[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Feb 9 2007, 01:14 AM, said:

Chick Publications; what a joke.

The only groups that I know that uses this garbage are Jehovah's Witnesses.

Richard, you need to come up with something more credible to prove your point.

I readily admit that Chick comics are over the top in terms of their presentation, however, I rarely complain about rhetorical excess. To me, the more interesting question is whether or not one accepts the central theme behind the comics.

Lets consider the following specific case which I will put forth to DrTodd.

Mahatma Gandhi was many things. I would argue that his life epitomizes the values that Jesus taught. (I certainly can't think of a better example)
However, Ghandi doesn't appear to have been a Christian as defined by DrTodd. I certainly don't know of any examples where Ghandi spoke of the
necessity of accepting Christ as one's savior.

Were Ghandi's actions sufficient for him to achieve salvation?

If your answer is yes, doesn't this indictae that salvation through deeds is possible.
If not, why does your "God" deserve our veneration?

[akhare]

Gerben42, on Feb 8 2007, 05:37 PM, said:

Instead try to make yourself immortal in the way that when you have died, people will remember you in a positive way and you have contributed something that outlives you as long as possible.

Well said -- technically though, for the believers, the soul is already immortal "out of the box" and so there's really nothing to do .

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 8 2007, 05:25 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 8 2007, 03:48 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Feb 8 2007, 12:35 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 8 2007, 03:31 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Feb 8 2007, 12:21 PM, said:

Isn't a "Christian" someone who follows the teachings of Christ?

That's why I wanted to clarify what we mean by Christian. Many people say they are following the teachings of Christ by trying to be good people but those people are damned. They may genuinely think they are following Christ but reject the main message.

Which one was that? (He left us with quite a few, didn't he?)

Reconciliation to God (forgiveness of sin) by accepting him as sin-bearer through His death and resurrection.

Oh, that "the dog ate my homework so I'm off the hook" one...

sigh

[mike777]

If you are asking how many are saved, then the answer is quite ranging.

For most mainline versions it is anywhere from around 30-40% to all or almost all will be saved.

The Chapter Revelations is really about God calling everyone to salvation again, again and again with each horn blast.


I find the whole issue of Free will, God call those who he saves and the Nature of man accepting sin and rejecting God a bit confusing. If the Nature of man rejects God and the Nature of man can ONLY be changed by an undeserved gift of the Holy Spirit, where does free will come in if our Nature rejects God, confusing......

[DrTodd13]

hrothgar, on Feb 8 2007, 02:46 PM, said:

Lets consider the following specific case which I will put forth to DrTodd.

Mahatma Gandhi was many things. I would argue that his life epitomizes the values that Jesus taught. (I certainly can't think of a better example)
However, Ghandi doesn't appear to have been a Christian as defined by DrTodd. I certainly don't know of any examples where Ghandi spoke of the necessity of accepting Christ as one's savior.

Were Ghandi's actions sufficient for him to achieve salvation?

If your answer is yes, doesn't this indictae that salvation through deeds is possible.
If not, why does your "God" deserve our veneration?

So you prefer an arbitrary God who randomly chooses a line where someone slightly less evil than X gets into Heaven and someone slightly more evil goes to Hell? This is the kind of God I would not want to venerate because he would be arbitrary and capricious. I prefer a perfect God who doesn't draw an arbitrary line but requires the non-arbitrary standard of perfection. Moreover, knowing that fallen humans are incapable of such a state He provides a means for us to attain perfection by proxy and did so through living a perfect life and accepting punishment for us. A perfect God who is willingly to sacrifice himself to attain fellowship with His creations sounds like something worth of veneration to me.

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Feb 9 2007, 02:15 AM, said:

So you prefer an arbitrary God who randomly chooses a line where someone slightly less evil than X gets into Heaven and someone slightly more evil goes to Hell?  This is the kind of God I would not want to venerate because he would be arbitrary and capricious.  I prefer a perfect God who doesn't draw an arbitrary line but requires the non-arbitrary standard of perfection.

Comment 1:

You failed to answer the core question: Were Ghandi's actions sufficient for him to achieve salvation?

Comment 2:

I seem to recall that this "God" thing is supposedly all-knowing and all-powerful. In general, arguments for a concrete rule set are based on imperfect knowledge. All too often your "judge" isn't capable of separating intent from action. Accordingly, arbitrary standards are often necessary.

However, if your fundamental assertion is correct, all these little issues fall by the wayside. By definition, your God must be capable of enforcing a flexible standard in a just and equitable manner.

In short, I'm a hell of a lot more comfortable with a "God" who applies intelligence and discretion than I am with one who condemns Ghandi to burn because he didn't chant the right magic words....

[DrTodd13]

hrothgar, on Feb 8 2007, 03:32 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 9 2007, 02:15 AM, said:

So you prefer an arbitrary God who randomly chooses a line where someone slightly less evil than X gets into Heaven and someone slightly more evil goes to Hell?  This is the kind of God I would not want to venerate because he would be arbitrary and capricious.  I prefer a perfect God who doesn't draw an arbitrary line but requires the non-arbitrary standard of perfection.

Comment 1

You failed to answer the core question: Were Ghandi's actions sufficient for him to achieve salvation?

Comment 2:

I seem to recall that this "God" thing is supposedly all-knowing and all-powerful. In general, arguments for a concrete rule set are based on imperfect knowledge. All too often your "judge" isn't capable of separating intent from action. Accordingly, arbitrary standards are often necessary.

However, if your fundamental assertion is correct, all these little issues fall by the wayside. By definition, your God must be capable of enforcing a flexible standard in a just and equitable manner.

Answer to comment 1. Sin is infinitely worse than any good deed. The question is not did Ghandi do anything good, it is did he do anything wrong? So I would phrase it as Ghandi's bad deeds, however few they may be, have condemned him. His good deeds are irrelevant in the presence of sin.

Not sure what you're getting at with comment 2. God as perfect judge must separate intent from action I agree. I don't know the optimum method of representing good versus bad intentions. It could be one or more rules I don't know. I don't think it matters though whether the ultimately rules are small or large in number. Are you trying to say that what is defined as good versus bad is arbitrary? Many people might agree with you but there are others who claim to believe in objective morality even in the absence of God. Take some rule set and ask why some things are good and others bad. You can extract some principles and may be able to extract principles about those principles and so on and so on but ultimately the best you can do is get back to one uber-principle. Why should that statement be accepted? Well, it is axiomatic and if there is a perfect judge of what are good axioms and which are bad it is God.

[akhare]

DrTodd13, on Feb 8 2007, 06:52 PM, said:

Many people might agree with you but there are others who claim to believe in objective morality even in the absence of God. 

There was an article in a recent Scientific American about a study that raised the question of whether all animals have an innate canonical moral frame of reference. Apparently, chimps seem to be capable of sensing whether the reward (and by deprivation thereof, punishment) was proportional to the "good" action (presumably obeying a command or performing a trick in this case).

Apparently they were distraught if one chimp was say given a banana and the other a less favourite fruit for performing the same action.

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Feb 9 2007, 02:52 AM, said:

Answer to comment 1.  Sin is infinitely worse than any good deed.  The question is not did Ghandi do anything good, it is did he do anything wrong?  So I would phrase it as Ghandi's bad deeds, however few they may be, have condemned him.  His good deeds are irrelevant in the presence of sin.

So, we cower before God because he will damn us if we don't
As I said originally, "Toe the line or you're fucked"

Beautiful religion you got there Todd...

[DrTodd13]

hrothgar, on Feb 8 2007, 04:32 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 9 2007, 02:52 AM, said:

Answer to comment 1.  Sin is infinitely worse than any good deed.  The question is not did Ghandi do anything good, it is did he do anything wrong?  So I would phrase it as Ghandi's bad deeds, however few they may be, have condemned him.  His good deeds are irrelevant in the presence of sin.

So, we cower before God because he will damn us if we don't
As I said originally, "Toe the line or your fucked"

Beautiful religion you got there Todd...

First off, one can make an argument that God isn't the one doing the damning. You are damning yourself by rejecting a free gift. It is an impossibility for God to allow you to remain in his presence if you have sin. If the soul is immortal then there must be some place for the soul to go outside God's presence. You don't blame gravity if an asteroid falls on your head and you shouldn't blame God if your own deeds condemn you.

Nowhere did I say we should cower before God. There is no need for it. The God you seem to prefer is the one you need to cower before because you can never know whether you are good enough or not. My God provides a free way to atone for your sins and a way to know where you stand. It is a beautiful religion because despite your mockery, Christ still died for you so that you could be reconciled unto Him.

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Feb 9 2007, 03:50 AM, said:

The God you seem to prefer is the one you need to cower before because you can never know whether you are good enough or not. My God provides a free way to atone for your sins and a way to know where you stand. It is a beautiful religion because despite your mockery, Christ still died for you so that you could be reconciled unto Him.

If there is a god, I hope that he is a merciful one...
I hope that he will judge me by my intentions...
I hope that he will be understanding...

Above all, I hope that he isn't hung up rote adherence to some stupid little ceremony, because from where I'm sitting the odds that I guess which of the umpteen different denominations out there is the right one seems pretty damn slim.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Feb 8 2007, 07:32 PM, said:

So, we cower before God because he will damn us if we don't

this isn't true, richard... speaking for myself (i'd like to speak for everyone, but that's a character flaw), i don't cower before God at all... i view him as a father, i view him as one whose love for me is far beyond my understanding...

Quote

Beautiful religion you got there Todd...

yes, beautiful and simple, which is why it is hated by some

Quote

In short, I'm a hell of a lot more comfortable with a "God" who applies intelligence and discretion than I am with one who condemns Ghandi to burn because he didn't chant the right magic words....

ghandi isn't condemned, if that's his fate, because of a failure to chant magic words... there are no magic words...

Quote

If there is a god, I hope that he is a merciful one...

he is... an understanding of christianity isn't really possible without an understanding of sin, and what it means to be sinful... we're told that all have sinned (missed the mark of God's holiness)... we're told that the wages of sin is death... even ghandi sinned, as good a man as he was...

but because of God's mercy, he gave us a way to live (life being defined as being in the presence of God) in spite of being condemned to die (death being defined as eternity out of God's presence)... but our way out cost God a great deal, a price that could only be paid if ones love outweighed other considerations

all salvation requires is a knowledge that one is a sinner in need of salvation, that we could never save ourselves, but that God could save us... he gave to us, free of charge, this gift... all we have to do is accept the truth of it - believe it to be true

Quote

I hope that he will judge me by my intentions...

he has already judged you, and me, and all of us... because of sin, we are guilty... the wages, or penalty, is death... we can never have enough good intentions, or do enough good works, to cancel that penalty... it would take one who knew no sin, a sinless man, to ransom the rest of us... that's why Jesus came as a man, it's part of the jewish "kinsman redeemer" theology... only a man could ransom another man, only a sinless man would be an acceptable sacrifice - one without spot or blemish (theologically speaking)

think of sin as a virus, one passed from father to offspring, one that everyone is born with... unless the concept of sin is grasped and accepted, the rest will not follow... unless a man can see that he is a sinner, he will never be able to see why his works or intentions are meaningless

Quote

I hope that he will be understanding...

we can be very thankful that he is understanding... he understood that we'd never be able to save ourselves, he understood he'd have to somehow do it for us... a perfect sacrifice would be needed... believe it or not, even your sins were paid for by Christ on the cross... all your past, all your future sins... he took the penalty that should be yours, he paid the debt... but you have to accept that gift, you have to believe it to be true

[Winstonm]

The entire argument surrounding the sacrifice of the son of god as the ultimate atonement for mankinds' sins is flawed.

Jesus in his own words said he came to "fulfill the law." If his mission on earth was to be a sacrifice to fulfill the law, then the law must have held that for sin there must be a sacrifice. His sacrifice fulfilled the law. If the law has been satisfied, there can be no repercussion for sin. If there is no repercussion for sin, there is no need to believe in god, christ, or santa claus.

I have stated my beliefs in other threads, but will do so briefly here. I do believe there is such a universal law and it is natural - the law of actions and consequences.

Christ said, The wages (consequences) of sin (action) is death. Therefore, if Jesus was the perfect consequence (sacrifice) for action (sin) then the law has been fulfilled and no longer has power over actions.

It is like the right to an abortion - you don't have to believe in it to be still covered by the law.

[mike777]

If you personally accept his sacrifice, yep....

To repeat is only takes faith the size of a mustard seed.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 8 2007, 09:07 PM, said:

Christ said, The wages (consequences) of sin (action) is death.  Therefore, if Jesus was the perfect consequence (sacrifice) for action (sin) then the law has been fulfilled and no longer has power over actions.

excellent, winston... if you don't mind i'd like to show why faith is the one thing that is needed... if you've a mind you might want to read or reread the book of hebrews here, paul (or whomever wrote it) does a better job

for years before christ, jews from all over would travel once a year (on yom kippur) to wherever the ark of the covenant was located... there was a temple there, and the inner sanctum was called the holy of holies (that's where the ark was kept)

this was the jewish day of atonement, the day the high priest would enter the holy of holies (he was the only one who could) to offer a sacrifice for the nation of israel... this sacrifice was to atone for all the sins of all the people for the year just ended... but the blood of the sacrifice couldn't take away the sins, it could only cover the sins... and it could only do this for the past year

once the high priest emerged, which showed the sacrifice was accepted by God (that's why a rope was tied around one ankle of the high priest, to drag him out if God *didn't* accept the sacrifice - he would be dead and nobody but he could enter), the people's sins were forgiven for that year

imagine you were a jew back then, imagine you were there... now imagine that during all of this you thought to yourself, "this is a crock... my sins aren't forgiven just because that guy killed a goat and sprinkled blood all over the place" ... do you think your sins could be forgiven if you didn't *believe* them to be?

now jump ahead to the new testament, especially the book of hebrews... the OT was written to point the way to Christ, as an explanation of things to come, although it was only in looking back that this could be seen... Jesus Christ was sent by God not only to be the perfect sacrifice, but to also be the High Priest... he sacrificed himself ("i lay down my life for them, no man can take it, i lay it down")... even though he died on the cross for your sins, you must believe it to be true... if you *don't* believe it, then it isn't true - for you... see?

Quote

The entire argument surrounding the sacrifice of the son of god as the ultimate atonement for mankinds' sins is flawed.

no.. it might not be understood completely, but that doesn't make it flawed

Quote

Jesus in his own words said he came to "fulfill the law." If his mission on earth was to be a sacrifice to fulfill the law, then the law must have held that for sin there must be a sacrifice. His sacrifice fulfilled the law.

yes, the sacrifice was part of the law... but that isn't what's meant by "fulfill the law"... his *life* fulfilled the law... see, he was the only man to ever obey God's law, in thought and deed... in that way is he said to have fulfilled the law... he had to obey perfectly (we couldn't) else he would not have been sinless, he would not have been an acceptable sacrifice...

[Winstonm]

Quote

If you personally accept his sacrifice, yep....

You are either stating you own opinion or you miss my point.

My point is that if Bill Gates decided to pay the parking tickets of everyone who ever lived, is alive now, or will live and will get tickets in the futrue, it doesn't matter if you know Bill Gates personally or even believe in him - you still won't have your car towed.

The law has been fulfilled. The consequences for illegal parking have been paid in full.

[mike777]

Not if you do not give Gates personal permission to pay your fine.


I cannot just go in and pay your parking fine without your permission and participation.

I cannot just go in and serve your prison term if you are convicted.

That would be a miscarriage of Justice. Justice being the key word here.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Feb 9 2007, 04:55 AM, said:

ghandi isn't condemned, if that's his fate, because of a failure to chant magic words... there are no magic words...

Lets be clear: When I am talking about "magic words" I'm referring to Todd's insistance that accepting Jesus as your personal saviour is an absolute necessity for salvation.

I don't find it logical that your god of "peace and love" so hung up on ceremony that he would condemn Ghandi for a failure to believe. Moreover, from my perspective, if your God does behave in such a manner, he's not worthy of my (or anyone's) worship.

All you have is a blind guess regarding which of 1001 different cults is right.
At the end of the day, what differentiates your choice of cults from Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, or what have you.

[Winstonm]

Quote

imagine you were a jew back then, imagine you were there... now imagine that during all of this you thought to yourself, "this is a crock... my sins aren't forgiven just because that guy killed a goat and sprinkled blood all over the place" ... do you think your sins could be forgiven if you didn't *believe* them to be?

Absolutely. 100% yes. If the action was valid, the result is valid, even if you do not believe the result.

Quote

yes, the sacrifice was part of the law...

Did you ever wonder why this is so? What is sacrifice and what is its purpose? What does it fulfill that god couldn't ignore if he is all poweful? Simply because it was Jewish tradition to sacrifice to atone for sin does not make it valid - many cultures have used sacrifice to appease their gods - what makes Jewish sacrifice different from Mayan sacrifice? Belief. That is all.

However, if you view it from the concept of a natural law of the universe - that even god cannot ignore - that actions have consequences then you have some basis for sacrifice as a consequence of action.

If you expound on this with a concept of an all-loving god, how can you rationalize a god who would condemn someone to death if god had a choice? It is illogical. Only if god had no choice in the matter would he allow damnation to occur.

This theory of god/law/sacrifice fits in much better with the questions about Ghandi and others of good works being condemned to hellfire. And it answer those questions about all those who never heard the word and those who lived outside of Judah and had no high priest and all the other religions throughout history - including Islam.

[mike777]

Yes God is all powerful, but that does not mean God can create himself. If all powerful is not the correct phrase pick another. God is subject to logic, he cannot create himself out of nothing.

If you believe God is the God of Justice, that is part of the nature of God, then Sin demands Justice. If you believe that Sin does not demand Justice than you deny the nature of the Christian God.