ryan Wrote:Well, even if we were to both agree that the text in the Bible actually represented the true word of the universe's creator, you are exhibiting enormous conceit when you suggest that your words should be considered the correct interpretation of that text (even if only for the purpose of this interaction). That's a major barrier against having a meaningful conversation with you.How is what I am saying conceited?
I was thinking maybe arrogant, but not conceited.
In that The Idea being what I've brought to you is 'right,' and the popular church is 'wrong' yet I insist I am right...
Which is the case, but where conceit and arrogance is kept in check is with the fact that 'my way' is not the only way. One can still go through religion and find God. It's just a lot harder to do so, but if 'religion' is all God gave you to understand then, that is all that He asks you to maintain.
That said, if things like evidence and proof help you make decisions I can show you the biblical equilivant to everything I've said here. I'm not 1/2 a verse from this book and 2 verses from that one and provide you with a new explanation of how this supposed theology works, type of person. I can show a whole book and several consecutive chapters that establish and outline everything I've said here in this thread.
Again that is the difference between biblical Christianity and Religion/Denominationally based Christianity. With a religion, the bible/ parts of the bible are used to support the religion. In Biblical Christianity what we believe is found in contextually consecutive readings of the bible. We do not scrap together 3 or 4 different verses and then try and justify something like 'free will' or 'original sin.' If Original Sin is never mentioned in the bible as a doctrine, then we do not support or teach it. If free will is not mentioned in the bible then again we do not teach it. If however the bible says we are slaves we must accept and teach that.
We do not make apologies or make excuses for God because society over a period of 5000 years decides to stigmatize His principles. This however is something most denominational churches do. So when they change say slavery to servant hood it opens up holes in their theology. one's that must be accounted for, so they make up more and more and more 'stuff' to cover the holes they create. Next thing you know you have crazy stuff being made 'doctrine' because it has to make the rest of the religion jive.. stuff like your religious leader is without sin or infallible. Or they make up a third destination between heaven and Hell so they can sell a 'ticket' to get out of there. The list goes on and on. Because religion's primary purpose is to worship God through the traditions and ceremonies man has made. Compared to worshiping God with the freedom He has labored to give us. Why? Religion=control. Now don't get me wrong Again, you can still find God in religion, I certainly did. it's just a very tough journey to go through a sanctioned worship process and not get caught in worshiping the method of worship rather than worshiping God.
Quote:Yet it is still, by definition, pop morality.Then you still do not understand Christ did not teach morality. He did not teach works=Heaven. Morality is about assigning a right or wrong value to our works.
Quote: The idea of salvation is a very binary moral idea. It doesn't divide the good and the bad. I know that it doesn't mean saved people are necessarily good and that the unsaved are necessarily bad. However, there is a right and wrong, good and bad element in choosing salvation. To refuse salvation is considered a moral failing, a desire not to be more godly (which is a state equivocal with 'good').this sounds like a church doctrine. because it sounds like one would indeed hear this in church but it is not something the bible teaches.
Again, God is righteous and demands all of us to be or made righteous. Righteousness is absolute perfection in accordance with his standard. something we can not obtain. Because If and when we fail/sin the very first time According to Christ we become blemished and made unworthy. So then enters atonement which covers the 'spot' sin puts on us. The atonement of Christ covers all 'spots' from all sin. This in effect removes all 'wrong.' Leaving only the right.
Now for those who do not choose to accept the atonement offered can they be considered 'morally wrong?' No, why? because again morality as society has adopted the word in relation to God, is a standard that seeks to justify the sins society seeks to accept. If God is Righteous in everything He does. then Man is 'moral' is what he does. This according to Christ is 'self righteousness' as it is a righteousness founded on the individual beliefs of the person or community. So then is one who does not accept atonement immoral to man? No. Man makes God 'immoral' by changing the values God up holds as 'good' to being bad. Then is the man who does not accept atonement Immoral to God? no because again 'morality' is man's standard. To God the one who does not accept atonement is not Righteous.
The difference? No one can be righteous unless they accept atonement, verse morality where everyone is righteous if they can stay with in the current confines of society's version of right and wrong.
So then is their a binary aspect to salvation yes. is it about a moral failing? no. The binary aspect to salvation is a simple as either being 'saved' or not being 'saved.' Righteous before God or Unrighteous. But again, Not according to works we do, but according to the work Christ did, therefore NOT Pop Morality as Pop Morality teaches us to assign value to our works to warrant a 'good person or bad person' judgment.
