Cor. 15:46-47 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the Spirit
June 17, 2012 at 4:50 pm
(This post was last modified: June 17, 2012 at 4:54 pm by Drich.)
(June 17, 2012 at 1:17 pm)gringoperry Wrote: Okay, so assuming that we do not exist before this life; given that the bible does not discuss it, aren't we being created just to be condemned, all so we can prove our worthiness? A rough analogy would be inventing a product, putting it through all kinds of stress tests, before deciding if it makes the grade. If it does, it goes on the shop shelves. However, if it doesn't, it is simply cast off to the side.I like old cars so i will use this analogy. No car is built to last forever, however some cars are loved by their owners to the point they are willing to do whatever it takes to continually renew them, allowing them to remain new for the life of their owners. In this model the owners get to decide which cars they love and which ones are restored. enter 'Free will' and now the 'cars' are deciding which of them are 'renewed' for the life of their owner.
The process of renewal/restoration in christianity is known as attonement, this attonement is offered to everyone, but is only given to those who accept it.
Quote:So then, free will is thrust upon us after we have already been condemned for something that we never asked for. Don't you think that's a trifle unfair, considering we had no choice in the matter to begin with?To be honest we do not know, or simply do not remember what happened before we were born. The bible is silent. Silent does not mean any more that something did not happen, as silence means that it did. We simply do not know. So what do we know? we know we have a choice, and that means we will all be expected to choose, and will be held to our choice.
Quote: What is the Christian view on this?To choose and let others know of this choice.
To judge what is fair or unfair without a complete picture is.. Persumptious at best.
(June 17, 2012 at 12:03 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Is Drich saying that JC is as historically existent as Sherlock Holmes? Because it certainly looks that way to me. If he is, we're finally singing from the same hymn sheet.
What I am saying and have said in 30 different ways, is if you are going to have a coontextual arguement then you will have to accept the context being discussed. If you can not then know you have excused yourself from the arguement. We are discussing context here nothing else.
