just wanted the Ice Man to be "his" in a friendship sort of a way. God did however, sculpt Adam from clay, thump the grand canyon into shape, slid all the tectonic plates together and made Germans. So him needing a shower isn't a terribly ridiculous proposition. If he had a corporeal body, that is. Does he feel guilty, you're asking? Don't ask me. He's the God of Wrath. Piss him off and see.

[21] Tachyons don't require backups, Michael. They are theoretical particles which move faster than the speed of light. If they had a tangible form, it would constantly be regressing itself back in time, forming it's own backup. Wow, that faith analogy has really come into its own. Thanks.

[22] Mary had parents yes. And grandparents. I haven't checked their sin status but I'm sure Immaculate conception doesn't really depend on the sinful participation of sinners to achieve, to still hold to a belief of Immaculate Conception. Needless to say, it doesn't say that was born from non sinners, it says she evaded Original Sin and just didn't add to it.

[23] You can't update God. Updating God causes an infinite regress and the conceivable one depends on a conception of fathomable availability. This doesn't limit it, but it limits the ability to behold it. So no, Michael, you can't update the motherboard. And if you have no motherboard, you may experience an apparent loss of functionality. But that's why you've submitted a support ticket isn't it? Have you tried installing a motherboard?

[24] My God doesn't need Exodus, you're correct. That's what I was trying to tell you.

[25] I don't think Moses changed his ethnicity, no. It's possible that he changed his religious title posthumously as he had no problem writing his own Eulogy. Again, you'll have to ask a Judaism. Let me know what they say.

[26] Hurt is not funny.

[27] You don't try to understand. You try to mock because you can't try to understand. Understanding is beyond you. It takes nothing to view a piece of evidence-less information either way and a assess a neutral viewpoint. And still understanding is beyond you. I understand you. I know exactly where you're coming from. You couldn't hope to understand me, and its not because I'm wacky, crazy or convoluted. It's because you can't access the tools required. How are you going to virtually emulate MS Dos on an Unix system when you don't even have a motherboard?

[28] John is dead, Salome. Now dance. Dance for us.

[29] I don't dance. My verses however are verses for a reason. The language of God is art, music and poetry. And this why your poetry sucks, Michael. It's not a coincidence that there's no atheist artists of any particular dexterous skill. There's plenty of notable mention, but they were only notable because of when and how they sucked. It's all cyclical, Michael. You have to have twenty years of boybands before you can get an Oasis. This is the problem of evil.

[30] The reason that I'm not selling sweets is the same reason that you're diabetic.

[31] I'm splitting your posts next time. This 'don't split my post' thing is a real pain in the arse. I don't imagine something that I feel, Michael. No more than you imagine that you are tired.

[32] If you've visited a school you should have been in some kind of R.E. class, telling you what certain religions believe (but I doubt why they believe because that isn't syllabus and theology is something you'd later have to major in). You learnt 12+1=13. Great. You learned that you have to believe in mathematics for it to function. Bully for you. You entertained a tangible concept axiomatically enabling you to derive qualitative quantities ex nihilo. You multiplied necessity by necessitating multiplication as an entity. Philosophy is also something you have to major in, I'm told. I never bothered with it, myself. I was too busy getting God straight A's in art. And why where they God's grades? Because I barely even did anything. Some days I didn't even show up. I never worked at art one day in my life. It was a piece of cake. A natural, God given talent that I have been eating off ever since. So if sounds like "Lest ye should boast", sorry, but I really can't credit. If it sounds like a fantasy story to you, then how come it can make observations, predictions, draw up a consistent hypothesis that an intelligence (which is not mine, which cannot be taught) is being channeled to produce empirical evidence, and thus it can do tests to prove my theory? Science: Well that's a genetic tribal inheritance. Umm, Science, My parents couldn't draw a curtain. Oh, well then it skips a few generations. My grandparents couldn't draw breath. Oh well, that's obvious. It's memes. Please.

[33] "The Fanstastic 4 dewstroy every relationship: Lie like rubber invisible stone and fire=shouting. Please visit a school" I don't think a school is going to help me with this one. I don't think Allen Ginsburg could help me with this one. Are you just free-writing? Automatic writing? Where is this coming from? Surely they didn't teach you this in school. I mean it's clearly not from God, because it's complete bollocks. But it must be some kind of extra-natural transference. Baldr? Freyr? Loki? You need a new router.

[34] Again, I can't take credit.

[35] Is a secret that nobody knows a secret? Does a secret even exist until somebody becomes privy to it and stops it being a secret? Isn't an unprovable God similar?

[36] You're most welcome, Michael. I don't charge for therapy.

[37] LOL. I challenge any original sin bearing, depraved, post-fall human being to read Genesis 22:7 and not find it just a little bit amusing.

[38] Well I must have missed that memo. I thought it was Latin for decree. Nickfyoung definitely does not drive a fiat. He probably has one of those bogan mobiles as they are ubiquitous in Australia because all their cars suck so I wouldn't blame him. Still, it doesn't really matter what Nick drives.



[38] "Don't look so funny"

As I say, I can't take credit.



Regards.



Quote:
Still, it doesn't really matter what Nick drives.



It's an 1986 BMW 525e. Bit of a classic in need of some work.
loveandormoney
watersoul wrote:
Wow, I clicked [PageDn] a lot there, good luck with it Dialogist, you have previously described yourself a lexical genious and wordsmith in the past, but wow, you need some 110v power tools to work on that reply.
I'd be impressed if you served the time at 'HMP Split The Text'

...doesn't mean I share any views differently than previously discussed with you, but on dealing with that in your topic, yep Laughing



Who does need 110v power tools for doing sins?
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
Half way through the Spirit would take over and he would start getting words of knowledge and stuff, calling out people with specific health problems and having them healed on the spot.


Yeah, these are barnum statements. "Do we have a d..? da..? dav..?" *Dennis jumps up* "Praise the Lord! It's a miracle!" What the pastor does first is 'soften the heart', if you'll pardon the reference. He'll already have Dennis in a place where Dennis has been described to a tee. His his pain, his doubts over his faith, how he's basically a good person, his hopes, desires etc. The clincher is usually an emotional link like "loss of a loved one" (or illness?) or something. What Dennis doesn't know is that the old lady next to him has also been described to a tee by the exact same generic sentences. All that's left to have the subject identity themselves, themselves, is to execute the trigger. It's not hypnotism, as Penn and Teller and Derren Brown have graciously broken the magician's code to reveal to us. It's just basic psychology. All auto suggestion is. Look at how verbose loveandormoney has become since he has been challenged with suggestions pertaining to his character, and he's supposed be a trained psychologist. He's supposed to be checking for this stuff.

Nickfyoung wrote:
The shame of it is of course that some people attend just for the amusement.


It is amusing while its just a stage show. But of course when we get into:

Nickfyoung wrote:
people getting out of wheelchairs etc.


Concerning medicine and especially the nature of the event itself:

Nickfyoung wrote:

make the traditional alter call and call people out for salvation.


It becomes a lot more worrying.

It's not that I don't believe in Miracles. On the contrary, I do believe in Miracles. I believe that certain events have been miracles and defined as such by their extremely rarity (that they don't happen every week), "extra-natural" events (as skeptics have now began to almost accommodate them), things which happen once in a life time, that are beyond all tireless debunking. That's still just a freak event though at the minute. It becomes a Miracle when has a religious motive/cause. I have several that I believe are insuperable, inscrutable Miracles. With their religious relevance also, they can then be seen as sacred, in both depth and rarity and I believe their value and integrity should be protected.

My Ufologist friends will tell you the exact same thing. I receive a lot of correspondence from them (mainly because of my graphic/ VFX/ photo manipulation experience and also because I'm an "alienostic") asking me to help debunk UFO photographs that they have given up on. They receive hundreds of submissions a week and they post them all up on their website debunking them, tearing them to pieces, vilifying the culprit etc, worse than any skeptic could hope to, not because they don't believe in extraterrestrials, but because they really do. They have 4 or 5 cases that they consider as facts, pillars and evidence, central to their core of belief and cause. The reason they are so militant about shooting down the blurry hubcaps and frisbees is fairly self explanatory.

Government intelligence agencies have been using Disinformation departments since before the Cold War. It's a highly effective process of information control in itself, and again, it is a methodical process rather than any hypnotic pseudoscience. They don't need to hypnotise anyone to control their perception. They will be asked to visit a donkey for example, with one bag of a truth on it (say a scandal or expose that needs dealing with publicly). They then will systematically load bag after bag of their own carefully crafted bullshit onto the donkey's back until it breaks. That one bag of truth then loses all of its veracity. The truth has effectively been professionally buried in bullshit. So if that is possible on purpose (as it was on D-Day with Garbo etc), isn't it also possible by accident?

And that's how I view these "weekly miracles" performed by people who don't seem to meet the criteria. They, although quite obviously false in most respects, do need exposing so as to protect the integrity of the very few cases which have survived all forms of analytic scrutiny. And from a spiritualistic point of view, also have deeper religious connotations pertaining to prophecy and the sacred ramifications that believers attribute to the event and value from it. What we have in effect with these Pentecostal gatherings, is the belief in Miracles being systematically dismantled from the inside, by its own people. And although they naively probably don't see it as harmful, the manipulation concerned with "bingo salvation", twinned with the integrity-stripping of the faith of salvation itself, is detrimental. Plus, the reported and officially recognized experiences of real epiphanies themselves, are being tarnished by these dime a dozen faith healers (who haven't healed anyone's faith, just exploited their faith's apparent overly-healthy suggestibility and dishonestly manipulated it for their own ends). That's the negative reading of their deeds. What's the positive reading? That there's kind lies? It's hardly a balanced scale is it?



Quote:
these are barnum statements




Yes, standard stuff for stage shows etc but not quite the same thing. I will give you an example.
The pastor suddenly stopped and pointed to an area of the auditorium. This was a big auditorium of several hundred people and the area he indicated was specific for about 20 odd people.
He said that some one in that specific area was suffering from serious hemorrhoids. Not a really popular ailment.
My wife jumped up because she was suffering so and she claimed that the moment she left her seat and stood up they were gone, before she even got out the front.
Next day she was in hospital having emergency surgery for an anal fissure that had been hidden by the hemorrhoids and undetected by the doctor.
They were able to fix the fissure once the hemorrhoids were out of the way.
So why didn't God heal the fissure too.? Interesting.


Quote:
people getting out of wheelchairs etc



When that first started happening last century pastors were being arrested for practicing medicine without a license. Some of the early guys had to campaign to have the law changed.


Quote:
It becomes a lot more worrying.



I do believe that since this has been the norm there are a lot more false Christians in the church.

Quote:
depth and rarity and I believe their value and integrity should be protected.



So if a miracle has happened to close to the last one it can't be a miracle.? Why must it be a rare occurrence? Does God ration them out?


Quote:
The reason they are so militant about shooting down the blurry hubcaps and frisbees is fairly self explanatory.



Not to say that there are not lots of 'headaches' cured claiming miracle status or that there lots of fakes out there.


There are more fakes than the real thing. Isn't that always the way. Every church is full of a certain percentage of people who you see going out for prayer every week. There are false healings and a large percentage of rubbish amongst it all which is a shame.

But you can't take God out of the equation, if he wants to move in a church service one must be receptive and let him do so,
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
He said that some one in that specific area was suffering from serious hemorrhoids. Not a really popular ailment.
My wife jumped up because she was suffering


A lady jumped up in church and volunteered her hemorrhoids? This in itself is a minor miracle. I guess if it is true then she's already been preconditioned anyway. Does the magician speak with his subjects before-hand? Either way, the guy has skills. And I wasn't sure hemorrhoids were all that rare? Especially for people sitting on cold wooden surfaces? Age and anxiety could be multiplicative factor too. But I once had a milk round as a boy. Hemorrhoids aren't rare or discriminate.

Nickfyoung wrote:

So why didn't God heal the fissure too?


I think even God can only handle a certain amount of anal fissure. The thing to be asking yourself here, Nick. Is what happens if nobody stands up. In the group of approx 20 people that the pastor is generally pointing at, what happens if not one person volunteers themselves to be the desired subject of his 'premonitions'? Has this ever happened? I'm guessing not.

Nickfyoung wrote:

When that first started happening last century pastors were being arrested for practicing medicine without a license. Some of the early guys had to campaign to have the law changed.


I've wrote a bit about this. There's definitely two sides to this coin. However, Quack doctors with traditional (occasionally effective) medicine is one thing, and Chinese medicine has its own verifiable merits but 'Take Up Your Bed and Walk' to an emotionally charged person with serious ligament damage is quite another. Even professionally trained medics will scream at you if you attempt to move a badly injured person.

Nickfyoung wrote:

So if a miracle has happened to close to the last one it can't be a miracle.? Why must it be a rare occurrence? Does God ration them out?


While I admit that it is fallacious of me to suggest that they can't happen consecutively, it's equally fallacious to suggest that because what I said was fallacious, that they can. If I believe in Miracles, I have to allow for the miracle of weekly miracles is a proposition that has occurred to me, but I guess I'd have to file that one in "It's not a Miracle anymore, it's just Sunday". The believer will tell you that it is a miracle that Sun comes up everyday and the non-believer would tell you that it would be a miracle if it didn't. I'm not sure where I pitch my tent, other than the fact that miracles and other extra-natural or supernatural reports tend to have to face a certain kind of scrutiny that belongs to the non-believer, and if believers are honest, they must adopt the same policy in verifying their conclusions. They must be allowed to be, rather than made to be. Otherwise every one of these self-professed pastors becomes a venerated saint and the odour of Sanctity goes on sale as a deodorant in the supermarket. While the faithful would risk bad publicity in outing fraudulent behaviour, it wouldn't harm their faith or their integrity overall. It'd merely set a precedent for standards of criteria and would bolster faith, as rarity is synonymous with both the notions of the supernatural and the sacred, and if it isn't, it is just natural and profane. Mundane and everyday.

Nickfyoung wrote:

But you can't take God out of the equation


No, my concern is not that He isn't there. My concern, is that He is. Watching everything.

nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
He said that some one in that specific area was suffering from serious hemorrhoids. Not a really popular ailment.
My wife jumped up because she was suffering


A lady jumped up in church and volunteered her hemorrhoids? This in itself is a minor miracle. I guess if it is true then she's already been preconditioned anyway. Does the magician speak with his subjects before-hand? Either way, the guy has skills. And I wasn't sure hemorrhoids were all that rare? Especially for people sitting on cold wooden surfaces? Age and anxiety could be multiplicative factor too. But I once had a milk round as a boy. Hemorrhoids aren't rare or discriminate.

Nickfyoung wrote:

So why didn't God heal the fissure too?


I think even God can only handle a certain amount of anal fissure. The thing to be asking yourself here, Nick. Is what happens if nobody stands up. In the group of approx 20 people that the pastor is generally pointing at, what happens if not one person volunteers themselves to be the desired subject of his 'premonitions'? Has this ever happened? I'm guessing not.

Nickfyoung wrote:

When that first started happening last century pastors were being arrested for practicing medicine without a license. Some of the early guys had to campaign to have the law changed.


I've wrote a bit about this. There's definitely two sides to this coin. However, Quack doctors with traditional (occasionally effective) medicine is one thing, and Chinese medicine has its own verifiable merits but 'Take Up Your Bed and Walk' to an emotionally charged person with serious ligament damage is quite another. Even professionally trained medics will scream at you if you attempt to move a badly injured person.

Nickfyoung wrote:

So if a miracle has happened to close to the last one it can't be a miracle.? Why must it be a rare occurrence? Does God ration them out?


While I admit that it is fallacious of me to suggest that they can't happen consecutively, it's equally fallacious to suggest that because what I said was fallacious, that they can. If I believe in Miracles, I have to allow for the miracle of weekly miracles is a proposition that has occurred to me, but I guess I'd have to file that one in "It's not a Miracle anymore, it's just Sunday". The believer will tell you that it is a miracle that Sun comes up everyday and the non-believer would tell you that it would be a miracle if it didn't. I'm not sure where I pitch my tent, other than the fact that miracles and other extra-natural or supernatural reports tend to have to face a certain kind of scrutiny that belongs to the non-believer, and if believers are honest, they must adopt the same policy in verifying their conclusions. They must be allowed to be, rather than made to be. Otherwise every one of these self-professed pastors becomes a venerated saint and the odour of Sanctity goes on sale as a deodorant in the supermarket. While the faithful would risk bad publicity in outing fraudulent behaviour, it wouldn't harm their faith or their integrity overall. It'd merely set a precedent for standards of criteria and would bolster faith, as rarity is synonymous with both the notions of the supernatural and the sacred, and if it isn't, it is just natural and profane. Mundane and everyday.

Nickfyoung wrote:

But you can't take God out of the equation


No, my concern is not that He isn't there. My concern, is that He is. Watching everything.




Quote:
A lady jumped up in church and volunteered her hemorrhoids? This in itself is a minor miracle. I guess if it is true then she's already been preconditioned anyway. Does the magician speak with his subjects before-hand? Either way, the guy has skills. And I wasn't sure hemorrhoids were all that rare? Especially for people sitting on cold wooden surfaces?



You missed a bit. That lady was my wife. No preconditioning involved, No magician. if you were going to fake a healing Hemorrhoids would not be a popular choice surely. Pentecost doesn't have cold wooden surfaces, very comfortable cushioned chairs.

The point is, the spirit works actively in some churches, lots of revivals have happened with some strange goings on. You either believe that or you don't. Quite easy to believe when you see it, a bit harder if it is only hearsay.


Quote:
I think even God can only handle a certain amount of anal fissure. The thing to be asking yourself here, Nick. Is what happens if nobody stands up. In the group of approx 20 people that the pastor is generally pointing at, what happens if not one person volunteers themselves to be the desired subject of his 'premonitions'? Has this ever happened? I'm guessing not.




Happens quite often. There is a fine line between hearing from the Spirit and going it alone. You are looking from the point of view of a fake instead of God. Like I said, you either believe it or you don't. There are many that don't and laugh at Pentecost.

They aren't volunteering for anything, they are responding to God.

Words of knowledge . Do you not believe that God speaks to people in church.


Quote:
Even professionally trained medics will scream at you if you attempt to move a badly injured person.



Can't God heal today. You are not attempting to move them anyway. You command them to be healed and if they are they jump up and run around, wouldn't you.


Quote:
It'd merely set a precedent for standards of criteria and would bolster faith, as rarity is synonymous with both the notions of the supernatural and the sacred, and if it isn't, it is just natural and profane. Mundane and everyday.



It is mundane and everyday stuff. A Pentecostal church expects healings and miracle every time they get together and not just of Sundays. We actually meet 4 times each week and if there is a need we pray and expect miracles. Not just a pastor, anyone has access to God in prayer.


I have tried to give you an honest picture of life in a Pentecostal church. I know it is a bit outlandish for you but at least you haven't ridiculed too much even though you can't comprehend it.

It was the same for me. I came from a Presbyterian, very straight laced into Pentecost. I am still a reserved Pentecostal and let others do all the praying and healing. I do see many excesses and "funny" stuff but I see lots of God at work too.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
You missed a bit. That lady was my wife.


I missed it intentionally because I didn't want to jump to any rash (pardon the pun) conclusions about who it was that may or may not have preconditioned her. But I guess that if she used to be a Catholic, which has a very stiff and rigid view on ritualistic worship and she is now attending sťances then I guess I'm not putting it beyond a certain influential confidant. And just because she's your wife doesn't make her unladylike, Nick. I know you're a Calvinist but give yourself a little bit of credit.

I'm still freeze-framed on her (any woman) jumping up, hand aloft, in church and publicly volunteering that she has Hemorrhoids. It wouldn't be a terribly generous thing for you to grant that this does seem to be a little bit out of the ordinary. Perhaps not in light of what was to follow.

Nickfyoung wrote:
if you were going to fake a healing Hemorrhoids would not be a popular choice surely.


The embarrassing nature of the claim grants validity in assessing that claim. Always. It doesn't, however, ignore that it was self-volunteered and nor does it portray the magician in any kind of supernatural capacity. The claim that they were gone as soon as she stood up, is problematic too because she's then digging around in her ass in church on her way to the altar it and just keeps getting worse. This photographic left-hemisphere I have, it's a blessing and a curse.

Could it be that the piles were a result of the fissure, and they healed naturally as they were a result of inflammation. She then sought medical assistance for something that had been healed (as you do) and then the doctor was able to address the cause of the problem? All without the need for her to leap at the chance of some barnum statement being loosely attributed to somebody in your group's general direction, and she didn't really need to embarrass herself in front of all those people to make the pastor feel better about not being capable of even beginning his holy orders, let alone achieving ordination, and thus never becoming worthy or qualified of preaching anything to anyone? If you wouldn't trust a clairvoyant to cleanse you of your sins, then I'm not entirely sure why you are.

Nickfyoung wrote:

No magician.


I beg to differ. He is a impostor. What he's doing is magic. Magick even. And he'll answer for it. Not because of it, because of where and how he is able to be doing it, and under which authority. Get up and walk? Seriously. Even Popes would never try that hubris hat on for size. Of course you don't trust Popes though, do you? Corruption in the church and all that.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
You missed a bit. That lady was my wife.


I missed it intentionally because I didn't want to jump to any rash (pardon the pun) conclusions about who it was that may or may not have preconditioned her. But I guess that if she used to be a Catholic, which has a very stiff and rigid view on ritualistic worship and she is now attending sťances then I guess I'm not putting it beyond a certain influential confidant. And just because she's your wife doesn't make her unladylike, Nick. I know you're a Calvinist but give yourself a little bit of credit.

I'm still freeze-framed on her (any woman) jumping up, hand aloft, in church and publicly volunteering that she has Hemorrhoids. It wouldn't be a terribly generous thing for you to grant that this does seem to be a little bit out of the ordinary. Perhaps not in light of what was to follow.

Nickfyoung wrote:
if you were going to fake a healing Hemorrhoids would not be a popular choice surely.


The embarrassing nature of the claim grants validity in assessing that claim. Always. It doesn't, however, ignore that it was self-volunteered and nor does it portray the magician in any kind of supernatural capacity. The claim that they were gone as soon as she stood up, is problematic too because she's then digging around in her ass in church on her way to the altar it and just keeps getting worse. This photographic left-hemisphere I have, it's a blessing and a curse.

Could it be that the piles were a result of the fissure, and they healed naturally as they were a result of inflammation. She then sought medical assistance for something that had been healed (as you do) and then the doctor was able to address the cause of the problem? All without the need for her to leap at the chance of some barnum statement being loosely attributed to somebody in your group's general direction, and she didn't really need to embarrass herself in front of all those people to make the pastor feel better about not being capable of even beginning his holy orders, let alone achieving ordination, and thus never becoming worthy or qualified of preaching anything to anyone? If you wouldn't trust a clairvoyant to cleanse you of your sins, then I'm not entirely sure why you are.

Nickfyoung wrote:

No magician.


I beg to differ. He is a impostor. What he's doing is magic. Magick even. And he'll answer for it. Not because of it, because of where and how he is able to be doing it, and under which authority. Get up and walk? Seriously. Even Popes would never try that hubris hat on for size. Of course you don't trust Popes though, do you? Corruption in the church and all that.



Like I said above I used to go to a Presbyterian church. They teach that all the spiritual stuff is not Biblical and just plain wrong. We had some good friends there and it was difficult to leave.
One of our friends was a nice couple with a couple of young kids. They were both school teachers and very straight laced Presbyterian style.
After we had been attending this Pentecostal church for about a year the lady turned up one night for the evening service. She was wearing a neck brace and had been in a car accident some months before.
She said she was sick of the neck brace and not being able to pick up her kids for a cuddle and had come to get healed.
A major step for a straight laced Presbyterian lady but she had obviously had enough and decided to do something about it.
We watched her with interest of course as she sat through the service and at the end she went out for the alter call. When she was prayed for she went down as most do and woke up a few minutes later.
She got up with a big grin on her face, took off the neck brace, and went to the nearest mum and picked up a youngster for a cuddle.
I suppose one could call it psychosomatic or whatever but she didn't care what it was, it had done the job.


Australia just had her first saint with her two documented miracles. Why is it so hard to believe that 'documented' miracles happen in Pentecost.

It is happening within the Catholic church with more than a million followers.
"
"The Catholic Charismatic Renewal is a movement within the Catholic Church. Worship outside of Mass includes prayer meetings featuring prophecy, faith healing and glossolalia. "


As you can see faith healing is a part of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal
darthrevan
nickfyoung wrote:

After we had been attending this Pentecostal church for about a year the lady turned up one night for the evening service. She was wearing a neck brace and had been in a car accident some months before.
She said she was sick of the neck brace and not being able to pick up her kids for a cuddle and had come to get healed.
A major step for a straight laced Presbyterian lady but she had obviously had enough and decided to do something about it.
We watched her with interest of course as she sat through the service and at the end she went out for the alter call. When she was prayed for she went down as most do and woke up a few minutes later.
She got up with a big grin on her face, took off the neck brace, and went to the nearest mum and picked up a youngster for a cuddle.
I suppose one could call it psychosomatic or whatever but she didn't care what it was, it had done the job.


That is great, I have had the best experience with a Pentecostal church than any other denomination I have went to. I wish I had a Pentecostal church close to where I live.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:

Like I said above I used to go to a Presbyterian church. They teach that all the spiritual stuff is not Biblical and just plain wrong.


Yeah, I think we've covered, "My theology that isn't Biblical says that their theology that isn't Biblical isn't Biblical", already. And perhaps, one would hope, with the understanding that one is congenial with being Biblical and the other, not so much. In short, if Calvinism has been found wanting by this lowly hobbyist, which part of the metaphysical anatomy do you think that actual theologians and philosophers use it to wipe?

nickfyoung wrote:

Australia just had her first saint with her two documented miracles. Why is it so hard to believe that 'documented' miracles happen in Pentecost.


It's not hard for me to believe. I've presented arguments for miracles happening and being undocumented and sometimes them not being in a religious setting at all. It's a widely held view.

Notre Dame theology professor John Cavadini wrote:

The miracle is not primarily for the person healed, but for all people, as a sign of God's work in the ultimate healing called 'salvation,' or a sign of the kingdom that is coming. Some might view their own healing as a sign they are particularly worthy or holy, while others do not deserve it.


The contention is that the power to administer the healing has a certain criteria, not just in training but also in the sacraments and the vows, celibacy, abstinence, vocational aspiration to satisfy the requirements of the holy orders etc and that is not being met, and it suggests quackery.

I mean you could argue that the results speak for themselves. They may well do. They may also be susceptible to closer scrutiny concerning auto suggestion and confirmation bias (two major dependencies of clairvoyance, as noted by numerous scientific evaluations - even after those tests also have turned out a surprising amount of positive results - purely by chance). False positives are still false.

Nickfyoung wrote:

It is happening within the Catholic church with more than a million followers.
"
"The Catholic Charismatic Renewal is a movement within the Catholic Church. Worship outside of Mass includes prayer meetings featuring prophecy, faith healing and glossolalia. "


As you can see faith healing is a part of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal


I had to double check this as Wikipedia's policy on "attribution" (the faith healing link for example) has always been extremely problematic for me (sending physicists and biologists, primarily interested in science to theology pages concerning Abrahamic monotheism for example). Likewise, here, it links a Catholic page to Faith Healing. One merely needs to scroll down and read the Catholicism section to see that the link is dubiously attributed (or perhaps, if I was to be purely Catholicism-biased, not qualified in the slightest).

I did double-check it, regardless. As I do know "of" Catholic faith healings (although that page doesn't seem to). I checked it with a real live Catholic who was alive and practicing before Vatican 2. My mother. She told me she's attended Catholic Faith Healings. Not ones too dissimilar to the ones you've described, only perhaps a little bit more reserved. The priest would wander around the congregation and stop where he felt his assistance was required, bless the person, say "don't worry" and move on. My father met one of them afterwards and thanked him for his ministry. He didn't heal my father, but my father was grateful for his presence and took comfort from it because he described him as "A very holy man". So, different strokes for different folks, I guess.

The fervency is not beyond us, either, if I'm being completely honest. My mother told me that one of the priests in the presbytery (Catholic 'back-stage' area not reformist) began speaking in tongues to her. I said what did he say? She said, "Wishata ta ta, wish wish wishita ta ta!" I said, lol, what did you say? And she said, "I said to him, 'I don't doubt that this is the Holy Spirit, but what communicative value do you think that this has for us?'" And I said lol, and what did he say? And she said that he said, "Wishata ta ta!"

So sure, we've got them too. The point I was making is that they have payed their dues. They've earned their stripes. The other point I was making was:

ZENIT International News Agency, 11 FEB. 2004. Retrieved December 14, 2007. wrote:
The Catholic Church has given official recognition to 67 miracles and 7,000 otherwise inexplicable medical cures since the Blessed Virgin Mary first appeared in Lourdes in February 1858. These cures are subjected to intense medical scrutiny and are only recognized as authentic spiritual cures after a commission of doctors and scientists, called the Lourdes Medical Bureau, has ruled out any physical mechanism for the patient's recovery.


Pentecostals need a better peer review if they are to be taken seriously.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:

Like I said above I used to go to a Presbyterian church. They teach that all the spiritual stuff is not Biblical and just plain wrong.


Yeah, I think we've covered, "My theology that isn't Biblical says that their theology that isn't Biblical isn't Biblical", already. And perhaps, one would hope, with the understanding that one is congenial with being Biblical and the other, not so much. In short, if Calvinism has been found wanting by this lowly hobbyist, which part of the metaphysical anatomy do you think that actual theologians and philosophers use it to wipe?

nickfyoung wrote:

Australia just had her first saint with her two documented miracles. Why is it so hard to believe that 'documented' miracles happen in Pentecost.


It's not hard for me to believe. I've presented arguments for miracles happening and being undocumented and sometimes them not being in a religious setting at all. It's a widely held view.

Notre Dame theology professor John Cavadini wrote:

The miracle is not primarily for the person healed, but for all people, as a sign of God's work in the ultimate healing called 'salvation,' or a sign of the kingdom that is coming. Some might view their own healing as a sign they are particularly worthy or holy, while others do not deserve it.


The contention is that the power to administer the healing has a certain criteria, not just in training but also in the sacraments and the vows, celibacy, abstinence, vocational aspiration to satisfy the requirements of the holy orders etc and that is not being met, and it suggests quackery.

I mean you could argue that the results speak for themselves. They may well do. They may also be susceptible to closer scrutiny concerning auto suggestion and confirmation bias (two major dependencies of clairvoyance, as noted by numerous scientific evaluations - even after those tests also have turned out a surprising amount of positive results - purely by chance). False positives are still false.

Nickfyoung wrote:

It is happening within the Catholic church with more than a million followers.
"
"The Catholic Charismatic Renewal is a movement within the Catholic Church. Worship outside of Mass includes prayer meetings featuring prophecy, faith healing and glossolalia. "


As you can see faith healing is a part of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal


I had to double check this as Wikipedia's policy on "attribution" (the faith healing link for example) has always been extremely problematic for me (sending physicists and biologists, primarily interested in science to theology pages concerning Abrahamic monotheism for example). Likewise, here, it links a Catholic page to Faith Healing. One merely needs to scroll down and read the Catholicism section to see that the link is dubiously attributed (or perhaps, if I was to be purely Catholicism-biased, not qualified in the slightest).

I did double-check it, regardless. As I do know "of" Catholic failing (although that page doesn't seem to). I checked it with a real live Catholic who was alive and practicing before Vatican 2. My mother. She told me she's attended Catholic Faith Healings. Not ones too dissimilar to the ones you've described, only perhaps a little bit more reserved. The priest would wander around the congregation and stop where he felt his assistance was required, bless the person, say "don't worry" and move on. My father met one of them afterwards and thanked him for his ministry. He didn't heal my father, but my father was grateful for his presence and took comfort from it because he described him as "A very holy man". So, different strokes for different folks, I guess.

The fervency is not beyond us, either, if I'm being completely honest. My mother told me that one of the priests in the presbytery (Catholic 'back-stage' area not reformist) began speaking in tongues to her. I said what did he say? She said, "Wishata ta ta, wish wish wishita ta ta!" I said, lol, what did you say? And she said, "I said to him, 'I don't doubt that this is the Holy Spirit, but what communicative value do you think that this has for us?'" And I said lol, and what did he say? And she said that he said, "Wishata ta ta!"

So sure, we've got them too. The point I was making is that they have payed their dues. They've earned their stripes. The other point I was making was:

ZENIT International News Agency, 11 FEB. 2004. Retrieved December 14, 2007. wrote:
The Catholic Church has given official recognition to 67 miracles and 7,000 otherwise inexplicable medical cures since the Blessed Virgin Mary first appeared in Lourdes in February 1858. These cures are subjected to intense medical scrutiny and are only recognized as authentic spiritual cures after a commission of doctors and scientists, called the Lourdes Medical Bureau, has ruled out any physical mechanism for the patient's recovery.


Quote:
Pentecostals need a better peer review if they are to be taken seriously.



That is the whole point. They are not interested in peer review, don't want it, don't need it.

They are quite happy that their God is working and that is all they need. They desire to serve their God. They see him working. They are satisfied with that rather than have some one come in and scrutinize their healings to see if it actually worked or not.


There is a bit more to the theology of it all.
Jesus went to the cross for our atonement, to save us from our sins and heal us. By his stripes we were healed. Past tense. Our healing has been done, all we have to do is claim it. It says, if any are sick let him go to the elders and they will lay hands on them for healing, or something like that.

Jesus said we would do more than he had done in his name. He has given us the authority to do all things in his name.
So in the name of Jesus people are healed. Some lose their healing if they allow doubt to come back etc.

So all the pastor is doing is as he has been told to do in scripture. He is being obedient and seeing the results.
There is no hokus pokus, no magic, no nothing, just God working.
loveandormoney
Quote:


Yes, standard stuff for stage shows etc but not quite the same thing. I will give you an example.
The pastor suddenly stopped and pointed to an area of the auditorium. This was a big auditorium of several hundred people and the area he indicated was specific for about 20 odd people.
He said that some one in that specific area was suffering from serious hemorrhoids. Not a really popular ailment.
My wife jumped up because she was suffering so and she claimed that the moment she left her seat and stood up they were gone, before she even got out the front.
Next day she was in hospital having emergency surgery for an anal fissure that had been hidden by the hemorrhoids and undetected by the doctor.
They were able to fix the fissure once the hemorrhoids were out of the way.
So why didn't God heal the fissure too.? Interesting.



What is the relationship between sick and sin?
Regards

Is there a relationship?
Does jesus have an opinion?
nickfyoung
loveandormoney wrote:
Quote:


Yes, standard stuff for stage shows etc but not quite the same thing. I will give you an example.
The pastor suddenly stopped and pointed to an area of the auditorium. This was a big auditorium of several hundred people and the area he indicated was specific for about 20 odd people.
He said that some one in that specific area was suffering from serious hemorrhoids. Not a really popular ailment.
My wife jumped up because she was suffering so and she claimed that the moment she left her seat and stood up they were gone, before she even got out the front.
Next day she was in hospital having emergency surgery for an anal fissure that had been hidden by the hemorrhoids and undetected by the doctor.
They were able to fix the fissure once the hemorrhoids were out of the way.
So why didn't God heal the fissure too.? Interesting.



What is the relationship between sick and sin?
Regards

Is there a relationship?
Does jesus have an opinion?



Some sicknesses were caused by sin as Jesus said.

His death was for your sins and your sicknesses. By his stripes we were healed.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:
go to the elders
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:

That is the whole point. They are not interested in peer review, don't want it, don't need it.


Ouch. I didn't read this. I did read this not so long ago:

Roger Olson, Theological Seminary at Baylor University, The Christian Century, (March 7, 2006, pp. 27-30 .) wrote:

Endemic to Pentecostalism is a profoundly anti-intellectual ethos. It is manifested in a deep suspicion of scholars and educators and especially biblical scholars and theologians. Yes, there are some Pentecostal scholars who are respected outside the movement. Yet too many Pentecostal leaders hold even their own scholars at arms length and view them with suspicion. Merely being a member of the Society for Pentecostal Studies often brings a Pentecostal scholarís commitment to the movement into question.


nickfyoung wrote:

They are quite happy that their God is working and that is all they need. They desire to serve their God. They see him working. They are satisfied with that rather than have some one come in and scrutinize their healings to see if it actually worked or not.


Roger Olson, Theological Seminary at Baylor University, The Christian Century, (March 7, 2006, pp. 27-30 .) wrote:

This is without doubt the main reason I drifted away from the movement and eventually broke from it. I was not satisfied with the pat answers I was given by my mentors and teachers to questions I had about Pentecostal doctrines and practices.


Nickfyoung wrote:

So all the pastor is doing is as he has been told to do in scripture. He is being obedient and seeing the results.


Roger Olson, Theological Seminary at Baylor University, The Christian Century, (March 7, 2006, pp. 27-30 .) wrote:

For example: Billy Graham was and is a great hero to most Pentecostals, but he says he has never spoken in tongues. Is he not Spirit-filled? My questions on this issue were deftly turned aside, and subtle aspersions were cast on my spirituality merely for asking such questions. In the end, I was told that Graham is fully Spirit-filled even if he has never spoken in tongues. Heís the one exception. But were I to take up a career teaching theology in a Pentecostal college (I was told), I couldnít teach that there might be exceptions to that distinctive doctrine. The cognitive dissonance wrought by this and other answers boggled my mind.


Nickfyoung wrote:

So in the name of Jesus people are healed. Some lose their healing if they allow doubt to come back etc.


Roger Olson, Theological Seminary at Baylor University, The Christian Century, (March 7, 2006, pp. 27-30 .) wrote:

Not all Pentecostals are anti-intellectual or revel in incoherence. But a deep antipathy to critical rationality applied to theology is a hallmark of the movement. Too often spiritual abuse in the form of shame is directed at those, especially young people, who dare to question the teachings of highly placed Pentecostal ministers and evangelists.


Nickfyoung wrote:

There is a bit more to the theology of it all.


Nah, there's not. The pastor says what goes, everyone kowtows or gets kicked out.

Roger Olson, Theological Seminary at Baylor University, The Christian Century, (March 7, 2006, pp. 27-30 .) wrote:

I was one of the first Open Bible members to attend seminary and, like most Pentecostals who did that, I left the movement. I felt pushed out for wasting my time on intellectual pursuits rather than becoming a missionary or evangelist.


Nickfyoung wrote:

Jesus said we would do more than he had done in his name. He has given us the authority to do all things in his name.


Roger Olson, Theological Seminary at Baylor University, The Christian Century, (March 7, 2006, pp. 27-30 .) wrote:

Shaking off this anti-intellectual attitude wonít be easy for the movement; it is part of Pentecostalismís DNA.


Nickfyoung wrote:

It says, if any are sick let him go to the elders and they will lay hands on them for healing, or something like that.


This was the part which struck me before. It really stood out from your post and caused me to miss the general 'feel' of it, which in retrospect, was in much more need of addressing. But I've let a fellow Pentecostal do that, as he knows more about it than I do.

What qualifies these TV evangelists to be elders?

Simon Magnus wrote:

There is no hokus pokus, no magic, no nothing, just God working.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magus

Of course, the sin of Simony is named after Simon,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simony

I'm avoiding mentioning the Pentecostal's notorious infamy concerning their money handling ethic, as I feel it is somewhat of a 'cheap shot' (like paedophiles, etc). But it's ironic how Simon Magnus became closely related with money and greed within the church and even became eponymous with pr̶aying for salvation, isn't it? A magician, pretending to be divinely inspired... It's almost like prophecy. A revelation, or even a miracle?

It's not by the way. I've come to expect it. When ever one of these new jack worldviews pops up, I find I've already read all about it. Even the ones who think they are too bad ass or modern or intellectually advanced to have been written about by Fishermen and Sheepherders 2000 years ago. They're all there. And we already know the ending, which is the disturbing part. We watch them go through all the same motions, not seeing the errors forewarned, not seeing the predestination. All are in there. Described to a tee (no barnum statements).
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:

That is the whole point. They are not interested in peer review, don't want it, don't need it.


Ouch. I didn't read this. I did read this not so long ago:

Roger Olson, Theological Seminary at Baylor University, The Christian Century, (March 7, 2006, pp. 27-30 .) wrote:

Endemic to Pentecostalism is a profoundly anti-intellectual ethos. It is manifested in a deep suspicion of scholars and educators and especially biblical scholars and theologians. Yes, there are some Pentecostal scholars who are respected outside the movement. Yet too many Pentecostal leaders hold even their own scholars at arms length and view them with suspicion. Merely being a member of the Society for Pentecostal Studies often brings a Pentecostal scholarís commitment to the movement into question.


nickfyoung wrote:

They are quite happy that their God is working and that is all they need. They desire to serve their God. They see him working. They are satisfied with that rather than have some one come in and scrutinize their healings to see if it actually worked or not.


Roger Olson, Theological Seminary at Baylor University, The Christian Century, (March 7, 2006, pp. 27-30 .) wrote:

This is without doubt the main reason I drifted away from the movement and eventually broke from it. I was not satisfied with the pat answers I was given by my mentors and teachers to questions I had about Pentecostal doctrines and practices.


Nickfyoung wrote:

So all the pastor is doing is as he has been told to do in scripture. He is being obedient and seeing the results.


Roger Olson, Theological Seminary at Baylor University, The Christian Century, (March 7, 2006, pp. 27-30 .) wrote:

For example: Billy Graham was and is a great hero to most Pentecostals, but he says he has never spoken in tongues. Is he not Spirit-filled? My questions on this issue were deftly turned aside, and subtle aspersions were cast on my spirituality merely for asking such questions. In the end, I was told that Graham is fully Spirit-filled even if he has never spoken in tongues. Heís the one exception. But were I to take up a career teaching theology in a Pentecostal college (I was told), I couldnít teach that there might be exceptions to that distinctive doctrine. The cognitive dissonance wrought by this and other answers boggled my mind.


Nickfyoung wrote:

So in the name of Jesus people are healed. Some lose their healing if they allow doubt to come back etc.


Roger Olson, Theological Seminary at Baylor University, The Christian Century, (March 7, 2006, pp. 27-30 .) wrote:

Not all Pentecostals are anti-intellectual or revel in incoherence. But a deep antipathy to critical rationality applied to theology is a hallmark of the movement. Too often spiritual abuse in the form of shame is directed at those, especially young people, who dare to question the teachings of highly placed Pentecostal ministers and evangelists.


Nickfyoung wrote:

There is a bit more to the theology of it all.


Nah, there's not. The pastor says what goes, everyone kowtows or gets kicked out.

Roger Olson, Theological Seminary at Baylor University, The Christian Century, (March 7, 2006, pp. 27-30 .) wrote:

I was one of the first Open Bible members to attend seminary and, like most Pentecostals who did that, I left the movement. I felt pushed out for wasting my time on intellectual pursuits rather than becoming a missionary or evangelist.


Nickfyoung wrote:

Jesus said we would do more than he had done in his name. He has given us the authority to do all things in his name.


Roger Olson, Theological Seminary at Baylor University, The Christian Century, (March 7, 2006, pp. 27-30 .) wrote:

Shaking off this anti-intellectual attitude wonít be easy for the movement; it is part of Pentecostalismís DNA.


Nickfyoung wrote:

It says, if any are sick let him go to the elders and they will lay hands on them for healing, or something like that.


This was the part which struck me before. It really stood out from your post and caused me to miss the general 'feel' of it, which in retrospect, was in much more need of addressing. But I've let a fellow Pentecostal do that, as he knows more about it than I do.

What qualifies these TV evangelists to be elders?

Simon Magnus wrote:

There is no hokus pokus, no magic, no nothing, just God working.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magus

Of course, the sin of Simony is named after Simon,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simony

I'm avoiding mentioning the Pentecostal's notorious infamy concerning their money handling ethic, as I feel it is somewhat of a 'cheap shot' (like paedophiles, etc). But it's ironic how Simon Magnus became closely related with money and greed within the church and even became eponymous with pr̶aying for salvation, isn't it? A magician, pretending to be divinely inspired... It's almost like prophecy. A revelation, or even a miracle?

It's not by the way. I've come to expect it. When ever one of these new jack worldviews pops up, I find I've already read all about it. Even the ones who think they are too bad ass or modern or intellectually advanced to have been written about by Fishermen and Sheepherders 2000 years ago. They're all there. And we already know the ending, which is the disturbing part. We watch them go through all the same motions, not seeing the errors forewarned, not seeing the predestination. All are in there. Described to a tee (no barnum statements).



All very true. It is very easy to become a pentecostal pastor. Very little study and a demonstrably gift of the Holy Spirit and you are in.

Uniquely though you don't get payed. About the only church that makes you support yourself until you have generated enough income from your church to get a wage. Our pastor doesn't get payed. Him and his wife both work normal jobs and pastor as well.

Prosperity teaching is a big part of some Pentecostal churches and I admit, does turn me off. Pentecostals generally are traditionally the biggest givers of any church and are quite happy to give their tithes and offerings. The last church I was at before we moved towns was about 300/400 strong and the goal for the year was to raise one million for the building fund. That is over and above tithes and offerings. I thought it was a bit ambitious but by end of June they were up to $900,000.

TV evangelists are something else and many are frauds by your definition. Many start out well but fall flat on their face when temptation comes along and some make it into jail. However, people flock to see them because healings do take place and when you are sick you will look at all options.


In our church, if there is a healing call people go out and get prayed for by mostly elders. The pastor leaves most of it to them.

There are many denominations within Pentecostalism and as you would expect, many excesses within all the range. One has to be aware. I feel a little blessed to have what seems to be the gift of discernment and can soon tell if something is amiss. Of course many are misled as they are in many other churches.

The anti-intellectualism is common across Protestantism I think and not just exclusive to Pentecostals although maybe more predominant in Pentecostalism.

Personally, I could fit in to many churches but left the choice to my wife as that is where she is at. Interestingly we have a couple moving away soon and they made the comment that when they did they would be church shopping. That is what we did when we moved here. Went to a few churches to get a feel for them and chose the one that suited us. Just thinking, you guys don't have that luxury.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
It is very easy to become a pentecostal pastor. Very little study and a demonstrably gift of the Holy Spirit and you are in.


I know you're suggesting that is merely enough but this is circular, because like the second point in my argument continually asks: Who is checking if it isn't a demonstration of demonisation for demonetization?

Your position seems to be, "It's God, don't ask questions". My position is

ZENIT International News Agency, 11 FEB. 2004. Retrieved December 14, 2007. wrote: wrote:

The Catholic Church has given official recognition to 67 miracles since 1858


And this is far from exhaustive, its just from the millions of claims that are reported and documented. 67? I bet you get that a week. There's a lot of fakes, is what this tells us. Yours are all going undetected. And the same attitude towards evaluation and scrutiny is being applied to the eligibility of the healer to administer them. Nobody is checking.

I'm obviously not suggesting that sitting in monastery for 7 years makes you levitate. I'm likewise not for a minute suggesting that Billy Graham can't achieve more sanctity than somebody who has sat his orders. I'm suggesting that they were referred to as Elders as wisdom is often an inevitability of age and experience, just as dexterity and professional integrity are an inevitability of training. You can't teach a man how to be holy but you can isolate him from his evils, give him a work ethic, instill standards and expectancy, encourage his academia, and eventually release a credible and proficient practitioner. It would be a start, in the very least.

Your counter-argument was to the effect of, 'well if the miracle works for them, then it's nobody's business'. But one person benefiting has never been what miracles are for. That's not how a miracle is defined. From those 67 confirmed, all of them have a commonality. They were all demonstrably apparent. Demonstrable, in the sense that they were all publicly witnessed and intensely scrutinized (often even derailed and ridiculed by the Holy See themselves). But the "God showing off" thing is the whole point of the miracle. The miracle's whole purpose is generally required to have to have been seen as some sort of significant sign from God for the whole of mankind. And in the cases of a lot of those 67, they concern stigmatas, inediacs, martyrs, sick, disabled, etc. Nobody was hugging babies. There was no "Jerry's Final Thought" and nobody was healed. Quite the bloody opposite.

In differentiating miracles from healings, one might ask how potent the Spirit is and why it seems limited. Does it just heal you? Or can it completely tear you a new one? The paradox is excruciating painful privilege Vs patronizing pat on the head with a tea towel. And at the risk of sounding childish, the Pentecostal's 'revelations' seem decidedly candy-ass. In both application and outcome. While I'd much rather go with the tea towel, personally, I just can't seem to get this stage show aspect out of my mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_a_Lesser_God_%28play%29

wrote:
Uniquely though you don't get payed. About the only church that makes you support yourself until you have generated enough income from your church to get a wage. Our pastor doesn't get payed. Him and his wife both work normal jobs and pastor as well.


Yeah but we both know...[edit] never mind:

Nickfyoung wrote:

Pentecostals generally are traditionally the biggest givers of any church and are quite happy to give their tithes and offerings.


And they don't just drop a quid and a half sucked boiled sweet in the plate either, do they Nick? Envelopes. Brown envelopes. Catholics have envelopes, but they are 'white' haha, like that pacifies it. Usually that's the preferred method of collection plate dropping though, as Catholics can hide their 14 pence in there without fear or reproach.

I know you guys throw a couple of hundred dollars in there, right? That's where the term "Hillbilly Holy Roller" comes from? I don't care what they drive, just how they define spiritual wealth. And if they can make people publicly humiliate themselves of their own accord, then suggesting that they dip down a bit deeper shouldn't be too much of problem either.

Nickfyoung wrote:

by end of June they were up to $900,000.


That's crazy talk. Thanks for sharing this by the way. I'd be inclined to gloss over these details. You're an honest man. I know the Vatican has priceless pieces by grandmasters hanging in the bathroom stalls, but I honestly think they maintain an already massive wealth from all the 14 pences. It's not how much is in the envelope, it's how many envelopes. There's a case for wealth to do many good works internationally and charitably but they play the stock market (sort of) and have had mafioso and Freemason investors so I'm not fickle about it, nor naive to its evils.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Calvi

^Apostasy was prophesied in two of our officially recognized miracles. Once from Akita, Japan and one from Lucia, Fatima in the 3rd secret that hasn't and won't ever be fully revealed. So if I believe these things, why am I still a Catholic? And why don't I 'shop around'? Because like I said, the rest of you are candy-ass. This is the real deal. There's no spoonful of sugar to help it down.

What I actually do hold in higher contempt than dealings with organized crime lords, or other big and nasty conglomerates, as a matter of principal: Is dipping your hands in to simple people's pockets. Because that's actually taking from a real personable individual. And it's not blood money, which is anyone's to pee up against a wall. It is God money. Honestly given, and good will and faith for the sake of the church. The Pentecostals, from what Olson writes, have nobody checking this either:

Roger Olson, Theological Seminary at Baylor University, The Christian Century, (March 7, 2006, pp. 27-30 .) wrote: wrote:

Too few courses in basic ethics are required in Pentecostal colleges (perhaps because many Pentecostals, especially older ones, assume that being Spirit-filled guarantees right behavior), and too many pastors handle the churchesí money and travel alone without having to account for their whereabouts or activities. Itís the movementís own dirty little secret: sexual promiscuity and financial misconduct are rampant within its ranks, and little is done about this unless a scandal becomes public.

Several Pentecostal denominations have instituted policies to handle cases of pastoral moral turpitude and financial misconduct, but they have found those policies hard to enforce. At least one Pentecostal denomination has a policy that forbids investigation of charges that are more than five years old. One can only wonder why the leaders decided on that limit.

There is no body that regulates independent churches and ministers, but Pentecostal leaders could work harder to expose their colleagues who transgress and to warn their flocks (and others) against them. Far too much nervousness about powerful television and radio preachers infects well-intentioned and ethically sensitive Pentecostal leaders. Itís time for the movement to own up to its sometimes sleazy history and go the extra mile in cleaning house in the cases of ministers and evangelists who are less than honest and chaste. It should not be left to publications like Christianity Today and Charisma to reveal scandals involving Pentecostal ministers, evangelists and denominational executives.


As I admit, our fleece is far from as white as snow, but manipulation on a personal intimate level is another thing completely. I mean sick people for prime time material:

Nickfyoung wrote:

TV evangelists are something else and many are frauds by your definition. Many start out well but fall flat on their face when temptation comes along and some make it into jail. However, people flock to see them because healings do take place and when you are sick you will look at all options.


Shakes head. The whole TV thing in itself is just obnoxious and irritating and sacrilegious too. The term "Is nothing sacred" springs to mind. Nobody wants a God channel. I no more want to see God being wheeled out as TV hand puppet than I want to see TV stations playing in a Church. They just don't get some really basic respect issues at all. They don't seem to understand what "crass", "tacky" and "kitsch" means. This is why it doesn't travel. And why can't it travel with any ubiquity. It's about as acceptable in England as it is Russia. I'm not being sanctimonious when I say "acceptable" as it is all in all just awful, tasteless entertainment with all the artistic merit of a Graceland gift-shop and all the gripping power of a 3 hour QVC special about stair-lifts.

Nickfyoung wrote:

church shopping


lol, no comment.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Just thinking, you guys don't have that luxury.


And thank Christ for small mercies.

Thanks for the unflinching words, Nick. Much appreciated.
loveandormoney
nickfyoung wrote:
loveandormoney wrote:
Quote:


Yes, standard stuff for stage shows etc but not quite the same thing. I will give you an example.
The pastor suddenly stopped and pointed to an area of the auditorium. This was a big auditorium of several hundred people and the area he indicated was specific for about 20 odd people.
He said that some one in that specific area was suffering from serious hemorrhoids. Not a really popular ailment.
My wife jumped up because she was suffering so and she claimed that the moment she left her seat and stood up they were gone, before she even got out the front.
Next day she was in hospital having emergency surgery for an anal fissure that had been hidden by the hemorrhoids and undetected by the doctor.
They were able to fix the fissure once the hemorrhoids were out of the way.
So why didn't God heal the fissure too.? Interesting.



What is the relationship between sick and sin?
Regards

Is there a relationship?
Does jesus have an opinion?



Some sicknesses were caused by sin as Jesus said.

His death was for your sins and your sicknesses. By his stripes we were healed.










Good morning. Thank You for Your answer.
Please write a list, what sicknesses jesus does heal because they are based on sin?
Cancer
Heart attack
headache
broken leg
drugproblems
depression?
Regards
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
It is very easy to become a pentecostal pastor. Very little study and a demonstrably gift of the Holy Spirit and you are in.


I know you're suggesting that is merely enough but this is circular, because like the second point in my argument continually asks: Who is checking if it isn't a demonstration of demonisation for demonetization?

Your position seems to be, "It's God, don't ask questions". My position is

ZENIT International News Agency, 11 FEB. 2004. Retrieved December 14, 2007. wrote: wrote:

The Catholic Church has given official recognition to 67 miracles since 1858


And this is far from exhaustive, its just from the millions of claims that are reported and documented. 67? I bet you get that a week. There's a lot of fakes, is what this tells us. Yours are all going undetected. And the same attitude towards evaluation and scrutiny is being applied to the eligibility of the healer to administer them. Nobody is checking.

I'm obviously not suggesting that sitting in monastery for 7 years makes you levitate. I'm likewise not for a minute suggesting that Billy Graham can't achieve more sanctity than somebody who has sat his orders. I'm suggesting that they were referred to as Elders as wisdom is often an inevitability of age and experience, just as dexterity and professional integrity are an inevitability of training. You can't teach a man how to be holy but you can isolate him from his evils, give him a work ethic, instill standards and expectancy, encourage his academia, and eventually release a credible and proficient practitioner. It would be a start, in the very least.

Your counter-argument was to the effect of, 'well if the miracle works for them, then it's nobody's business'. But one person benefiting has never been what miracles are for. That's not how a miracle is defined. From those 67 confirmed, all of them have a commonality. They were all demonstrably apparent. Demonstrable, in the sense that they were all publicly witnessed and intensely scrutinized (often even derailed and ridiculed by the Holy See themselves). But the "God showing off" thing is the whole point of the miracle. The miracle's whole purpose is generally required to have to have been seen as some sort of significant sign from God for the whole of mankind. And in the cases of a lot of those 67, they concern stigmatas, inediacs, martyrs, sick, disabled, etc. Nobody was hugging babies. There was no "Jerry's Final Thought" and nobody was healed. Quite the bloody opposite.

In differentiating miracles from healings, one might ask how potent the Spirit is and why it seems limited. Does it just heal you? Or can it completely tear you a new one? The paradox is excruciating painful privilege Vs patronizing pat on the head with a tea towel. And at the risk of sounding childish, the Pentecostal's 'revelations' seem decidedly candy-ass. In both application and outcome. While I'd much rather go with the tea towel, personally, I just can't seem to get this stage show aspect out of my mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_a_Lesser_God_%28play%29

wrote:
Uniquely though you don't get payed. About the only church that makes you support yourself until you have generated enough income from your church to get a wage. Our pastor doesn't get payed. Him and his wife both work normal jobs and pastor as well.


Yeah but we both know...[edit] never mind:

Nickfyoung wrote:

Pentecostals generally are traditionally the biggest givers of any church and are quite happy to give their tithes and offerings.


And they don't just drop a quid and a half sucked boiled sweet in the plate either, do they Nick? Envelopes. Brown envelopes. Catholics have envelopes, but they are 'white' haha, like that pacifies it. Usually that's the preferred method of collection plate dropping though, as Catholics can hide their 14 pence in there without fear or reproach.

I know you guys throw a couple of hundred dollars in there, right? That's where the term "Hillbilly Holy Roller" comes from? I don't care what they drive, just how they define spiritual wealth. And if they can make people publicly humiliate themselves of their own accord, then suggesting that they dip down a bit deeper shouldn't be too much of problem either.

Nickfyoung wrote:

by end of June they were up to $900,000.


That's crazy talk. Thanks for sharing this by the way. I'd be inclined to gloss over these details. You're an honest man. I know the Vatican has priceless pieces by grandmasters hanging in the bathroom stalls, but I honestly think they maintain an already massive wealth from all the 14 pences. It's not how much is in the envelope, it's how many envelopes. There's a case for wealth to do many good works internationally and charitably but they play the stock market (sort of) and have had mafioso and Freemason investors so I'm not fickle about it, nor naive to its evils.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Calvi

^Apostasy was prophesied in two of our officially recognized miracles. Once from Akita, Japan and one from Lucia, Fatima in the 3rd secret that hasn't and won't ever be fully revealed. So if I believe these things, why am I still a Catholic? And why don't I 'shop around'? Because like I said, the rest of you are candy-ass. This is the real deal. There's no spoonful of sugar to help it down.

What I actually do hold in higher contempt than dealings with organized crime lords, or other big and nasty conglomerates, as a matter of principal: Is dipping your hands in to simple people's pockets. Because that's actually taking from a real personable individual. And it's not blood money, which is anyone's to pee up against a wall. It is God money. Honestly given, and good will and faith for the sake of the church. The Pentecostals, from what Olson writes, have nobody checking this either:

Roger Olson, Theological Seminary at Baylor University, The Christian Century, (March 7, 2006, pp. 27-30 .) wrote: wrote:

Too few courses in basic ethics are required in Pentecostal colleges (perhaps because many Pentecostals, especially older ones, assume that being Spirit-filled guarantees right behavior), and too many pastors handle the churchesí money and travel alone without having to account for their whereabouts or activities. Itís the movementís own dirty little secret: sexual promiscuity and financial misconduct are rampant within its ranks, and little is done about this unless a scandal becomes public.

Several Pentecostal denominations have instituted policies to handle cases of pastoral moral turpitude and financial misconduct, but they have found those policies hard to enforce. At least one Pentecostal denomination has a policy that forbids investigation of charges that are more than five years old. One can only wonder why the leaders decided on that limit.

There is no body that regulates independent churches and ministers, but Pentecostal leaders could work harder to expose their colleagues who transgress and to warn their flocks (and others) against them. Far too much nervousness about powerful television and radio preachers infects well-intentioned and ethically sensitive Pentecostal leaders. Itís time for the movement to own up to its sometimes sleazy history and go the extra mile in cleaning house in the cases of ministers and evangelists who are less than honest and chaste. It should not be left to publications like Christianity Today and Charisma to reveal scandals involving Pentecostal ministers, evangelists and denominational executives.


As I admit, our fleece is far from as white as snow, but manipulation on a personal intimate level is another thing completely. I mean sick people for prime time material:

Nickfyoung wrote:

TV evangelists are something else and many are frauds by your definition. Many start out well but fall flat on their face when temptation comes along and some make it into jail. However, people flock to see them because healings do take place and when you are sick you will look at all options.


Shakes head. The whole TV thing in itself is just obnoxious and irritating and sacrilegious too. The term "Is nothing sacred" springs to mind. Nobody wants a God channel. I no more want to see God being wheeled out as TV hand puppet than I want to see TV stations playing in a Church. They just don't get some really basic respect issues at all. They don't seem to understand what "crass", "tacky" and "kitsch" means. This is why it doesn't travel. And why can't it travel with any ubiquity. It's about as acceptable in England as it is Russia. I'm not being sanctimonious when I say "acceptable" as it is all in all just awful, tasteless entertainment with all the artistic merit of a Graceland gift-shop and all the gripping power of a 3 hour QVC special about stair-lifts.

Nickfyoung wrote:

church shopping


lol, no comment.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Just thinking, you guys don't have that luxury.


And thank Christ for small mercies.

Thanks for the unflinching words, Nick. Much appreciated.



Quote:
Who is checking if it isn't a demonstration of demonisation for demonetization?



That is part of it too. One must be able to recognize demonic presence and have the authority to cast them out. Actually it is quite easy to see a demonic manifestation. The hairs stand up on the back of your neck.


Quote:
Yours are all going undetected. And the same attitude towards evaluation and scrutiny is being applied to the eligibility of the healer to administer them. Nobody is checking.



You recognize fakes all the time. That is always going to be the way. Can't refuse people just because they are fakes. You seem to have this idea that the pastor or the one praying is doing the faking. They just pray believing. Most of the time nothing happens. Every now and then something does. No one is trying to fake anything. They pray for healing and let God do the rest. If he heals well and good, if he doesn't. well there are lots of theories.


I
Quote:
'm likewise not for a minute suggesting that Billy Graham can't achieve more sanctity than somebody who has sat his orders.



Billy graham was an evangelist with a gift of preaching and was able to convince many thousands to commit to Jesus. Know what his retention rate was. 6% of all those thousands of people stayed saved and in a church.



Quote:
I'm suggesting that they were referred to as Elders as wisdom is often an inevitability of age and experience,



Yes, mature Christians usually older and wiser.


Quote:
The miracle's whole purpose is generally required to have to have been seen as some sort of significant sign from God for



Not really trying to defend Pentecostal miracles, just trying explain how it is.


Quote:
I know you guys throw a couple of hundred dollars in there, right? That's where the term "Hillbilly Holy Roller"



A tithe is expected, 10% of your net income, as a basis of your giving. After that you are expected to fill little envelopes with different names on them, building fund, new chairs fund, new carpet fund, etc.
$50 is considered a fair offering. I collect up the offerings now and then and I know one couple who are both working always put in $50 each.
Personally, just for the record to give you an idea. The largest offering I put in was $500 and the largest offering I made to a building fund was $1000.

I know some who regularly put in more than that to building funds. Some budget thousands each year towards the church building fund.


Quote:
That's crazy talk. Thanks for sharing this by the way. I'd be inclined to gloss over these details.




Sounds crazy doesn't it. I can assure you it is not. They have bought several acres of prime real estate, Sunshine Coast, Queensland, is prime real estate and have plans for a huge complex. I have no doubt it will happen, and they regularly have church BBQs on the land to reinforce the point, all part of the marketing.
Some friends of mine from that church are wise old elders, and still drive an ancient car. They confided that every year when they have the budget to upgrade, they feel compelled to hit the building fund again.


Quote:
I just can't seem to get this stage show aspect out of my mind.



I know that is a big problem for you and is true in many cases. If you are going to have something that is exciting you are going to have those who will try and copy it and they do attract a following of those who are there for the stage show.
I have picked a new pastor from day one as being a fraud, discernment. You can't say anything because you will be accused of gossiping etc. I just had to sit there and watch the church crumble over a year before he finally took off with his tail between his legs.


Quote:
Yeah but we both know...[edit] never mind:




He has nothing to do with the cash. It is counted and administered by a committee and the mortgage payed and the balance banked. He is unaware of the bank balance even and is not interested in that side of it.


Quote:
one might ask how potent the Spirit is and why it seems limited.



That is interesting. Why do some get healed and not others. Why do cancers go into remission for some and another can't get rid of a headache.

Can tell you a story about a wise old elder. He was driving with his wife on a freeway one night and failed to see a truck stopped ahead. He went under the tray which hit them at head height and he was killed instantly. When the ambulance arrived they just rolled his body off the road while they worked on his wife. Every bone in has face was smashed as you can imagine.

She was put into the ambulance with her dead husband and on the way to hospital she noticed his lips moving and realized he was speaking gently in tongues. He may have been dead but his spirit was still at it.
Short story is he made a complete recovery.

Years later he was getting ill. They used to come to our house every week for bible study and he would relate how he was trying all sorts of therapy but was no better.
Eventually, they put him in hospital fro some tests. Thursday afternoon they gave his wife the news. He had lymph gland cancer and would dead in a matter of days.
She went home and rang the pastor. He rang around the leadership and they all met at the church and prayed, Pentecostal style, claiming his healing.
Friday morning, next day he woke in hospital feeling well and was home Monday. He is still an elder, into his 80s now and going strong.


Quote:
The Pentecostals, from what Olson writes, have nobody checking this either:



Some Pentecostals teach a prosperity gospel. Give to God and he will bless you. Last time I was in the States I had a flu so stayed home from church. Watched two Sunday morning church shows on TV. Both, at the end wanted donations of one million dollars.

Incidentally, was reminded of Robert Schuller when he built the crystal cathedral in California. He was criticized for spending so much money on a church. I think it was 15 Million those days. I read his book.
When they had finished building the church was freehold with donations. Building fund at work.
nickfyoung
loveandormoney wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
loveandormoney wrote:
Quote:


Yes, standard stuff for stage shows etc but not quite the same thing. I will give you an example.
The pastor suddenly stopped and pointed to an area of the auditorium. This was a big auditorium of several hundred people and the area he indicated was specific for about 20 odd people.
He said that some one in that specific area was suffering from serious hemorrhoids. Not a really popular ailment.
My wife jumped up because she was suffering so and she claimed that the moment she left her seat and stood up they were gone, before she even got out the front.
Next day she was in hospital having emergency surgery for an anal fissure that had been hidden by the hemorrhoids and undetected by the doctor.
They were able to fix the fissure once the hemorrhoids were out of the way.
So why didn't God heal the fissure too.? Interesting.



What is the relationship between sick and sin?
Regards

Is there a relationship?
Does jesus have an opinion?



Some sicknesses were caused by sin as Jesus said.

His death was for your sins and your sicknesses. By his stripes we were healed.










Good morning. Thank You for Your answer.
Please write a list, what sicknesses jesus does heal because they are based on sin?
Cancer
Heart attack
headache
broken leg
drugproblems
depression?
Regards



Jesus healed all sickness at the cross whether they were based on sin or not. All we have to do now is appropriate them.

We can assume some sicknesses are based on sin because it is mentioned in the Bible although not which ones specifically.
Jesus said to the lady caught in sin to go and sin no more.
loveandormoney
Quote:


Jesus healed all sickness at the cross whether they were based on sin or not. All we have to do now is appropriate them.

We can assume some sicknesses are based on sin because it is mentioned in the Bible although not which ones specifically.
Jesus said to the lady caught in sin to go and sin no more.



"Jesus healed all sickness at the cross whether they were based on sin or not"
All
So sick is based on sin.

"We can assume some sicknesses are based on sin "
Now there are "some"?
What kind of sicknesses are some and what kind of sicknesses are not "some"?

"Jesus said to the lady caught in sin to go and sin no more."
What sickness did she have?
Cancer?

Regards
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:

Now there are "some"?


It's not inconsistent with the dogma of original sin. The belief of being impure, imperfect and susceptible to malignancy. Morality affects mortality. If the tree of the life /eternal life (the cause and effect of both of morality's alpha and omega) is called that for a reason, then being closer to achieving that would be the only earthly philosophical qualifier. Which is also scriptural. Like when I ask, Nick:

Dialogist wrote:

one might ask how potent the Spirit is and why it seems limited.


And

Dialogist wrote:

Does it just heal you? Or can it completely tear you a new one?


I'm not questioning it's power to heal (in this life). I'm asking if it decides it's ready for you right now, regardless of its regard for this life. So in this argument you're going to get two different answers. You're going to get the Pentecostal who is concerned with wealth of an earthly nature and a Catholic who has some other traditionally macabre preoccupations with suffering and martyrdom being some of sort of divine privilege. In terms of tree of life theologies both are still consistent, however, as both seek to grant or restore some perspective of "life". The Aristotelian complaint from the secular is concerned with the paradox of heroism being indistinguishable from being suicidal. But one may argue from a spiritual perspective that a non spiritual perspective is troublesome in drawing a distinction.

It's not really productive to assign illnesses to sins in a physical sense though. Clearly the proposition is spiritual. It would be like asking if anxiety, which is also actual, yet also non corporeal, being the cause and accelerator of many illnesses is a result of immorality. And it's not always just like it is not always a cause or accelerator. Sometimes anxiety can be an effect of struggling in the face of adversity. The Bible knows that though. That's why it says "Don't Worry" 365 times in there, and why when the Catholic church does partake in faith healings, "Don't Worry" is the theological choice of blessing.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

You seem to have this idea that the pastor or the one praying is doing the faking.


My personal opinion is that both are. It's not exhaustive as I don't see the Spirit as uninvited to perform as it wishes. Because when I accuse the pastor's eligibility to harness such power of being limited, I understand that it works both ways. In that, I would be willing to grant some actual divine healings. However, I wouldn't be willing to grant, "Ta-da!", and "And for my next trick,.. Who here has lost a pet as a child?"

I think the faking on the part of healed might be decidedly less dishonest. I honestly believe they are being manipulated most of the time. I've presented cases of anti-intellectualism, appeals to authority, comparisons with clairvoyant's results turn-around rate, and the financial aspect which seems volunteered also, as some rather weighty reasoning for believing this.

Nickfyoung wrote:

They just pray believing. Most of the time nothing happens. Every now and then something does. No one is trying to fake anything. They pray for healing and let God do the rest. If he heals well and good


Ta-da!

Nickfyoung wrote:

Not really trying to defend Pentecostal miracles, just trying explain how it is.


Well, I was conflating miracles with healings, but if it is a divine invention beyond natural or medical intervention and beyond the law of averages then it's a miracle. I'm careful to point out that in the cases of clairvoyance, that chance itself has always been a remarkably charitable contributing factor to their cause. But a miracle it'd have to be, if it evades all of these things. A work of God. But like I said, nobody is checking it isn't natural or chance and the ones which would withstand such scrutiny would still seem to be kind of watered down comparatively. Compare the curing an ailment to being bestowed with the wounds of Christ and given the power of healing yourself. Are you not paying enough or something? Why are you lot getting ripped-off?

Also, while by definition they'd need to be miracles to satisfy the 'natural causes and chance ruled out' criteria, these miracles seem like 'worldly', 'earthly' miracles. The kind doctors perform. And therefore not miracles. So I'm not asking you to defend Pentecostal miracles, just asking you to show me one.

Nickfoung wrote:

A tithe is expected, 10% of your net income, as a basis of your giving. After that...


Whoa, "after that..."?

Nickfyoung wrote:

fill little envelopes with different names on them, building fund, new chairs fund, new carpet fund, etc.


10% is a joke. That's too much. Separate things for building (once every decade), new chairs (you've already testified to their modern comfort), new carpets?... Somebody is bleeding you dry.

Nickfyoung wrote:

$50 is considered a fair offering. I collect up the offerings now and then and I know one couple who are both working always put in $50 each.


That's too much. If the place was in ruins, I'd understand. But barbecue hosting coastal resorts don't need to be extorting people like this. But I take your point about it taking two to tango. It's probably true that the parishioners are trying to buy salvation.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Sounds crazy doesn't it. I can assure you it is not. They have bought several acres of prime real estate, Sunshine Coast, Queensland, is prime real estate and have plans for a huge complex. I have no doubt it will happen, and they regularly have church BBQs on the land to reinforce the point, all part of the marketing.
Some friends of mine from that church are wise old elders, and still drive an ancient car. They confided that every year when they have the budget to upgrade, they feel compelled to hit the building fund again.


Olson in that article said that the "Hillbilly Holy Roller" thing was fallacious and just one look at the parking lot of most Pentecostal churches will prove that. But if I was a Pentecostal pastor, I'd be inclined to drive a clapped-out rust bucket too, on general principal, more out of self-consciousness about what I know people would already preconceive about me than anything else. If he is serious about dipping into the funds for a new auto, file a complaint. If he's joking about dipping into the funds for a new auto, file two. If you value this church, take it, and its media perception back from these clowns.

Nickfyoung wrote:

You can't say anything because you will be accused of gossiping etc.


You have to attack this anti-intellectualism head on. There's no way around the side. This seems to be the whole entire problem with all of my concerns. Its whole ideology seems to be founded on not asking questions.

Nickfyoung wrote:

That is interesting. Why do some get healed and not others.


I was more interested in why healing is the desired outcome. It really reminds me of what Spielberg was driving at in the final scenes of his movie The Holy Grail. Eternal life on earth being held in higher regard than eternal life in the next, the prior, often to the detriment of the latter.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Some Pentecostals teach a prosperity gospel.


You're not kidding. But prosperity where? And for how long? And didn't Matthew 19:24 answer this question?

Nickfyoung wrote:

Building fund at work.


Sounds like Jacob's Ladder or some kind of glistening, shiny, gold stairway to Heaven.

I have to point out that these concerns are not to derail your church. Idealistically, if one values it, one would hope to become closer involved and active within in it, write tribute and discourse and attempt change attitudes from within, as a proponent. Idealistically, one might hope to tackle the anti-intelligentsia problem head on. Theologically, philosophically and morally. And being that it is such a small minded ideology, in both requirement and officiality, then one shouldn't have too many problems gaining access to it. I'm not trying to drive you away from it. Anything I, or anyone else types on here should not have any bearing over your affinity with it, if that passion is felt intrinsically. Your wife clearly seems to identify with its spiritual value. And you wouldn't be there if you didn't. But realistically, there's problems and they being caused by people no more qualified, and decidedly less intellectual (if I may say) than you yourself. And you and your money are on one side of the altar and they and your money are on the other. Time for musical chairs, me thinks. Let's see who really has the power of healing.
loveandormoney
Quote:
That's why it says "Don't Worry" 365 times in there

Who does make You afraid? The sin?
Dialogist
wrote:
Who does make You afraid? The sin?


No, because that grants sin motive. It is the customer of the sin that has the motive. The object and abject of good are implemented by this entity but these actions seek to conform and satisfy a universal idealism of what is wrong and right. And in light of that, my opinion of them doesn't count. I don't fear the sin, or my propensity to commit them. I fear (for) the man who tries to discount his own by pretending that he declares if he is right or wrong or not.
loveandormoney
Quote:
It is the customer of the sin that has the motive.


This is very bad.
Then You are the enemy of Yourself.
Stop this please, it can make You headache, stomach problems and maybe also You cannot sleep with this way of life.
Dialogist
Haven't you ever heard of the phrase, "The customer is always right"?

Of course you have:

Dialogist wrote:

he declares if he is right or wrong


Seldom declares he's wrong does he?

loveandormoney wrote:

Then You are the enemy of Yourself.


Piffle.
loveandormoney
Quote:
Haven't you ever heard of the phrase, "The customer is always right"


I am soory: No.

In which country in the world this is the custom?
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:
Quote:
Haven't you ever heard of the phrase, "The customer is always right"


I am soory: No.

In which country in the world this is the custom?


Pretty much all of them that utilize commerce and advertising. They all originate from the Fiat money of Numismatics. It doesn't really matter if you're using Euros, or two bananas and a goat. The customer is always right because he considers himself to own something that was decreed.
kition
Asking if sins are real depends if you believe in God or not. It could be that you do believe, but are playing devilís advocate to generate an interesting discussion. So letís address this by looking at both sides of the argument.

1: Are sins real or have sins been invented by man to control man and wouldn't such a treacherous invention require a sinful motive?

Non-believer: Yes they are inventions to subdue man under authority

Believer: No Man fell from the grace of God & into sin. Psalms 51:5 ďBehold, I was shaped in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.Ē

2: Is a sin different from a crime against a secular state or an ethical principal?

Non-believer: Condemnation of sin from the church & condemnation of crime from Government are two of the same, because State controls the church to subdue the masses through social control.

Believer: No because we are first and foremost accountable to God and then to earthly authority Mark 12:17 Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.

3: What does virtue have to do with it? Wouldn't virtue need to have also been invented to draw the distinction?

Non-believer: wisdom is virtue, and wisdom is gained via human experience. Besides the Greeks taught us this, and since then has been passed down and accepted as fact.

Believer: The two central attributes of God are his holiness (expressed in his justice) and his love. These two characteristics, then, should characterize those who claim to believe in Him and follow Christ.

1Pet 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may proclaim the virtues of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

2Pet 1:5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith excellence, to excellence, knowledge;

4: Is virtue real? And since virtue has no insidious possible outcome, wouldn't the motive to invent virtue require virtue?

Non-believer: Virtue is as real as the expression love. It depends on how much credence we place upon it, within the mechanisms of our own decision making & actions.

Believer: In the Christian faith virtue is Faith, hope and love. Hebrews 11:1-3 As Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen.

Is sin real? From my standpoint it is, but I donít need a church doctrine or moralist to tell me so, my belief in God tells me that. Virtue comes through my belief in God, and wisdom allows me to evaluate my thoughts & actions under God.
Dialogist
kition wrote:

Asking if sins are real depends if you believe in God or not. It could be that you do believe, but are playing devilís advocate to generate an interesting discussion. So letís address this by looking at both sides of the argument.


That's fine but allow me to amend the "Believer" responses which have already been put forward in this thread (which didn't refer to scripture once as reasoning).

kition wrote:

1: Are sins real or have sins been invented by man to control man and wouldn't such a treacherous invention require a sinful motive?

Non-believer: Yes they are inventions to subdue man under authority


Believer: Then how did this sin of devious manipulation first become implemented in terms of logical, coherent, chronological causality?

kition wrote:

2: Is a sin different from a crime against a secular state or an ethical principal?

Non-believer: Condemnation of sin from the church & condemnation of crime from Government are two of the same, because State controls the church to subdue the masses through social control.


Believer: The State cannot find you guilty of private masturbation. The Church can and does. The State cannot find you guilty of any intrinsic wrongdoing at all, or even know of their existence. The State bases guilt upon evidence of attributed action. The Church bases guilt on asking the sentient human being how he personally feels about his secret or outward wrongdoings. The Church's sin includes the secular crime because the Church's sin informed the State law in the first place. The State does not include all of the Church's sin. While wishing pain and painful death on someone is still wrong and a sin; the State isn't interested. This is how you differentiate between sin and crime.

kition wrote:

3: What does virtue have to do with it? Wouldn't virtue need to have also been invented to draw the distinction?

Non-believer: wisdom is virtue, and wisdom is gained via human experience. Besides the Greeks taught us this, and since then has been passed down and accepted as fact.


Believer: Wisdom isn't anymore virtue than the experience of being a good hunter means it is right to slaughter animals. The argument is entirely absurd and wanting of verification. Virtue is objectivity and clearly not created subjectively. If it were, it would again require the presence of Virtue to invent in the first place.

kition wrote:

4: Is virtue real? And since virtue has no insidious possible outcome, wouldn't the motive to invent virtue require virtue?

Non-believer: Virtue is as real as the expression love. It depends on how much credence we place upon it, within the mechanisms of our own decision making & actions.


Believer: The non-believer cannot believe that virtue is real if the non-believer does not believe that sin is real, because sin is an imperfection of being, "a missing of a target". Besides, the Greeks taught us this, and since then has been passed down and accepted as fact.

Also of notable mention: One cannot "fall in virtue" as one "falls in love", subjectively.

wrote:

Is sin real? From my standpoint it is, but I donít need a church doctrine or moralist to tell me so, my belief in God tells me that. Virtue comes through my belief in God, and wisdom allows me to evaluate my thoughts & actions under God.


You believe in God? Wow. Haha, honestly, that came as a shock.

Your wisdom of metaphysics, morals, informed ethics and philosophical ways in which to know God's nature and apply to yourself all comes from the theological institutions you claim you don't need. While you may claim that you do not need them, you have needed them, mostly, without knowing about it.

The tone of my response was somewhat tempered by the Evangelical Bible-thumping cartoonism which you caricatured of the "Believer", so if it came across as impatient, then I do apologize.

However, I'm not stupid, and I can see your strings.
jajarvin
I feel when you have done something wrong.
ateawonton
you can't even sin in the head or in your intentions, both of which still count as sinning!
SpaceInvader75
Quote:
God chose some people to go hell and the others to go to heaven. This was done before time and to bring it into being all were brought to a place of inherited sin.

The ones chosen for heaven were saved by grace through the cross, the others were deliberately blinded and made to sin more and more.


I don't understand this at all. If this was already answered, please quote for me, because I did not read this whole discussion.

If God chose some people to go to hell and others to go to heaven, how could we possibly have free will? You are saying God deliberately blinds people (who he loves) and creates people for the purpose of suffering eternally, intentionally blinding them, so they won't know that is what's going to happen to them? If that's what you believe love is, I hope nobody ever loves me!
SonLight
SpaceInvader75 wrote:
Quote:
God chose some people to go hell and the others to go to heaven. This was done before time and to bring it into being all were brought to a place of inherited sin.

The ones chosen for heaven were saved by grace through the cross, the others were deliberately blinded and made to sin more and more.


I don't understand this at all. If this was already answered, please quote for me, because I did not read this whole discussion.

If God chose some people to go to hell and others to go to heaven, how could we possibly have free will? You are saying God deliberately blinds people (who he loves) and creates people for the purpose of suffering eternally, intentionally blinding them, so they won't know that is what's going to happen to them? If that's what you believe love is, I hope nobody ever loves me!


The statement you quoted was written by nickfyoung, who I would consider to be a somewhat extreme Calvinist, and has several times denied the existence of free will. While I disagree, let's look at the issue from God's side to see where Nick is coming from.

God knows the end from the beginning in all things. In spite of whatever freedom of choice we have, God knew how we would choose long before we were born. In fact, anyone with an Arminian belief who examines the situation honestly would have to concede that much. God says no one can come to Him unless the Holy Spirit draws them. While I see an act of free will when God draws and then the person must choose one way or the other, Nick would say (if I understand him right) that when drawn, it is a foregone conclusion that he or she will accept.

I take the statement "every tongue will be stopped" concerning the final judgment to indicate that God will be able to show each person that he could have chosen to accept, therefore is fully responsible if she stands condemned. Perhaps we could argue that some Calvinists are agnostic about God's motives, saying that He chose to save or condemn for reasons we cannot possibly know. I say that if we cannot know we can at least guess, and that it is the nature of things that God will find the opportunity to give each person the optimum chance to accept Him, but that the value of free will is so great that not even He will override it.
SpaceInvader75
Quote:
Perhaps we could argue that some Calvinists are agnostic about God's motives, saying that He chose to save or condemn for reasons we cannot possibly know.


This sounds like the "God works in mysterious ways" answer. This is the primary reason I am agnostic, because I believe there are too many unanswered questions. It's easy to say that man can not attempt to understand the reasons behind what god does, but how can you really expect people to believe in god if the following are assumed:

1. God created man. So I'm assuming that man did not have a choice if he wanted to exist or not.

2. God loves everyone.

3. God decided that he was going to reward some people eternally and punish other people eternally. And even if he didn't, he knew that some people were going to choose to suffer eternally, and he still created them. This doesn't really sound like a choice anyone would make.

4. To make matters worse, God intentionally designed the universe so that there would be no evidence that he exists! I don't see the reasoning for this either, since knowing he existed would not take away anyone anyone's choice to love him.

Quote:
Mankind is sin. It is a part of him, in him, the reason he does all things, how he thinks, and what he does.


So by defining sin as man himself, you are saying that no man is capable of doing good?

If man is not capable of doing good, then I don't see how there can be right and wrong, or if there was such a thing, man would never be able to comprehend the difference!
SonLight
SpaceInvader75 wrote:
Quote:
Perhaps we could argue that some Calvinists are agnostic about God's motives, saying that He chose to save or condemn for reasons we cannot possibly know.


This sounds like the "God works in mysterious ways" answer. This is the primary reason I am agnostic, because I believe there are too many unanswered questions.

Like I say, certain Calvinists are agnostic about God's motives. The rest of us who think we can understand a lot about God's motives from what He had written in the Bible need not be. Of course none of us can fully understand either God's nature or motives. As He said, "My ways are higher than your ways".

1. Yes, I do believe that God created man. Of course we couldn't make a choice before we existed. Are you upset with God for creating you?

2. I also believe that God loves everyone. The Bible says He "does not desire that any should be lost". A good reason to challenge the beliefs of some Calvinists, but let's don't throw away the baby with the bathwater. God is fully in control, and there cannot be such a thing as free will unless He so chooses.

3. God was willing to create and establish a relationship with people, even knowing that some would ultimately reject Him and be separated from Him forever. He must have valued free will very highly.

4. There is evidence of God's existence, but the case is not compelling. I believe that if we could know for certain that He existed without exercising faith, we would be unable to refuse His offer of salvation. If you can see how we could still choose against Him in the face of irrefutable evidence, I'd be interested to know about it.


Quote:


So by defining sin as man himself, you are saying that no man is capable of doing good?

If man is not capable of doing good, then I don't see how there can be right and wrong, or if there was such a thing, man would never be able to comprehend the difference!


The Bible says that we do have a natural ability to recognize right and wrong, but in our fallen state we are incapable of avoiding the wrong and choosing the right consistently. Knowing the standard is not the same as being able or willing to conform to the standard. Calling that a definition of humanity seems to be pushing it a little too far. God does assure us that He will reach out to us, making us both able to believe fully in Him and to overcome our rebellion, if we choose to follow Him.
SpaceInvader75
Quote:
Like I say, certain Calvinists are agnostic about God's motives. The rest of us who think we can understand a lot about God's motives from what He had written in the Bible need not be. Of course none of us can fully understand either God's nature or motives. As He said, "My ways are higher than your ways".


If there is a god, I would not pretend to have the capacity to understand him completely, as I cannot really even understand the concept of no beginning or end. However, I think enough understanding should be necessary that the message of a religion hold up to logic, and I think it is illogical to say that man has free will if he isn't capable of making the right choice, and even more illogical to say that he deserves eternal punishment for this.

Quote:
1. Yes, I do believe that God created man. Of course we couldn't make a choice before we existed. Are you upset with God for creating you?


No, I am not upset with God. I don't even know if there is a God to be upset at. I am somewhat upset at a message that I believe is an attempt to control and gain followers, and I do not believe this message came from God, especially if one goes on to describe this God who loves everyone perfectly, and is omnipotent and omniscient. I think sin and eternal punishment are concepts that use fear to control. I think that is the most logical explanation for them.

Quote:
2. I also believe that God loves everyone. The Bible says He "does not desire that any should be lost". A good reason to challenge the beliefs of some Calvinists, but let's don't throw away the baby with the bathwater. God is fully in control, and there cannot be such a thing as free will unless He so chooses.


I see nothing illogical in believing that God loves everyone, but again, I do not think this inconsistency of God loving everyone and yet punishing them eternally for A. Disobeying him, or B. Not believing in him, can be explained by free will. Again, if man really has a choice it might make slightly more sense, but it can easily be argued (and the Bible seems to indicate) that man doesn't really have a choice (since there is nobody without sin). So, it seems that either man was created containing evil, or every man chooses to sin, in which case you can hardly say he was created perfect.

Quote:
3. God was willing to create and establish a relationship with people, even knowing that some would ultimately reject Him and be separated from Him forever. He must have valued free will very highly.


It is also rather mysterious (or not, if the story is invented by man) that God is willing to create and establish a relationship with people, when he is invisible, and apparently does not use any recognizable form of human communication (which he must be capable of doing, if he is omnipotent).
Also, how large is this "some" that would reject him? It seems to be closer to "most", since there are many different religions, and if you happen to believe in the wrong God, you will be separated from him forever. This is another concept I find extremely difficult to believe really came from a loving God. It sounds much more like a concept from man. If most people reject God (or the version of God in the Bible) it seems to indicate either a problem with man (who was created by God, after all) or possibly a lack of evidence for belief. I am not saying that evidence is required for faith, I am stating my logic.

Quote:
4. There is evidence of God's existence, but the case is not compelling. I believe that if we could know for certain that He existed without exercising faith, we would be unable to refuse His offer of salvation. If you can see how we could still choose against Him in the face of irrefutable evidence, I'd be interested to know about it.


I disagree with the fact that knowing God existed for certain would not leave us with a choice. According to the Bible, people saw Jesus do miracles in front of them, and still did not believe. Now, I would tend to think if I saw miracles, I would believe. I have never seen a miracle, however.

Quote:
The Bible says that we do have a natural ability to recognize right and wrong, but in our fallen state we are incapable of avoiding the wrong and choosing the right consistently. Knowing the standard is not the same as being able or willing to conform to the standard. Calling that a definition of humanity seems to be pushing it a little too far. God does assure us that He will reach out to us, making us both able to believe fully in Him and to overcome our rebellion, if we choose to follow Him.


I don't think I really understand the fallen state. After all, if one man sinned, why would I inherit his sin, again, assuming that I have free will. I should theoretically make my own choices. If everyone chooses to sin (as I mentioned above) then I question the source telling me that I sin. This is part of the reason I think sin is a concept from man. In fact, I find the story that God's creation was originally perfect, suspect as well. If there was no suffering, how could there be any happiness?
Related topics
10 rules of india film making
Free DHTML scripts for begginers
Looking for MS Outlook Alternatives
REAL music
Should .hack have an real online version?
Central bank warns on real estate, -- hot money in China!
Nokia camera fone at Rs.3100 FOR REAL!!NO JOKE
A tribute to 9/11 Victims..
If WWII had been an online Real Time Strategy Game
David Blaine/Real Magic
Real Spy Monitor v2.38 the Latest!!
Google Total - Much better than the real Google
Can't we apply with a real domain?
Real Music
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Faith

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.