This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

How can God's love be unconditional if it requires the follower to repent and...

#141ThuggernautzPosted 11/15/2012 8:10:56 AM
Systemafunk posted...


You do understand, kts, that neither hunter_gohan or Thuggernautz or several of the other posters arguing this point ACTUALLY understand the Biblical worldview, right? They think they are taking enough of the Bible into account, but they aren't. They consistently cobble together a random assortment of pseudo Christian views into one conglomerate view that they base all their anti-Christian rants off of, and that conglomerate view is often the result of the worst they have seen of a whole bunch of self proclaimed Christians out there.


We have a wealth of material to draw from. You have already stated that you think eye for an eye is perfectly just, a view that the Babylonians would probably agree with you about. You have already stated that you think a human/god sacrifice for the sins of the people is both an admirable and acceptable action for a God which has the power to show everyone in the entire world the result of sin. And that he was going to set up a nice little heaven loophole for everyone but, bizarrely, decided to keep this proof of his power and salvation temporally and geographically isolated in a tiny little part of Rome.

Lastly, a lot of us were Christians at one point. We've been through the indoctrination ringer, we've read, questioned and reasoned in the heart of the belief. We have just come to the conclusion that it's both bull **** and ridiculous, and the 'moral authority' you ascribe to is actually at times a cruel, vindictive, jealous, impulsive *** hole and not a good model for anyone to follow.
#142SystemafunkPosted 11/15/2012 8:23:43 AM
We have a wealth of material to draw from. You have already stated that you think eye for an eye is perfectly just, a view that the Babylonians would probably agree with you about.

And again, the problem is that a system that is perfectly just doesn't work in the long term.


You have already stated that you think a human/god sacrifice for the sins of the people is both an admirable and acceptable action for a God which has the power to show everyone in the entire world the result of sin.


Jesus's death IS the result of sin, and you have already shown time and time again that you do not understand anything beyond a very shallow and academic understanding of scripture.


And that he was going to set up a nice little heaven loophole for everyone


It is not a "loophole". It is a logical consequence of free will and the fact that heaven is NOT what you think it is, but is actually the state of being in the presence of God.


but, bizarrely, decided to keep this proof of his power and salvation temporally and geographically isolated in a tiny little part of Rome.


People are not truly converted by great big deeds and miraculous events. If that were the case, then everyone Jesus performed suc feats around would have been converted. People are only truly changed in the heart by both Christlike love, which we are commanded to show, and by their own desire to understand. Those two variables are always capable of being present.


Lastly, a lot of us were Christians at one point.


I seriously doubt you were ever born into Christ. Not because you doubted or questioned, but because you just don't even have the most minimal understanding. You argue against a strawman Christianity. A Christianity that obviously angered you and scarred you in some way, but not the real fellowship with Christ.


We have just come to the conclusion that it's both bull **** and ridiculous, and the 'moral authority' you ascribe to is actually at times a cruel, vindictive, jealous, impulsive *** hole and not a good model for anyone to follow.


We are supposed to be Christlike. Christ is the character of God stripped of rights. We are NOT supposed to be "like" God in authority. If you don't understand that, then you never even really had an intellectual understanding of it, much less a personal and emotional feel for it.
#143SystemafunkPosted 11/15/2012 8:27:10 AM
The sheer fact that you think you are or were (or that we are or were) supposed to "Be like God" in all respects speaks volumes. It explicitly denies an understanding of Christ. It also shows that the reason you don't like Christianity is not because of the actual message, but because of a bunch of other crappy Christians who also didn't understand.

That's not my fault though. Nor is it the fault of the true message of Christ.
#144ThuggernautzPosted 11/15/2012 8:50:55 AM
Systemafunk posted...
The sheer fact that you think you are or were (or that we are or were) supposed to "Be like God" in all respects speaks volumes. It explicitly denies an understanding of Christ. It also shows that the reason you don't like Christianity is not because of the actual message, but because of a bunch of other crappy Christians who also didn't understand.

That's not my fault though. Nor is it the fault of the true message of Christ.


Ah yes, the No True Scotsman. Have fun with that.
#145SystemafunkPosted 11/15/2012 8:59:44 AM
The No True Scotsman only holds for classifications that exist by association or origin, not by definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

"No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule."


In other words, not everyone that claims to be a part of a given classification is, so long as that classification has an objective criteria. The fact that the Bible actually directly says that not everyone claiming to know God actually does supports my own assertion. The fact remains that if you do not understand that we are commanded to be "Godly", not to try to be "identical to God", then you do not understand what Christians are instructed to do. We are instructed to be Christlike, and Christ is God in human form, Godly in character, but voluntarily stripped of rights.

In this case, there IS objective criteria for being a Christian, as well as for the true message of Christ. That is, there are MULTIPLE criteria, and there are objectively some things outside of the bounds, regardless of the fact that there is still room for disagreement within those bounds. Furthermore, I specifically referred to "Crappy Christians" meaning people who may well be real Christians who simply do not understand enough of the ways that we are called to act, and those crappy Christians present a very unfortunate and wrong view of Christ.
#146ThuggernautzPosted 11/15/2012 9:33:39 AM
Systemafunk posted...

In other words, not everyone that claims to be a part of a given classification is, so long as that classification has an objective criteria. The fact that the Bible actually directly says that not everyone claiming to know God actually does supports my own assertion. The fact remains that if you do not understand that we are commanded to be "Godly", not to try to be "identical to God", then you do not understand what Christians are instructed to do. We are instructed to be Christlike, and Christ is God in human form, Godly in character, but voluntarily stripped of rights.

In this case, there IS objective criteria for being a Christian, as well as for the true message of Christ. That is, there are MULTIPLE criteria, and there are objectively some things outside of the bounds, regardless of the fact that there is still room for disagreement within those bounds. Furthermore, I specifically referred to "Crappy Christians" meaning people who may well be real Christians who simply do not understand enough of the ways that we are called to act, and those crappy Christians present a very unfortunate and wrong view of Christ.


The above clashes with the below:


I seriously doubt you were ever born into Christ. Not because you doubted or questioned, but because you just don't even have the most minimal understanding. You argue against a strawman Christianity. A Christianity that obviously angered you and scarred you in some way, but not the real fellowship with Christ.


You can't possibly hope to know how sincere my experience within the Church was, nor many others who went through similar experiences. Your throwing around of the term 'crappy Christians' and the fact that you argue very specific interpretations of biblical theology (lack of eternal punishment, for example) also speaks volumes about your attitude towards everyone who doesn't agree with you. Your quip about the "true" message of Christ, as opposed to any other message as dictated by all the various denominations around the world shows how close minded you've become. It's sad, I used to respect your posts but more and more you've turned into this holier-than-thou preacher who argues dogmatically for the absolute truth of their position when like everyone else you can't prove the basal assertion of the existence of such a being, nor any legitimate reason for accepting your interpretation of the texts over any other denomination's.
#147SystemafunkPosted 11/15/2012 9:46:36 AM
I said that I doubt it. And I doubt it based on evidence. I do not claim to know absolutely.

Your tendency for reading what you want into things continues.
#148SystemafunkPosted 11/15/2012 9:53:33 AM
I also don't hold that many denominations DON'T preach the true message. I just rightly recognize that most denominations have a lot of extra "fluff" that isn't central to the message.

The point is still this: there are concepts and expectations stated in the Bible that are very straightforward and required. There are other things that are much less straightforward, but easily understood in the proper context from the former. Then there are yet other ideas and concepts that are much more open to interpretation. Just because SOME of the Bible is open to interpretation does not mean that ALL of it is. And if you aren't willing to accept that, then I have no expectation of a productive discussion about this matter with you.

Finally, you can say all you want about being preachy, but I have tried my best to treat you with respect. You have claimed that I made claims about you that I did not actually make, and at times have been down right rude. So be it. I don't hold it against you, and I sincerely apologize if at any time I respond in kind, as such is not my intent.
#149hunter_gohanPosted 11/16/2012 12:43:01 PM
Systemafunk posted...
I'm not sure. I don't worry too much about that, because I think that most people that aren't willing to accept Christ haven't really been acquainted with the true spirit of Christ. I don't think that all people who call themselves Christian will be saved or are saved, and I also don't think that all people who don't call themselves Christian are not saved, or will not be saved. I tend to think some people out there know Christ even if they do not refer to Him as such, but then, I also think that true, 100% repentance requires at least some form of a belief in God. I also think that people have the chance to repent and accept God at the time of Judgement.


Replace Christ with Allah. Does that convince you that Islam is actually the true religion? I can claim no one is truly repentant unless they accept Odin into their lives. It seems like you're merely trying to equate accepting Jesus and truly being repentant because you realize letting people off the hook for their punishment merely because they believed someone was a god and worship him is unjust. Seems little different then a judge letting his friends off the hook for crimes to me. There's a reason we expect judge's to recuse (wth, spell-checker is trying to tell me this isn't a word....it totally is) themselves if the case is too personal.

Again, the thing that makes God just is that God is omniscient.


Again, that does not make god just. Actually using that omniscience to find the morally upright or good action and going through with it would make him just, but just being omniscient doesn't in anyway guarantee that is what the being will do.

And so forth. So, naturally, we make the assumption that an omniscient being is just, because that is one thing that omniscience will eventually lead to.


Besides "because I want it to", why does omniscience lead to being just? Actually wanting to do the morally good and upright thing is what leads someone to being just. The level of knowledge someone has, no matter how much, doesn't guarantee that is what the being wants.

And God is an exception and special case in the same way that infinity is a special case in many math operations. God's authority is also THE REASON why people like Hitler and Stalin do not really have that authority. That is, their authority to do such things doesn't exist because no matter how influential or authoritative a mortal being becomes, their authority is always trumped by God.


So basically special pleading and argument from authority; therefore, he can commit whatever evil actions he wants and still somehow be a paragon of good?

So, we have physical "possession" of things by force and/or by proximity, but we never actually "own" them.


So god can do whatever evil action he wants while still somehow being good because he owns everything?

So you think slavery is a moral good then?
---
Fundamentalism in a nut shell: Raphael: It's God's will. Castiel: How can you say that?! Raphael: Because it's what I want!
#150hunter_gohanPosted 11/16/2012 12:45:16 PM
You certainly don't have to believe, but it would be nice if you accepted the premises for the sake of arguing. Especially if the overall criticism is that it doesn't even make internal sense.


Now that I think about it, this whole thing was a complete red herring. Ok he exists, he is still refusing to provide any evidence that he exists for the 2/3 of humanity who do not believe he exists while largely basing reward/punishment off that.(ignoring your feeble attempt to claim that is the same thing as being truly repentant)

My point was that I was NOT claiming the existence of an eternal hell, not that I was not claiming that "vengeance" in general was not a form of justice.


I never said you were. I was trying to point out your equivocation. Just because something can be classified as ": the administration of law" does not mean it is "acting is conformity with what is morally good". It was at some points part of early civilizations laws that people could be slowly roasted to death inside a metal bull. It was invented as a means of executing criminals:

"Its inventor, metal worker Perillos of Athens, proposed it to Phalaris, the tyrant of Akragas, Sicily, as a new means of executing criminals.[2] "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazen_bull

That doesn't make that a morally good action.

In fact, this administration of law seems to have been used against some early Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazen_bull#Roman_persecution_of_Christians

Still think that being the "administration of law" = "righteous"?

I do take issue with you not understanding what was fairly obvious that I was saying
though.


*holds up a mirror*

You said some stuff about eternal punishment. I said that wasn't what I was claiming. The wiki page was about vengeance in general being justice.


You very much have been attempting to claim that things that were the administration of law are also the morally good action simply because they were the administration of law. Hence, you posting that wiki page. That was what I've been arguing against. The eternal punishment was an example not something I was claiming you claimed. Just like the brazen bull is an example and not something I'm saying you claimed we should do or that currently happens.

And again, the problem is that a system that is perfectly just doesn't work in the long term.


Just what is it about these horrifically barbarous punishments is it that you think is "acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good", and why don't you think we should always do what is the morally upright or good action? Are you saying only things with evil built in work in the long term? Is this why you have no problem with your gods evil actions?
---
Fundamentalism in a nut shell: Raphael: It's God's will. Castiel: How can you say that?! Raphael: Because it's what I want!