Good Friday's gone and passed...

Originally posted by safetyman
So, can you agree that we are in the "or else" portion of the "take this or else"? If you can, I guess I could agree that you are correct in that God has said take this gift (free ticket) or else you will stay in the same condition you are in and go to hell.

You are correct in that there are many life preservers being thrown into the water, but not all ...[text shortened]... Jesus the people had different ways of covering their sin, but that's a different story.

So, can you agree that we are in the "or else" portion of the "take this or else"?

No, the 'else' part happens when the victim actually drowns.

You are correct in that there are many life preservers being thrown into the water, but not all by the life saver (God). I see the rafts that you are talking about being, buddism, hinduism, new age movement etc, etc. that doesn't make them the life preserver.

You would fault a drowning man for choosing the raft over the life preserver? Frankly, I don't agree with the Romans passage - the other faiths you mentioned have some tenets worth following. I can't agree that your faith is clearly 'right' and all the others are clearly 'wrong'.

You can see God by looking at the mountains, seeing the trees and flowers, everything that is around you shows you that God exists in His creation.

Selective vision. We tend to focus on beautiful scenery and forget that the world has its share of ugliness (any tract of land overrun by weeds, for example) and unliveable regions, like deserts and polar ice caps. The world is random, and it is misleading to pick out a few pleasant things about it and claim "it had to be God!"

I don't see how people can see all this stuff and think we had a big bang and then all of this just happened. I think it would take more faith in that than to believe there is a creator and that He loves us and wants to spend eternity with us in Heaven!

Why is the big bang incompatible with a god? Maybe it describes how God created our universe. (I'll ignore the fallacy of equivocation on the word 'faith' for now...)

Now, your other point was that God put everyone in the water to drowned. That's not correct. You are correct in that we start off in the water, but that is because of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. God did not make them sin and fall out of His perfect will. God had them on dry land!

The usual inadequate defense, blaming the fate of billions of people on a single, uninformed decision made by the first two of them. We have a God who makes a world, puts two curious humans in it, threatens them with 'death', which they have never seen, nor experienced, and expects the fear of a vague unknown to stifle their natural curiosity. This God is like a parent who leaves a bottle of poison on the floor and tells his 2-year-old "Don't drink this, or you'll die!"

God did not make them sin and fall out of His perfect will.

If he knew what was going to happen in advance, yet created humans anyway, then yes, he did.

Prior to sending Jesus the people had different ways of covering their sin, but that's a different story.

Yeah, like killing lots of animals. The OT God is quite the bloodthirsty one, isn't he?

Once someone drowns it is too late to take the gift so I disagree with you and restate that we are actually living in the "or else" portion of your "take it or else" statement.

In the other religions that I mentioned you are correct that there are "truths" in them that we could all learn from, but not THE truth.

The Bible states that "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

In the Romans passage I mentioned I don't think that it is just referring to "beauty". It is also talking about the creation. What you see etc.....

Yes there is ugliness because of the world we live in. It is not perfect, but will be made perfect again when Jesus come.

Have a great day all! 🙂

Originally posted by safetyman
Once someone drowns it is too late to take the gift so I disagree with you and restate that we are actually living in the "or else" portion of your "take it or else" statement.

In the other religions that I mentioned you are correct that there are "truths" in them that we could all learn from, but not THE truth.

The Bible states that "I am THE way, T ...[text shortened]... perfect, but will be made perfect again when Jesus come.

Have a great day all! 🙂

Once someone drowns it is too late to take the gift so I disagree with you and restate that we are actually living in the "or else" portion of your "take it or else" statement.

The 'else' portion is the threat of hell, isn't it? Unless you think our earth is part of hell, why would you claim that?

The Bible states that "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

Why should I take this claim of exclusivity seriously? Shall I simply ignore the inhumane actions of the monstrous OT God, and his spawn Jesus, the inventor of hell, the ultimate mind-control tactic?

In the Romans passage I mentioned I don't think that it is just referring to "beauty". It is also talking about the creation. What you see etc.....

Sorry, the point about creation is vague to me. Can you elaborate?

Yes there is ugliness because of the world we live in. It is not perfect, but will be made perfect again when Jesus come.

Why doesn't the ugliness count as evidence against creation?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]Once someone drowns it is too late to take the gift so I disagree with you and restate that we are actually living in the "or else" portion of your "take it or else" statement.

The 'else' portion is the threat of hell, isn't it? Unless you think our earth is part of hell, why would you claim that?

The Bible states that "I am THE way, THE ...[text shortened]... us come.

Why doesn't the ugliness count as evidence against creation?[/b]

1) the bible says that nonbelievers are dead, not drowning. how can a dead man choose to reach out to a life preserver? wouldn't a perfect god have perfect aim, and therefore not make the person reach, but rather ring their neck?

2) most religions are mutually exclusive. however, not all, e.g. hinduism, et. al. on the other hand, xianity is exclusive.
now, as to the other truths of other religions...
just suppose some incredible, fantastic "natural" event did occur, wouldn't everybody try to describe to the best of their abilities using only what they know and are familiar with? truth could be the same way. most agree that seflishness is wrong. xians solve this with "doing unto others." muslims and jews solve this with hospitality being required for paradise. budhists solve this by forsaking desire.

3) xians would say there is no dicotomy b/t ot god and nt god (jesus). he killed in both testaments for not honoring him rightly. many appeal to the essence of god as that of being love. then they say that the love essence must be the love god shows to people. then non-xians always like to mention that god can't "be love" if he allows so much destruction, or if he is 3-O, how can he cause such things to happen and still "be love."
i propose, and i think the bible supports this, that "god is love" in as much as he loves himself. if he did not love himself above all else, wouldn't that make him an idolator. the definition of idolatry being to love something more than loving god. if this is the case, it may be deemed selfish and silly, but that does allow for both "god is love" and for total and mass destruction. again, i'm not saying this is morally exceptable, i'm just allowing for consistency in the bible and in xian thought.

4) creation is beautiful, not ugly. even weeds. even tsunamis and huricanes (esp. from satalite imagery). now we as people may make the earth ugly through our behavior, but even that would be a subjective reality. i don't think just trees and flowers are beautiful. i am confident that a saharan bedouin would find oceans, trees, flowers, etc. to be ugly compared to the beauty and purity of his sandy domain.
the romans passage doesn't mean that the beauty will prove god. it suggests that various aspects to various people will tell them of something greater than themselves. this is to inspire "thanksgiving." but, they don't thank anybody for creation. for this reason romans says that god turned man over to the depravity of their minds. now, many will say that they did not actively or knowingly reject god and not offer him thanksgiving. but, the romans passage doesn't say it has to be deliberate or even current. it in the aorist tense which means that it happened in the past, but it ramifications can be felt today.
i'm not arguing here that this is true. i'm simply clarifying what this passage is about.

Originally posted by Big Mac
1) the bible says that nonbelievers are dead, not drowning. how can a dead man choose to reach out to a life preserver? wouldn't a perfect god have perfect aim, and therefore not make the person reach, but rather ring their neck?

2) most religions are mutually exclusive. however, not all, e.g. hinduism, et. al. on the other hand, xianity is exclusive.
n ...[text shortened]... e that this is true. i'm simply clarifying what this passage is about.

Perhaps you have me confused for a theist. I am not.

1) the bible says that nonbelievers are dead, not drowning. how can a dead man choose to reach out to a life preserver? wouldn't a perfect god have perfect aim, and therefore not make the person reach, but rather ring their neck?

I'll let theists answer these questions (after all, the 'drowning man' is their analogy, not mine).

I agree with most of point #2. Caveat: Not every Christian is a biblical literalist, or fundamentalist, and thus do not necessarily denounce other faiths. The evangelicals tend to shout the loudest and thus drown out the more tolerant Christians.

RE paragraph #3: I won't let them off the hook so easily. Let's look at the bible's own description of love from 1 Cor 13:4:

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails.

The bible says "God is love" (borrowing the bold from vistesd!) and yet their God is none of these things. In fact, their God violates almost every description in this passage.

RE: paragraph #4: Look at the aftermath of a tsunami or a hurricane and tell me that isn't ugly! Again, I don't understand the urge to make such sweeping statements. I understand that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I bet very few people actually think that every area of the earth is 'beautiful'.

My problem with your interpretation of the Romans passage is that leap from "Something greater than ourselves" to a specific Creator-God is too long. SGTO could be many things.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Perhaps you have me confused for a theist. I am not.

[b]1) the bible says that nonbelievers are dead, not drowning. how can a dead man choose to reach out to a life preserver? wouldn't a perfect god have perfect aim, and therefore not make the person reach, but rather ring their neck?

I'll let theists answer these questions (after all, the 'dro than ourselves" to a specific Creator-God is too long. SGTO could be many things.[/b]

1) fair enough on the "drowning man." i've just never heard an exceptable argument for free will when it comes to evangelical xian salvation. since you claim not to be one, then my beef is not with you. cheers.

2) good point. only one who believes that the bible is true at least in the gospels section would have to attest that this is true. the whole "THE way, THE truth, THE life" bit. since you claim not to beleive the bible, then my beef is not with you. cheers.

3) again, i don't think god violates these acts of love as long as he is trinitarian and that his love is first and foremost for the members within the trinity.
"love is patient." god strikes down in an instant who don't honor him as they should. "love is kind." i have no argument with this, at least in his dealings with xians. "it does not envy." but, clearly god is a jealous god. "it does not boast." most of the bible is god boasting about how great he is. "love is not proud." ibid. "it is not rude." no argument. "it is not self-seeking." god seeks his own glory. "it is not easily angered." i'm sure many mesopotamian tribes would not agree with this. however, ot jews and nt xians would have to agree since they have not yet been incinerated for their sins. "it keeps no record of wrongs." only for the xians. "it does not delight in evil but rejoices in the truth." i have no argument with this. "it always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." yes and no for god. he's bigger so, yes, he protects. he trusts himself. he has no need for hope since he is 3-O. he's bigger so, yes, he perseveres. "love never fails." agreed.
NOTE: his love can only be readily seen without qualification in his dealings with himself. as for his dealing with us, there must be a lot of qualifications made, such as our sin, the problem of evil, sickness, nature, etc.

4) agreed. from earth, the aftermath of a tsunami or hurricane is horrendous. so much death and destruction. only a heartless bastard who just showed up afterward would walk among the dead bodies and think how beautiful it is. however, perhaps a survivor, upon seeing the clear sky and the rising sun would have a profound sense, mind you just in the moment, of how beautiful the rising sun is.
and i agree that there is probably nobody that thinks every part of the earth is beautiful. but, each part (as opposed to every part) is beautiful to somebody for different reasons. even an ice sheet. sometimes solitude is beautiful.
does the beauty part make more sense?

4 or 5?) sorry my pagination is off somewhat.
i agree that the leap is long. even too long. i can't argue this with you. i believe that is what the passage is saying, however, because of the author and the audience. they are all believers. therefore their worldview allowed for such a thing. they already believed in the creator-god. if one does not approach this passage with that worldview, i agree that it is far too long of a leap to draw that connection. so again. since you do not claim to have this worldview, my beef is not with you. cheers.

[b]1) the bible says that nonbelievers are dead, not drowning. how can a dead man choose to reach out to a life preserver?

ok, the Bible says they are dead in thier sin, but not dead totally. They can reach out grab the life preserver and be revived brought to life.

Originally posted by safetyman
ok, the Bible says they are dead in thier sin, but not dead totally. They can reach out grab the life preserver and be revived brought to life.

which bible describes them as not being totally dead?

You cannot be totally dead (dead in sin yes, but not totally dead) and still be able to ask for forgiveness i.e. grab that life preserver and be alive.

Originally posted by safetyman
You cannot be totally dead (dead in sin yes, but not totally dead) and still be able to ask for forgiveness i.e. grab that life preserver and be alive.

agreed. therefore, i don't believe anyone CAN "reach out and grab that life preserver."

"dead, but not totally dead. only one thing you do if he's totally dead. go through his pockets and look for loose change. he's just mostly dead." -Miracle Max

the bible doesn't differentiate b/t mostly dead and totally dead. it simply says we are dead. how can a dead man quicken himself?

Originally posted by Big Mac
agreed. therefore, i don't believe anyone CAN "reach out and grab that life preserver."

"dead, but not totally dead. only one thing you do if he's totally dead. go through his pockets and look for loose change. he's just mostly dead." -Miracle Max

the bible doesn't differentiate b/t mostly dead and totally dead. it simply says we are dead. how can a dead man quicken himself?

How can you agree that you are dead in sin but not dead, then say you cannot reach out and grab a life preserver? That doesn't make sense to me.

You are absolutely right! A dead man cannot quicken himself. That is why Jesus came to quicken the dead.

Another point to ponder is that when we speak of death we can speak of physical death, and spiritual death. Physical death = separation from this body. spiritual death = separation from God.

b/t = ??

Originally posted by safetyman
How can you agree that you are dead in sin but not dead, then say you cannot reach out and grab a life preserver? That doesn't make sense to me.

You are absolutely right! A dead man cannot quicken himself. That is why Jesus came to quicken the dead.

Another point to ponder is that when we speak of death we can speak of physical death, and spirit ...[text shortened]... Physical death = separation from this body. spiritual death = separation from God.

b/t = ??

1) b/t = between. sorry it's my version of shorthand. i'll be more careful to type things out in the future.

2) dead in sin equalls spiritual death. salvation equals spiritual life. taking hold of the life preserver equals salvation. spiritually speaking all people were dead. spiritually speaking they could not make themselves alive. spiritually speaking they could not reach out to jesus. spiritually speaking jesus must first MAKE them alive first.

3) i am only talking about spiritual death here. all of us were came into this world still-born when speaking spiritually.

Originally posted by Big Mac
1) b/t = between. sorry it's my version of shorthand. i'll be more careful to type things out in the future.

2) dead in sin equalls spiritual death. salvation equals spiritual life. taking hold of the life preserver equals salvation. spiritually speaking all people were dead. spiritually speaking they could not make themselves alive. spiritually speaking ...[text shortened]... piritual death here. all of us were came into this world still-born when speaking spiritually.

sorry, i'm kinda slow sometimes! 🙂 anyway, i believe you are correct when you say we are all still born in the spiritual. In the spiritual you are dead and therefore cannot "reach out", but I believe that everyone is looking to fill something in thier lives ("the hole"😉. Some reach out to alcohol, others sex, some reach out to new age i.e. crystal, palm reading etc, etc. Others reach out to Jesus. We reach out in the natural knowing/thinking we are missing something. That is the first step - reaching out in the natural saying I know something is missing, I can't do this alone etc, etc. We reach out in the natural by faith and then the spiritual kicks in. You are then brought to life spiritually when you ask Jesus to come into your life and take charge (salvation = spiritual life).

Almost everything we do we have to first do in the natural. I think a good example is - in the natural we work. We make a "contract" with someone and say we are going to do a particular job for them and then by faith we do the job expecting to get paid at the end of the week. We don't know really if they are going to pay us or not until we get that check. Most people don't pay us first we have to do the work first in the natural and then get the benefit.

Originally posted by safetyman
sorry, i'm kinda slow sometimes! 🙂 anyway, i believe you are correct when you say we are all still born in the spiritual. In the spiritual you are dead and therefore cannot "reach out", but I believe that everyone is looking to fill something in thier lives ("the hole"😉. Some reach out to alcohol, others sex, some reach out to new age i.e. crystal, pal ...[text shortened]... n't pay us first we have to do the work first in the natural and then get the benefit.

thankfully, you work analogy does not apply to the way god deals with us. god gives us the benefit without us doing any work. jesus did the work on the cross. and we get paid for it. not fair. but great.

as to the hole in people's hearts...
c.s. lewis wrote that there is a "jesus size hole in every man's heart." people try to fill it with the fruits of their desires. he then concludes that the greatest desire and the most satisfying fruit is jesus himself. it writes "it's not that our desires are too great that we are not satisfied, it's that our desires are too small." the only problem is, man cannot seek jesus to fill his heart's hole. "none seek jesus, no not one." only jesus can fill his heart with himself. man cannot manufacture this.

"you are then brought to life spiritually when you ask jesus to come into your life and take charge." safetyman

the bible says that believing jesus died and the cross and the god raised him from the dead is how one gets saved. the bible does not talk about asking jesus to come into your life. how can ask jesus to do anything unless jesus is already his lord?