General questions about the Christian idea of God and love

[Drich]

[quote='Drich' pid='754933' dateline='1411154922']
The bible repersents two sepret and distinct religions. OT Judaism and NT Christianity. If one wants to be an OT Jew he is bound by the laws of the OT. However if one seeks to be a Christian that person is free to live as bound as an OT Jew or as Paul states 'free from the law, as a means to righteousness.'

The righteousness required for eternal life can only come through attonement. To receive attonement, one must seek it as Christ instructs in the NT.

This does not counter my statement - "So, following the whole bible is not a requirement to be a Christian".

Then look at it from the other side. Maybe it is not supposed to out right counter your statement, but rather it defines the limitations of what you said.

what are bits and peices?

Are you really asking for definitions of these simple words?

I am asking for the examples you have labled bits and peices.

Either "seeking him is your own way" is allowed all the way or it isn't or it is allowed within specific limits.

Again we are allowed to seek God any way we wish. However that does not obligate God to honor our efforts.

You assume just because we are allowed or can do something that it will be equally as benficial as doing it God's way.
This is an unsupported assertion.

You are still thinking of Christianity as absolutist form of religion.

It seems you just cant quite comperhend basic grace, and the fundementals of attonement.

In an ecconomy (meaning In biblically based Christianity) of Grace one has freedom to worship God to the best of his own ablity.

FYI, something that never existed in the first place cannot fail.

You speak of Christianity as if you were aprt of it at one time. Change the way you repersent it and i will no longer address you are one who formaly had a faith.

What they do share, however, is borrowing from sources other than the bible.

You make far too many blind assertions. The three cults being discussed do not borrow anything. They supperceed bible with the words and instructions of their particular prophets (Written or verblaized.)

Again, that's something they have in common with the rest of Christianity.
a. According to you, the bible says that god is not omni-benevolent.
b. Mainstream theologians say that your god is omni-benevolent.
Most Christians choose 'b' over 'a'.

Mainstream Christianity doesn't say God is omni benevolent. Catholic based religions do.
Even so this does not change the Doctrine of Christ in any way. Because God does indeed Love all his Children infinatly. It's just not all who dewell along side His children automatically belong to God.

The parable of the wheat and weeds/Wheat and tares, is a testament to that.
(A Tare is a weed that looks like wheat, but yeilds a black ineddiable seed.) Meaning there are those who look like and act like those who belong to God, but they do not.

And that is your way of describing adding and cutting from the bible.

show me where. Again you have made a blind assertion based on your personal perception contrived from either poor reading comperhension ,or far more likly a dishonest intelect that has one twist words to support his arguements.

Again, the mormons JW's and Davidians do not follow the teaching of the bible. They have their own holy books/teachers.

They say they do.

Again an unsupported assertion. Show me where 'they' do. Show me a link to an offical web site or something other than your 'word.'

No, I'm not looking past anything. Mainstream Christianity likewise ignores parts of the bible and adds stuff from different doctrines.

this is another unsupported assertion.

As far as "completely replacing" goes, the Mormons say that they haven't done so.

Not familiar with the Mormon D&C?

This is another suplmentary book to the bible. It is a bible size book containing nothing but the Doctrines of mormonism and the covenants their god promised them for following these doctrine. Everything in that book superceeds the bible (just like everything in the book of mormon, as well as what is written in the 'pearl of great price.'

So if nothing in the 3 main mormon books contratict the bible, then the bible teachings stands. if however the teachings of any of these three specific mormon books contradicts the bible then the bible teaching has been deem to be 'corrupt over time, mis translated, or replace by the third testament of christ.'

So point of fact they do not teach doctrine out of the bible. They teach mormon doctrine out of their various books of doctrine. Even if one of their books mirrors a teaching of Christ as written in the bible, it is not from the authority of the bible that validates this teaching to the mormon. It is the fact that it was sourced, allowed, or confirmed in their book.

A similar point can be made between OT judaism and Muslim beliefs. A simple example being is the Jews believe that to take the name of the Lord in vain is a very serious offense. as do the muslims. However this belief is not share because both holy books agree on this point, it is believed because their particular holy book says so. It really does not matter what the other book says. Mormonism is to Christianity as radical Islam is to Judaism. (Their cut throat behaivor happens in the next life, as apposed to the muslims in this life.)

Just open any of your threads. Hell, just look at this thread.

then it should be very easy to site an example.

But that is your interpretation.

Again you do not seem to understand the meaning of the word interpertation. To interperet means to explain/to put into your own words. to reinterpret. I have not explained anything in this instance. I have posted what the bible actually says. So again that is not an interpretation that is called quoting.

You could be completely wrong and the right answer might be that accepting atonement is not required. Why should I believe you when you say that?

Because what I said has nothing to do with interpertation. This again is an example of intelectual dishonesty. You have changed the meaning of a given word 'interpertation' to maintain a failed arguement.
Romans 3
21 But God has a way to make people right, and it has nothing to do with the law. He has now shown us that new way, which the law and the prophets told us about. 22 God makes people right through their faith in Jesus Christ. He does this for all who believe in Christ. Everyone is the same. 23 All have sinned and are not good enough to share God’s divine greatness. 24 They are made right with God by his grace. This (atonement) is a free gift. They are made right with God by being made free from sin through Jesus Christ. 25-26 God gave Jesus as a way to forgive people’s sins through their faith in him. God can forgive them because the blood sacrifice of Jesus pays for their sins. God gave Jesus to show that he always does what is right and fair. He was right in the past when he was patient and did not punish people for their sins. And in our own time he still does what is right. God worked all this out in a way that allows him to judge people fairly and still make right any person who has faith in Jesus.

27 So do we have any reason to boast about ourselves? No reason at all. And why not? Because we are depending on the way of faith, not on what we have done in following the law. 28 I mean we are made right with God through faith, not through what we have done to follow the law. This is what we believe. 29 God is not only the God of the Jews. He is also the God of those who are not Jews. 30 There is only one God. He will make Jews right with him by their faith, and he will also make non-Jews right with him through their faith. 31 So do we destroy the law by following the way of faith? Not at all! In fact, faith causes us to be what the law actually wants.

This is what the bible says about attonement. no interpertation here just a straight up quote.

what makes you think I need anything sorted out? I am not the one making claims of the nature of God, Christianity, or the bible that have been proven beyond incorrect.

You are - by your own admission. You are making claims about your god and Christianity and by your own admission, you are wrong.

wrong about what? To say one is not infallable does not make them wrong about everything. It simply states the obvious. that one can not be right about everything.

So if you believe that I am wrong about something then stop making basless accusations, nut up and commit to a statement by supporting it with examples of something.

In all these long drawn out posts you have FAILED to sucessfully do this once.
You should change your screen name to 'the accuser.'

Its not my version, its the Christian version.

So, let me see I can follow your messed up logic..

The atheist is repersenting the whole of christianity in his arguement while the Christian's statement that is in conflict does not?

Ummm, no.

As a bible based Christian I can assure you little of what you believe about Christianity is bible based. Therefore the god you think is the God of the bible is indeed a construct of your own private understanding. This version of god MAYBE a bastardized version of the god of some fail version pop christianity. Something you picked up while attending sunday school, but is a long way from the God of the bible.

Which again is why your faith/faith of those like you fail, and you all become angry atheist. (because your god is not based on anything of this world nor of the next.) And, simple logic tears this construct apart.

The God of the bible however is not so easily pushed over.
Maybe when you get done chasing your tail here you can start a thread that put up some of the big faith ending paradoxes that put you out of business.

That's not an assertion, that's a conclusion based on your statement that everyone is allowed to understand god in their own way.

Then your reading comperhension is beyond lacking. Show me where I made the claims you are answering.

Here:

I am not trying to break your understanding of the nature of God. Your entitled to build any picture you need to.

and here:

I have pointed out frodo is well with in his rights to be at whatever level of understanding he is at, as a Christian.

Again your assertion is everyone has the freedom to build a picture of God and God must honor it.

One more time for the record. God is not bound to honor our 'pictures' that we build.

Christ illustrates this point in the parable of the wise and foolish builders.

The wise man built this house on the rock, while the foolish man built his house on the sand. What we are building is our picture of God our religious efforts our religious beliefs. Again because there are wise and foolish builders allow to build what and where they want means we are entitled to build whatever picture we want.

Now the part that prooves God is not obligated to honor what we build comes in the second half of the parable. In that the rains come. The rain comes down,, and the flood water goes up. The house on the rock (The house built on Jesus Christ as outlined in scripture) stands firm while the foolish man's house fall in on itself.

So again I said we are allow to build anything. Point in fact per the parable of Christ we are. However You took from that God will inturn support what we have built. Again not true. Also know I did not say this because the parable does not say this. You filled in the blanks and ran with it. when caught and corrected you pressed on. To continue to press on you point now in the light of a complete explaination will be beyond dishonest.

There maybe any more instances - but I'm not going to bother finding them. Two are sufficient to prove my point.

Your point failed, because you took 1/2 a concept and rather make any attempt to fully understand it you disected what you thought could be made valid in a counter arguement and got caught. It's time to let all of this go.

The primise of basic Logic is not determined in a claim for or against. Logic is determined by reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. To validate is to independantly test and confirm. I provide principles about God that can be tested and confirmed.
See my A/S/K thread for recent examples.

Read it, didn't find anything matching the strict principles of validity.

Sorrry sport, I already beat you to it. That is why I defined validity for you as well. Wonk waa.

Actually no. I have not interpereted anything.
in·ter·pret
/inˈtərprit/verb: interpret; 3rd person present: interprets; past tense: interpreted; past participle: interpreted; gerund or present participle: interpreting
1. explain the meaning of (information, words, or actions).
I do not have to explain anything, it is clearly written
I made verfiable statements:

1)To worship God incorrectly is a sin. (Ask for verses and I can provide them.)

2)All sins are forgiven in Christianity, less blaspheme of the Holy Spirit.

Again, no interpretation needed as forgiveness of sin is a foundational principle of Christianity.

Unless you can find a verse that literally says "To worship God incorrectly is a sin" - then you are providing an interpretation.

I can show you examples where God cause the ground to open up and swallow people because they were not worshiping Him correctly. I can show you verses where God has struck people down where they have not worshiped him correctly. i can show you verses where people are to be stonned if they fail to worship God in a certain way, I can show you where Israel was taken captive multiple times for not worshiping God correctly.... Where do you want to start? Let start with Judges 1 and 2 (The whole books) Because they are dedicated to the sin, punishment, repent, restoration cycle. This cycle repeats itself over and over and over. there are many examples of out right sin, failure to worship , failure to heed God examples all through the books.

If you say all sins are forgiven and I give you terms and conditions about which sins are not forgiven (apart from blaspheme of the Holy Spirit) and your try to "explain" those verses - then you are providing an interpretation.

Are these conditions acceptable to you?

No, not if you can provide Book Chapter and verse that clearly outlines those stipulations. Again interpertation is putting something in your own words. NOT Using The Words That Have Been Written.

But we can't even expect you know which those are.

Why not?
We have been intrusted with the bible. I and people like me repersent the God of the Bible. Therefore if we teach only from the bible then we can be trusted to share with you all that Man has been intrusted with.

This is not the case. No one Can have all the right answers except God Himself. As I am not God I can not have all the right answers.

And if you don't know which of your answers are right and have no way of knowing it - why would I trust any of them?

What makes you think we have no way of knowing what is right and what is wrong?

Again if we are worshiping the God of the bible then the bible is all we need.

Been there. Done that. Found your theology to be a pack of lies.

Not according to your previous statement. You said you never had faith which makes you a liar. You are either lying now or you lied when you said you never had faith.
So which is it? you were a man of faith or is it you never had it?

Except, there is no reason to believe that the direction you point to is right.

again if we are speaking in terms of the right direction concerning the God of the bible you have the bible to show you that I am indeed pointing you in the right direction.

So, the requirement is believing in any god or believing in your god or believing in your specific interpretation of your god?

As the terms for forgiveness of sins, through the act of Jesus Christ as per the gospel accounts found in the bible are what is being discussed. it is to the God of the bible through Christ that belief must be made. This is the foundation Jesus mentioned in the parable of the wise and foolish builders.

maybe you should take the plank from your eye, before you try and dig out specks in mine.

What plank?

"Eye" guess the plank has blinded you.

"Eye've" known you were an exbeliever one or two posts in. (way too much anger to be a passer by.) Your 'plank' refers to the statement you just admitted to a few paragraphs ago. "Been there tried that/christianity."

if you will remember my orginal statement that spawned this little back and fourth was: (But as mat 7 tells us not all who say they are Christians/followers are indeed followers.)
then you said "including you."
which lead us to my plank comment.

meaning: Everything you believe christianity to have been, may have been some empty religion that God has not supported for a very long time if ever.

Therefore you plank is that you never were a bible based christian and never knew or experienced the God of the bible, which cause your faith to fail.

In the parable Jesus taught 'to remove the plank in your eye before you concern yourself with the speck in your brother's eye' In your instance it means you should be willing to forensically dissect your failed faith examine it and then dilligently examine mine before you conclude that my beliefs are indeed based off of what failed you.

such as?

Such as accepting the teachings of other theologians which, according to you, contradicts the bible.

Examples? what denomination? what teaching? where did it orginate? how does it compare to what is written in the bible?

Or is this just another unsupported assertion based on your 'expert' opinion of christianty?

So, you admit to arguing that your god's standard is constant. And yet, you previously argued: "This statement presupposes that any standard is constant. If you believe this name one." - implying that you don't accept any standard as constant.

God's standard is a standard based on righteousness. Righteousness does not change. However True righteousness is not obtainable for any of us through our own efforts. Therefore our method of obtaining righteousness did Change.

So yes as far as any man made or obtainable form of standard, one can not exist. God does have a unchanging standard we can not obtain on our own, but has made it possable to obtain the level of perfection needed through attonement.

Sorry for the confusion.

At some point, you have to stop shooting yourself in foot.

Rope a dope baby, rope adope.

General obedience, if constant, would be an aspect of man's morality .

No. Even obedience is not a constant in man's morality. How many Nazi officers were hung after WWII for 'Just following orders?" How many of our own soldiers were dishonorably discharged or even placed in prison for 'Just following orders.'/water boarding??

Again there is absolutly nothing constant about man's morality, other than it is always based on what is perceived to be the lessor of two evils. The perception of evil is a ever changing variable which makes morality a joke of a standard.

Unsupported claim. Please demonstrate.

Already demonstrated by your own admission of subjectivity. Back-tracking won't help you now.

then cut and paste. You have already demonstrated a willingness for dishonesty in this conversation if and when it suits you. I can not take your statement at face value.

I do not see your point. because all the things you've listed here and misattributed to the passage in 1 sam to the nature of God, has infact been the battle cry for the rise of every empire from that time to this (including the english empire and the rise of the United States) with or without God as the head of a nation. Which means this is an attribute in grained in the hearts of Man and not God.

But you admitted that your god did command this actions. Of the four options given to you, there was a specific one indicating that this command has been misattributed and that your god never commanded such a thing and the bible is lying about it - you did not pick that. Which means there was no misattribution.

If this was an attribute of a conquoring God then these acts would indeed be apart of every conquest God has made.

Not if your god's commands change from time to time - as you admit they do.

I fail to see a point, therefore I fail to see a reason to invest the time needed to sort out your daisy chain of failed logic here. If you have a point make it. If it is to say your right then I conceed.

Also I did not see any follow up on Euthie's 2 horn.. Am i to understand you have accepted what I have said there?

Which again is neother here nor their because the acts themselves are not what is being evaluated, rather the Isrealites obediance to God, in that specific instance.


No, the commands are being evaluated. We are evaluating your god's morality and showing it to be authoritarian, toatalitarian, subjective, inconsistent and can be used to justify all kinds of sick and twisted behavior and the way to do that is to evaluate his commands.

I can not believe you still do not see the connection between man's ever changing morality and you ablity to lable God anything based off this generation's standard.

Allow me to explain to you as if you were a 4th grade sunday schooler.

If your morality is ALWAYS the lessor of two evils then it is only a matter of time before your personal standards are floating in the toliet. So then the question is how can someone with floater/turd like standards judge anything that is not another floater turd as being sub standard?

Christ illustrated this alittle differently. He called people like you 'Self righteous.'
Meaning a person who derives righteousness from one's self. You can not deny that is exactly what it is you are doing. Do you want to go through all of the paradoxes that the NT identifies in the halfbaked world of the self righteous?