Be In Time !

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]uhh...I don't screw over or hurt people...I'm a "not theist".


Sure you don't. No one on earth recalls ever having any complaint against you. No one at all. As far back as you can remember everyone has only been continuously pleased to the maximun amount with every word and deed you ever directed toward them or anybody.[/b]

I don't recall ever claiming I'm perfect. Why? Has your salvation made you perfect? Or just guilty?

Originally posted by whodey
But if all will eventually choose to recieve God then do we really have free will? Put another way, if you were in a loving relationship and you knew that the person in question must recipricate your affections at some point, are you really in a mutually loving relationship? Is not the criterea for having a mutually loving relationship having the ability to accept or reject the other?

You are equivocating about your notion of necessity.

Does God have the ability to not love people? If not, does that render his love meaningless?

Originally posted by jaywill
It is not up to a single Hymn to cover all theological angles of the teaching of the New Testament. It is perfectly customary to FOCUS on one aspect.

The aspect focused on in this particular gospel hymn is the danger of delaying and procrastinating. The fact of the matter is that we are not promised even to make it home tonight alive. You nor I know for ...[text shortened]... rath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God..." (Rom. 2:4,5)[/b]

It is not up to a single Hymn to cover all theological angles of the teaching of the New Testament. It is perfectly customary to FOCUS on one aspect.

You earlier told gaychessplayer,

"How warped and twisted of you to say the hymn does not reflect any love of God."

You have already admitted that its FOCUS is broad enough to include 'love'.

I know that some of you think there should be no consequences to a life of sin.

Really? Who? Didn't know there were any anarchists hiding out in here.

And I know some of you think that it is unfair of a righteous God to warn of consequences and delaying.

Warnings are all fine and dandy. The unfair part is when the damned all get the eternal, 'one size fits all' punishment.

On the cross Christ suffered all the gloom and condemnation and judgment on our behalf so that we need not suffer any. You show no thankfulness concerning this.

I feel no need to be thankful for the 'actions' of a mythological figure [and no, I don't mean Jesus, the person, but rather Jesus, the deity].

And you expect that a loving God would just let you continue sinning and damaging the lives of others and yourselves indefinitely.

Well, that death thingy kind of puts a damper on the damage, whether God exists or not.

You should consider that effect of accumulating more and more rationals as to why you should not be saved.

Done. I tried your way for years. I shirked skepticism and put all eggs in the faith basket.

You should consider that your heart could grow harder and harder towards Christ.

It's not so much Christ himself, it's the concept people have about him in their minds. When he becomes the Inventor of Hell, the ultimate mind-control tactic, I lose all respect for him.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You are equivocating about your notion of necessity.

Does God have the ability to not love people? If not, does that render his love meaningless?

is that the old testament view, or the new testament view you are referring to?

The old testament view is that a lot of people felt the wrath of god.... whereas in the new testament it was all them pesky romans doing the wrathing.

Originally posted by SwissGambit

I know that some of you think there should be no consequences to a life of sin.

Really? Who? Didn't know there were any anarchists hiding out in here.

Actually I think jaywill is correct here. If he believes in divine punishment for a life of sin and others believe there is nonesuch, then they do not believe there will be a punishment for what he sees as a life of sin. At least in the divine sense, I think that's what he was trying to say.

That said, there are those out there that think sin is a non-existential, a reified concept, I for one. So in my view there's no punishment because there's no such thing, but to jaywill I will be punished for believing such.

Originally posted by jaywill
It is not up to a single Hymn to cover all theological angles of the teaching of the New Testament. It is perfectly customary to FOCUS on one aspect.

The aspect focused on in this particular gospel hymn is the danger of delaying and procrastinating. The fact of the matter is that we are not promised even to make it home tonight alive. You nor I know for ...[text shortened]... rath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God..." (Rom. 2:4,5)[/b]

On the cross Christ suffered all the gloom and condemnation and judgment on our behalf so that we need not suffer any. You show no thankfulness concerning this.

With all due respect, and not intending to be flip in any way, the simple answer is: I don’t, because he didn’t.

As a sage, in his own Jewish tradition, he’s up there with Siddhartha Gautama, Lao Tzu, Lin Chi. That’s all. That’s enough. Enough to be thankful to him for.

Originally posted by Starrman
Actually I think jaywill is correct here. If he believes in divine punishment for a life of sin and others believe there is nonesuch, then they do not believe there will be a punishment for what he sees as a life of sin. At least in the divine sense, I think that's what he was trying to say.

That said, there are those out there that think sin is a no ...[text shortened]... nishment because there's no such thing, but to jaywill I will be punished for believing such.

It all depends on how you define "sin". I took it to mean, at least in part, morally wrong actions. If, instead, he was referring to the 'sin-nature' concept of being born a sinner due to the Original Sin, then I'm with you.

Originally posted by whodey
But if all will eventually choose to recieve God then do we really have free will? Put another way, if you were in a loving relationship and you knew that the person in question must recipricate your affections at some point, are you really in a mutually loving relationship? Is not the criterea for having a mutually loving relationship having the ability to accept or reject the other?

I guess the real question is which is more powerful: God's love for the sinner, or the sinner's hatred of God. I don't think that people can "choose" to hate God more than God loves the people. God says that we are all sinners; does that mean that our "free will" gave us the option to not sin? We have, IMO, free will in some areas and not in others. It's not "all or nothing."

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
How did serigado guess? Absolutely hilarious!

I'm just a musical genius, admit.

And how about
C Eº Dm G7 ?
Simple with a diminished chord.

Originally posted by jaywill
It is not up to a single Hymn to cover all theological angles of the teaching of the New Testament. It is perfectly customary to FOCUS on one aspect.

But why does your 'hymn' have to do it in a juvenile fashion. I mean,
it's indistinguishable from so-called children's hymns where a single,
fairly simple idea is repeated ad nausiam over the same three
chords. Why do you think that God appreciates efforts using the
basest of language and the crudest of chords to those which reflect
consummate artistry?

Which do you think is 'better:' Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star or

Sonnet CXXXII (Shakespeare)

Thine eyes I love, and they, as pitying me,
Knowing thy heart torments me with disdain,
Have put on black and loving mourners be,
Looking with pretty ruth upon my pain.
And truly not the morning sun of heaven
Better becomes the grey cheeks of the east,
Nor that full star that ushers in the even,
Doth half that glory to the sober west,
As those two mourning eyes become thy face:
O! let it then as well beseem thy heart
To mourn for me since mourning doth thee grace,
And suit thy pity like in every part.
Then will I swear beauty herself is black,
And all they foul that thy complexion lack.

Nemesio

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
I guess the real question is which is more powerful: God's love for the sinner, or the sinner's hatred of God. I don't think that people can "choose" to hate God more than God loves the people. God says that we are all sinners; does that mean that our "free will" gave us the option to not sin? We have, IMO, free will in some areas and not in others. It's not "all or nothing."

The cross of Calvary is where the love of God for man and the hatred of man for God clashed together.

Originally posted by serigado
I'm just a musical genius, admit.

And how about
C Eº Dm G7 ?
Simple with a diminished chord.

Aren't you going to resolve the progression back to the Tonic - C? Or are you going to leave us hanging there on G7?

Originally posted by jaywill
Aren't you going to resolve the progression back to the Tonic - C? Or are you going to leave us hanging there on G7?

of course it's coming back to C!
And how about a F, Fm, C, Dm, G7, C after that?

C Eº Dm G7 C F Fm C Dm G7 C

Originally posted by jaywill
Aren't you going to resolve the progression back to the Tonic - C? Or are you going to leave us hanging there on G7?

Aren't you going to admit that you like a church that treats you like a child?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Aren't you going to admit that you like a church that treats you like a child?

Nemesio

The message was not for members of the Church. It was for all those unsaved people who have not yet joined his Church. And since children are easier targets than adults especially when using scare tactics they would be the obvious first target. Though one wonders what good it does singing the hymn in Church.