1. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    05 Mar '10 08:50
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    So since we talking about Grace and Salvation, lets have some supporting quotes from Jesus Christ -- the sole authority on the matter.
    So anything to do with Grace and Salvation in the Old Testament, or by Paul must be ignored as non-authoritative? Why?
    Does God ever communicate with humans in any way other than via Jesus' words as recorded in the New Testament? Why do you believe that?
  2. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14606
    05 Mar '10 08:51
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Clan Fraser tartan, how vewy vewy intwesting! A most noble and distinguished Clan dear Beetle who fought alongside Wallace and Bruce to vanquish the chains of slavery!
    I am a bowl o'meal Fraser and Je Suis Prest๐Ÿ˜ต
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    05 Mar '10 08:56
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    Grace is much more practical and workable because it encourages repentance and takes account of the reality of the human condition. In this theology and man can strive to live well but not live in abject fear of damnation. Jesus did not leave us with a chocolate teapot message.
    Does this logic apply to other famous figures?
    Can we equally conclude that half of what Hitler is reported to have said is not useful to us and should thus be discarded as untrue? Or is it OK for Hitler to leave chocolate teapot messages but not Jesus? Why?
  4. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    05 Mar '10 09:08
    Originally posted by black beetle
    I am a bowl o'meal Fraser and Je Suis Prest๐Ÿ˜ต
    a bowl o meal is a bowl o meal my friend or as the Punjabis say, Gar Ki Murgi dall baraber hai (doesnt matter if you are a bowl o meal or a chicken (a delicacy), both are of the same house) ๐Ÿ˜ต
  5. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14606
    05 Mar '10 09:26
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    a bowl o meal is a bowl o meal my friend or as the Punjabis say, Gar Ki Murgi dall baraber hai (doesnt matter if you are a bowl o meal or a chicken (a delicacy), both are of the same house) ๐Ÿ˜ต
    ๐Ÿ˜ต
  6. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    05 Mar '10 09:28
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    You are absolutely right. My apologies to KM. To be honest I dont know how that post ended up sounded like an attack but it was meant to sound like how you phrased it - I was attacking KMs conclusions and not him personally.
    Apology accepted. Don't worry about it.

    Going back to teapots. I fail to see how anything can be "more useless" than a chocolate teapot?

    The conclusion I am making are clear , if a theology is unworkable then it should be discarded. What issue do you have with this?
  7. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    05 Mar '10 09:33
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I have always found it interesting how many people believe that the religion has little or nothing to do with the truth, or actual facts, but rather what works for them.
    Your problem is that if Jesus said something that is not useful to you, you discard it (well and good), and then make the flawed claim that Jesus could not have said it.
    Its identical t ...[text shortened]... ng. Surely it is the person who creates a God to suits his needs that is in cloud cuckoo land?
    This type of reasoning is infact very scientific. It's not the only critieria by which we might judge a theology but it is an important one.

    It's scientific because it's based on the principle of experiment. If someone comes up with a scientific theory and it doesn't actually work practically in experiments then they are quite right to doubt it.

    If someone purports a theory of teleportation but can't actually teleport anyone and their machine doesn't work , what then?

    I can't see what your problem is.
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    05 Mar '10 12:11
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    I can't see what your problem is.
    My problem is the glaring holes in your logic. You are getting very confused between "Theology" and "what Jesus actually said". I suspect the real problem is that you start by believing Jesus' words to be undeniable fact and run into problem from there. Maybe that is the hypothesis that should be discarded.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be your argument:
    1. Jesus never got it wrong or told a lie or said anything that wasn't of value.
    2. Person A claims Jesus made statement X.
    3. Statement X is untrue or of no value (eg 'Make your tea with chocolate teapots'๐Ÿ˜‰.
    4. Jesus could not have made statement X.

    I am questioning assumption 1. especially when it comes to "wasn't of value" and even more especially when it isn't of value to you personally.
  9. PenTesting
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    247879
    05 Mar '10 12:47
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    So anything to do with Grace and Salvation in the Old Testament, or by Paul must be ignored as non-authoritative? Why?
    Does God ever communicate with humans in any way other than via Jesus' words as recorded in the New Testament? Why do you believe that?
    1Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

    Christ is above Paul. Paul was sent to set up the early churches and preach the doctrines taught by Christ.

    God is above Christ but spoke to people only prior to Christ's arrival, ie in the Bible. As far as speaking to others are concerned, I dont know. God can speak to anyone in any era. I dont know. Do you? Why is that important for me. Im a Christian and I believe in Christ and what he said. Who God speaks to now, last year, last hundred years is of no concern to me. Why is it of concern to you?
  10. PenTesting
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    247879
    05 Mar '10 13:12
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    Apology accepted. Don't worry about it.

    Going back to teapots. I fail to see how anything can be "more useless" than a chocolate teapot?

    The conclusion I am making are clear , if a theology is unworkable then it should be discarded. What issue do you have with this?
    Christ also said :

    Luke 18:22 ... sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

    Thats also an 'unworkable theology' for 99.99% of Christians, if the wording is taken literally. Does that mean that it should be discarded?

    Rather I think it should be used as a goal to which a Christian must aspire. The same with your beef with sin. A sinless life is perfection and should be aspired to.
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    05 Mar '10 13:17
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    1Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
    Thats non-authoritative! Or does the rule only apply to certain topics?

    Christ is above Paul. Paul was sent to set up the early churches and preach the doctrines taught by Christ.
    So, if Paul was teaching the doctrines taught by Christ, should we listen to his teachings or not? If we should not, then why was he sent? If we should then your comment about only Christ being authoritative seems a bit misplaced.

    God is above Christ but spoke to people only prior to Christ's arrival, ie in the Bible.
    He only spoke in the Bible? How did he do that?

    As far as speaking to others are concerned, I dont know. God can speak to anyone in any era. I dont know. Do you? Why is that important for me. Im a Christian and I believe in Christ and what he said. Who God speaks to now, last year, last hundred years is of no concern to me. Why is it of concern to you?
    Because if God spoke to anyone other than Christ, that would mean that they too might be an authoritative source. Or does God possibly talk to other people but never about Grace and Salvation?
  12. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    05 Mar '10 13:18
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    Christ also said :

    Luke 18:22 ... sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

    Thats also an 'unworkable theology' for 99.99% of Christians, if the wording is taken literally. Does that mean that it should be discarded?

    Rather I think it should be used as a goal to which a Chri ...[text shortened]... pire. The same with your beef with sin. A sinless life is perfection and should be aspired to.
    A sinless life is perfection and should be aspired to.
    ---------------rajk-----------------

    No argument with that. It should be aspired to. But it also needs to be recognised that one is not condemned if one doesn't get there.

    This is where grace comes in.
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    05 Mar '10 13:19
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    Rather I think it should be used as a goal to which a Christian must aspire. The same with your beef with sin. A sinless life is perfection and should be aspired to.
    What do you mean by 'aspire'? Do you mean get nice warm fuzzy feelings about but never actually do?
    Why would you not actually do as Christ suggested? Why is it unworkable for you?
  14. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    05 Mar '10 13:22
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    My problem is the glaring holes in your logic. You are getting very confused between "Theology" and "what Jesus actually said". I suspect the real problem is that you start by believing Jesus' words to be undeniable fact and run into problem from there. Maybe that is the hypothesis that should be discarded.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to b ...[text shortened]... "wasn't of value" and even more especially when it isn't of value to you personally.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be your argument:
    1. Jesus never got it wrong or told a lie or said anything that wasn't of value.
    YES

    2. Person A claims Jesus made statement X.
    YES

    3. Statement X is untrue or of no value (eg 'Make your tea with chocolate teapots'๐Ÿ˜‰.
    NO - BECAUSE STATEMENT CAN BE INTERPRETED IN DIFFERENT WAYS.

    4. Jesus could not have made statement X.
    NO - HE DID MAKE SATTEMENT X - THE ARGUMENT THEN ENSUES AS TO WHAT STATEMENT X MEANS AND THAT BECOMES A VARIETY OF THEOLOGIES.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    05 Mar '10 13:50
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    NO - HE DID MAKE SATTEMENT X - THE ARGUMENT THEN ENSUES AS TO WHAT STATEMENT X MEANS AND THAT BECOMES A VARIETY OF THEOLOGIES.
    Thanks for the clarification.
    I still think the logic is flawed because of premise 1. ie it should be suspect too.
    I also find it very suspect that you believe that an interpretation of Jesus' words that has no value for you personally is therefore an incorrect interpretation. The implication is that you are not trying to find out what he meant, but rather merely using his words for your own benefit. Why even bother starting with his words? Why not simply make up your own theology without Jesus?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree