(March 22, 2013 at 4:09 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: The entity you believe can save you and the one sentencing you to his pre-ordained torture from which you seek salvation is the very same. That would be no different than asking a man with the Gun to your head if you could be his servant instead of him shooting you.And? I’d rather be a servant than be dead, and in your analogy, I would agree with the man that I deserved to be shot.
(March 22, 2013 at 3:23 pm)John V Wrote: I don’t really give a shit if you admire my motivations.I didn't give you my opinion,[/quote]
Yes you did: “There would be nothing admirable in an intelligent person seeking a belief out of fear. They would have only been manipulated into saying such things and in the darkest places of their minds, doubt exists.” Those aren’t questions.
Quote:and it wasn't my opinion I was hoping you'd reflect on, it was yours on what makes an act valuble. If I save a woman's life because I didn't want her child to grow up without a mother, is that more valuable than if I did it because I was expecting to be paid?And I addressed that: “Yeah, doing it because it’s right would be best, but if they do it out of fear of punishment and/or desire for reward, that’s fine.”
Quote:So your faith is based on one of the first 2 fear bases. At least you admit it.That’s part of it, yes. Why shouldn’t I admit it? Fear is a powerful motivator. There are plenty of days I don’t want to go to work, but fear of homelessness gets me out of bed.
(March 22, 2013 at 3:23 pm)John V Wrote: Again, never offered you my opinion nor did I ask for yours about the one you assumed I had about yours.Again, yes, you gave your opinion.
Quote:Goal or bribe? I think we are having a disagreement over semantics. Let me be more specific. What's the difference between an act of pure heart and the act of an individual acting for personal gain?Er, the difference is that the first is of pure heart and the second is for personal gain. You need to be yet more specific with your question.
Quote:That doesn't say anything as to why it's necessary for God to allow a man to be nailed to a cross and publicly slaughtered as a sacrafice to Himself for things that He is ultimately in charge of forgiving anyway. Who makes a Jesus-sacrafice a requirement for everybody else's sins to be forgiven and allowed access to heaven? Oh...The same God that is charge of who gets in and forgiving sins! This concept makes zero sense.The problem is you’re looking for logic in a non-logical issue. Forgiveness is ultimately a matter of personal preference. You can’t prove that one requirement for forgiveness is correct and others are incorrect.