All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
The whole "caught up" concept doesn't sit well for me, nor the qualifications for "being saved" and the basis upon with a person could, theoretically, be bad. Because by golly if their aren't Christians who in my eyes are no more deserving of eternal salvation then an atheist being damned simply through non-belief. The "I've been saved" label has never struck me as a just criteria for who gets into heaven, I think there would have to be some degree of earning it, not just being decided on words.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
2. Traditional argument against homosexuality: don't lie with a man as one lies with a woman, it's abhorrent.
3. Christ not condemning something does not mean it is not a sin--in this the Bible is crystal clear.
Because those who are actually bashing and condemning--*cough* Malfoy *cough*--are a waste of words. Those who think it is a sin are not wrong in their reasoning, and I'm not going to attack their beliefs because I was once one of them. I have, however, stated my views and linked to a incredibly well-written group of articles on the subject.
Because the Bible is pretty clear on this.
This "cherry-picking" is a straw man argument devised by left-wing Christians in an attempt to discredit conservative Christians.
If he would so be willing to engage me. I've nothing against his views, however, and I feel that a slight difference of opinion pales in comparison to the slandering my faith takes on a regular basis here.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."
I'm actually considering making a thread on how pride seems to be the chief among the sins.
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
Last edited by Zeal Ex Nihilo on Nov 24th, 2006 at 05:38 AM
I would be willing, however, I think we have already reached an understanding so it almost seems unneccessary. A thread perhaps? Nellinator vs. Feceman, Theological Faceoff?
If say, a religion, claimed that belief in it, and adherence to its rules, and to follow it etc would see one live on after death - which would be the best way to get the most followers?
A. Tell them they had to work for it.
or
B. Tell them they simply had to ask from it.
Granted, they would say, there are still rules and all, and theoretically "good works" would be the fruit of asking for this salvation, but you don't actually have to be good to ask for it. And some people will even continue to do bad things after they have asked for forgiveness but still believe they are saved and all. Is it at all concievable that is just a good marketing technique as opposed to something just?
And boasting. Because of course it is wrong to be rewarded for the quality of ones works. And its not like God boasts. Not like he had a bunch of men put together a book telling all and sundry about what he did and how jealous he was of people not believing he had done those things. Not like we have to thank God for everything. Not like their aren't Christians who believe they need to say grace and thank God for the money he didn't earn for the food he didn't buy, cook or serve, or anything else.
But of course God has an "I'm all above that clause." If a human went on like that - sin of pride. God goes on like that and it is the way it should be.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
Gender: Male Location: Sailing the seas of cheese.
I don't see what the point of arguing about this is. If you are a hardcore Bible thumper then you will believe homosexuality is a sin. If you don't really believe everything the Bible says, then you won't think it's a sin. So there.
Good works are the fruit of salvation. If good works do not follow, I question their sincerity and whether or not they are truly saved. Boasting is wrong because it tends to focus on oneself rather than others. One of my favorite teachings of Jesus is that when someone deliberately brings accolades on himself for the purpose of his ego they have received their reward in full. Of course,
"Because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free." Ephesians 6:8
and
"The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor." 1 Corinthians 3:8.
God recognizes what we do as being from ourself. However, as a Christians we must recognize that God equips us for these deeds.
Yeah, but right after this God smited the crap out of sodom and Gamorrah, sparing Lot and his family. So God favors men who would willingly allow their daughters to be raped?
Lot was not a treat. He was the best there was to offer. Lot also had little choice as he was in a tight circumstance. To say the least, I would argue that Lot was better in the idea that up to that point he had been able to keep his daughters virgins and raped them himself (as most in Sodom and Gomorrah would probably have done).
Yet you yourself have implied that just because a person does good things doesn't make them a good person. The only thing, apparently, that gives a person the right to claim they are good/saved is essentially a verbal declaration of belonging to a club.
Which to me seems, as I have said before, absurd. With the whole rapture/caught up thing, if one takes the broadest claims on what kind of people will be saved/damned then in my eyes a lot of good people are going to be left for bad reasons while some bad people will be caught up for equally bad reasons.
Oh yes, God will reward you for the good things you do, but only if you are in his club first. Sounds like being hired because you attend the bosses same book club, and then getting raises based upon what you do. Rather then actually getting hired based upon ones qualifications.
What a lovely outdated ivory tower view of polytheistic religions. Christianity could learn a thing or few hundred from the religions it has quietly drawn from since its conception.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
A wonderful mischaracterization of my beliefs--bravo.
Yes. Like I have said, it doesn't seem fair. But, if God's willing to forgive the worst of the worst and His forgiveness is freely given, then they are left without excuse.
The believer asks God, "May I work for you?"
God says, "Yes, you may."
The nonbeliever says, "Look at how qualified I am! I have done good works all my life--I have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and strengthened the weak. Look at all I have done! I am qualified to work for you."
God says, "But you did not ask."
It's hardly outdated. Polytheistic religions are going to appeal to people more than monotheistic religions--why have God when you can have a slew of gods and goddesses, each of which you can choose to serve and call upon when you have a specific need in their domains?
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
Ah, but what you don't understand is that Jesus removed rules by saying that they don't matter. So, if you as a christian hold so close your belifs that he addressed those things you no longer concern yourself with, then how right is Feceman in your eyes for condoning homosexuality? And if you want to use the copout logic of the bible condemns homosexuality as an act alone, then why would Fece belive that people are born gay? Wouldn't that represent god stacking the deck against them from the beginning? And GOD v2.0 in the new testament dismisses laws based on what?
First, you can't number a debate when there were no numbers to begin with, that makes it hard.
Second, I don't understand why you think you're right for having reached the conclusions you have (based on your study of the bible and "gods" opinion of homosexuality) and thinking they're right too. One of you has to be right and the other has to be wrong. That's how it works in the black and white world of religion. Either god was ambigious in dictating the bible or he wasn't. And if he was ambigious in one aspect, then he might have been in others. Which would make the grey world view you accept a direct contradiction to the one Nellinator or JIA argue for.
Third, is the "cherry-picking" a strawman argument for you, or for Nellinator? Third(a) I didn't think you believed in left-wing christians.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
Last edited by Devil King on Nov 25th, 2006 at 05:02 AM
Actually I remember a similar debate in your thread where you stated that you didn't think anyone was really good, regardless of what they did. Am I so wrong? Or are you going to say that you actually do think people doing good things might be good?
So how does God justify that to the people who don't think it fair? In short, he doesn't. I question his parenting abilities if he doesn't care to clarify for his children. The fact sensible people can feel it isn't fair implies something lacking in his justification for it. And the whole "the fact he is happy to forgive a persons worst crimes if they say sorry" doesn't wash. The old get into heaven free card.
I mean my, if that isn't good enough for the human legal system I have to wonder about it being a basis behind the divine one. But really - being damned for nonbeliever. And lets face it - that is what we will be damned for. Not for any-other sin. Since asking for forgiveness is essentially slate cleaning the rest of the sins one can commit are rather meaningless. God will be leaving people behind because they didn't believe, or they believed wrong. Which, for some reason, just doesn't seem logical to me.
Or, alternatively - A certain Believer - "Can I work for you?"
God - "Hmmm. Says here you were a life long criminal known for committing fraud and scams that ruined many people and caused a lot of suffering. But then you found out you had terminal cancer and repented on your death bed. So yes, you're in. Even though there are plenty of Atheists and members of other religions who have done good things all their lives and expected nothing from me, I can't consider them for the position. Why? Because they didn't kowtow."
So... theoretically, is what I described above something that could very well happen, and continue to happen?
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 24th, 2006 12:41 AM
