Originally posted by knightmeisterI didn't say that I perceived your questions as an attack. I said, "You seem only interested in finding ways to attack me." Evidently you are unable to make the distinction. Your questions are, like usual, completely off point and only serve to find ways to attack. That you believe that they are on point only serves as evidence that logic and reason are not your strong points. That your views are so distorted that you can't recognize truth when it's staring you in the face.
How are my questions perceived by you as an attack? They can only be an attack if you cannot answer them without your position being weakened. If I wanted to attack you I would ask you why you have such a big nose or make another such insult.
The questions I ask are basically fundamental and very much on topic. I am asking whether you practice what must also know that St Paul can hardly be described as soft on sin or a cheap grace merchant.
The point is what Jesus says about who loves Him and who loves Him not. Rather than deal with this point, you ask questions completely unrelated to what Jesus says. But it's much easier to "hide", than to deal with His words.
John 14:21-24
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him. Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto him, Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my words
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneHere you go again, attacking your favorite Strawman, i.e., the joyfully sinning Christian.
Many Christians seem to be of the belief that atheism is a subconscious means of "hiding from God". That subconsciously the atheist recognizes the "will of God", i.e., truth, love, humility, compassion, justice, etc as well as the desires of the self, i.e., : pride, greed, lust, gluttony, etc. By claiming the non-existence of God, atheist is "free" to par e" Christianity is a subconcious means of "hiding from God."
Any thoughts?
Here are a few thoughts:
(1) I've met no Christian who partakes in the desires of the flesh without condemnation; neither have I read any Christian theologian who endorses even the possibility of that kind of practice.
(2) Furthermore, since no one can be justified by the law, anyone who finds salvation can only do so by the grace of God. Therefore, calling your Strawman a "salvation by grace Christian" establishes nothing.
(3) By insulting knightmeister in a previous thread (Thread 98869, page 2) you've proven that you do not possess the transformed heart illustrated by Jesus in His sermon on the mount (Matthew 5), and so your criticisms of God's children continue to ring hollow.
Originally posted by epiphinehasGrace is not for Christians only.
..(2) Furthermore, since no one can be justified by the law, anyone who finds salvation can only do so by the grace of God. .....
Romans 2:14 ..for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing [them]);
16 in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI hear what you say but still feel entirely justified in asking you the same questions you seem to feel you are entitled to ask others. Once you tell this forum that you can and do walk the walk then maybe the talk can come after eh?
I didn't say that I perceived your questions as an attack. I said, "You seem only interested in finding ways to attack me." Evidently you are unable to make the distinction. Your questions are, like usual, completely off point and only serve to find ways to attack. That you believe that they are on point only serves as evidence that logic and reason are n unto him, and make our abode with him. [b]He that loveth me not keepeth not my words[/b]
This approach is entirely in step with Jesus's teachings ( "take the plank out of your own eye and you will be able to see to take the speck from your brothers eye" ). I want to know if you have dealt with your own plank before considering what you put forward seriously. Otherwise, your perfectionist interpretation of Jesus is not even worth considering.
I still know just as little about your own battle with sin and your own "perfection" as I did the day I saw your first post. For all I know you might still be some teenager jerk off merchant. So who are you , what do you actually believe and do you practice any of what you preach? It's not rocket science , only your pride stops you from answering.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneJohn 14:21-24
I didn't say that I perceived your questions as an attack. I said, "You seem only interested in finding ways to attack me." Evidently you are unable to make the distinction. Your questions are, like usual, completely off point and only serve to find ways to attack. That you believe that they are on point only serves as evidence that logic and reason are n ...[text shortened]... unto him, and make our abode with him. [b]He that loveth me not keepeth not my words[/b]
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him. Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto him, Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my words
----------In this passage Jesus is making a clear link between actions and love. The person who loves him is the one who has compassion for the poor , loves his enemies , seeks peace over hatred , and honours truth and all that is good. The person who says they love him but exploits the poor (for example) is not in the truth. All this I agree with , so what's your problem here? I see nothing in this passage that says that one must be perfectly sinless or one is damned. There is no perfectionism in this passage (apart from your own imagination)
Originally posted by epiphinehasHave I ever said anything about "the joyfully sinning Christian"? Why do you put it in those terms? This says much more about you than it does me. Who really has the "strawman"?
Here you go again, attacking your favorite Strawman, i.e., the joyfully sinning Christian.
Here are a few thoughts:
(1) I've met no Christian who partakes in the desires of the flesh without condemnation; neither have I read any Christian theologian who endorses even the possibility of that kind of practice.
(2) Furthermore, since no one can be on the mount (Matthew 5), and so your criticisms of God's children continue to ring hollow.
1) Many Christians seem to be of the belief that they have "salvation" no matter what they do. They believe they have "eternal life", hence they do not feel "condemned" to "eternal death." I'm not sure what part of this concept you don't understand.
2) This makes little sense to me. In fact, it makes so little sense, I don't know what to say about it.
3) Same as 2) above.
This kind of brings up another thing that I've been wondering about. There seems to be a void of logic and reason within the SBGC communtity. Is an SBGC able to believe in "salvation by grace" because he already has this void or is this void caused by the contortions the SBGC must put his mind through to be able to convince himself of it? In all seriousness, I could see either as being the case. Perhaps it depends on the individual.
Originally posted by knightmeisterNot that I haven't tried to explain this to you a dozen or more times, but my position isn't about whether or not any given individual has overcome sin. It is about how "Christianity" has for the most part abandoned the teachings of Jesus for the teachings of Paul. I see the teachings of Paul as undermining the teachings of Jesus. For lack of a better term, Jesus taught "salvation by righteousness". One must "become one" with the "will of God", i.e., truth, love, compassion, justice, etc. Many define "sin" as being "apart from God". So by definition one cannot sin and be "one with God". This is the essence of "abiding in God/Jesus".
I hear what you say but still feel entirely justified in asking you the same questions you seem to feel you are entitled to ask others. Once you tell this forum that you can and do walk the walk then maybe the talk can come after eh?
This approach is entirely in step with Jesus's teachings ( "take the plank out of your own eye and you will be able t ny of what you preach? It's not rocket science , only your pride stops you from answering.
"I want to know if you have dealt with your own plank before considering what you put forward seriously."
You tipped your hand some time ago as to why you ask these questions. You have no interest in "considering what [I] put forth seriously". This is a lie and you know it. I'd venture that you feel no guilt about it either. What's this thread about again?
Originally posted by knightmeister"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me...If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my words"
John 14:21-24
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him. Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto him, Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto ...[text shortened]... s or one is damned. There is no perfectionism in this passage (apart from your own imagination)
When one sins one is not keeping the commandments of Jesus. One is not keeping His words. One is breaking the commandments of Jesus. One is going against His words.
Ask yourself this: "When someone sins, is he keeping the commandments of Jesus? Is he keeping His words?"
You keep talking about "perfectionism". Like I keep telling you, it's not about "perfection", it's about getting one's heart right.
But it's so much easier to attack when you characterize it as "perfectionism", isn't it?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneHave I ever said anything about "the joyfully sinning Christian"? Why do you put it in those terms? This says much more about you than it does me.
Have I ever said anything about "the joyfully sinning Christian"? Why do you put it in those terms? This says much more about you than it does me.
1) Many Christians seem to be of the belief that they have "salvation" no matter what they do. They believe they have "eternal life", hence they do not feel "condemned" to "eternal death." I'm not sure what ess, I could see either as being the case. Perhaps it depends on the individual.
If a "Christian" feels free to partake in any kind of desire of the self without experiencing any kind of condemnation, I'm assuming his or her joy as a "Christian" would not be interrupted.
1) Many Christians seem to be of the belief that they have "salvation" no matter what they do. They believe they have "eternal life", hence they do not feel "condemned" to "eternal death." I'm not sure what part of this concept you don't understand.
I thought you were discussing the lack of condemnation which "saved by grace Christians" experience, not whether people are saved by grace or not. I understand the concept of being saved by grace just fine, but your original post addresses the lack of condemnation which those saved be grace supposedly experience.
2) This makes little sense to me. In fact, it makes so little sense, I don't know what to say about it.
Let me explain it to you then.
Even "good" Christians are saved by grace. Calling the people who sin without experiencing any condemnation whatsoever "saved by grace Christians" is therefore a misnomer.
Understand now?
Originally posted by epiphinehas[/b]"If a "Christian" feels free to partake in any kind of desire of the self without experiencing any kind of condemnation, I'm assuming his or her joy as a "Christian" would not be interrupted."
[b]Have I ever said anything about "the joyfully sinning Christian"? Why do you put it in those terms? This says much more about you than it does me.
If a "Christian" feels free to partake in any kind of desire of the self without experiencing any kind of condemnation, I'm assuming his or her joy as a "Christian" would not be interrupted.
1) "saved by grace Christians" is therefore a misnomer.
Understand now?
Like I said, it's YOUR strawman.
1) Let me try again. If an individual doesn't feel "condemned" to "eternal death", does he feel "condemnation"?
2) I kinda thought that that's where you were going, but it seemed too absurd. Aren't you using a "salvation by grace" concept to prop up your argument? Are you really that desperate to "win a point"?
A couple of points (okay, more than a couple):
(1) People seem to keep accusing ToO of hypocrisy. Now, I’ve argued with him a time or two, and accused him of a thing or two (in the spirit of debate, of course), but hypocrisy hasn’t been one of them. I don’t see where his hypocrisy lies—especially since I don’t recall his claiming the “Christian” label, or any other label for that matter. He claims to follow the teachings of Jesus as he sees them. That’s all, so far as I can see.
(2) I don’t see Epi or KM—or anyone else participating in this thread—as being hypocrites either; and I’ve known most of you for some time now.
(3) I think the opening post raises a valid question (which is how he raised it). If for no other reason than that “sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”—which is exactly how ToO has posed this whole thing.
But—beyond the “sauce” question—ToO raises an issue that I have had kicking around in my mind for some time now. And that is the “religion as a strategy for hiding” issue, no matter what religion or what one may be hiding from. I see no reason why religionists ought to be more offended by that notion of “hiding” than they think atheists ought to be.
Hiding from god, hiding from death, hiding from fear, hiding from reason, hiding from—whatever. To put it in simplistic terms—that nevertheless capture the spirit of past arguments on here—those who value freedom have been accused of hiding from obedience, and those who value obedience have been accused of hiding from freedom. Etc., etc., etc.
Now, I don’t think there is a being-god of any kind. I also think that I tend toward greater vigilance about self-integrity versus self-deceit than many on here, and at least as much as anyone. That does not mean that I am free from error, only that I am dedicated to such vigilance.
Now, you—whoever you are—are either hiding or you are not, intentionally or not. Regardless of what any other religionists or atheists are doing. The notion that only atheists can be hiding from frightening truths, and that theists can have no strategies for such hiding within their religious paradigms, is absurd. ToO has merely pointed out one such strategy for hiding. Maybe no Christian posting here is guilty of using that strategy (consciously or not); maybe some others are.
I don’t find these generalities—all atheists are hiding from god/authority, all theists are hiding from reality—to be particularly helpful.
Let’s just (forgive me if this is out of line) take ToO as an example. He seems to have a fairly binary concept of righteousness/unrighteousness (for lack of better terms) as the keys to “salvation”. At the same time, he has not claimed perfection in such matters for himself. Am I the only one who sees such a stance as being both honest and brave?
I do not think that ToO always has the “truth” that he claims will set people free. [Sorry, ToO, to talk about you as if you weren’t here!] I think that he likely has some notions about the nature of illusion that are—well, illusory. But then, he and I have sometimes talked past one another and I might well be wrong. And I believe that he is a committed truth-seeker.
Likely, ToO and I will bang heads again—each thinking that the other is still mired in some aspect of illusion. I personally value such a banging of heads. I value ToO’s arguments against what he sees as my illusions. Ain’t that the name of the game here?
Let’s see now: I have also argued with Epi, with KM, with jaywill... I know for sure that I have accused those persons, directly or indirectly, of being under some illusion. I am pretty sure that I have said some things more sharply than perhaps I ought to have. I am also pretty sure that I have accused none of you of deliberate bad faith.
And yet, these arguments between Epi, KM and jaywill—on one side—and ToO, and sometimes Rajk (from a different point of view) on the other, seem to have degenerated to mostly accusations of deliberate bad faith.
And, at that point, that is the only thing about them that might be interesting to an outsider listening in. Personally, I don’t find it all that interesting—especially in light of the really interesting arguments I have had with each of you.
____________________________________
Again, I think that ToO’s opening post raised a valid question. No one is simply immune from hiding simply because of the faith (or lack thereof) that they claim. It is like accusations from some that others of us view “love” as some sort of warm “fuzzies”. I would say that love (agape) is a “consuming fire”, and that faith (as I define it) is always a risk, and that meditation is a danger to anyone who wants to rest secure in their thought-constructs, etc. I would say that many people—of various religions or non-religions—make mighty efforts to hide from the fire, the risk, the danger. Or to pretend that they aren’t there.
Here is where ToO perhaps nailed me with my own words: that I am a Zorbaist as much as a Zennist. Whatever I happen to believe or not believe, I do not attempt to hide from the existential risks.
This is life, and then there is death—where the hell would I hide?
Anyway, that is my response to the valid question of the opening post: god or no god, where the hell does anyone think they can hide?
God or no god, Christ or no Christ, grace/faith or works—whatever or whatever—there ain’t nowhere to hide. Any kind of existential hiding is always going to be some kind of self-deceit.
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo would you conceed that it is entirely possible that:
After I have received forgiveness I may or may not feel guilt but it would not be destructive guilt and I would not feel a rift in my relationship with God. The important thing about forgiveness is the healing of a broken relationship , of which freedom from guilt is a part. Mind you I believe that some guilt can be healthy and some isn't.
1. Some people sin more readily because they feel forgiven and thus do not have a burden of guilt detering them from repeat behaviour.
2. Some people have a strong motivation for believing that they are forgiven for thier sins regardless of whether they have changed thier lifestyle etc. (faith without works).
I am not accusing you of the above, nor even accusing anyone. What I would like to determine is:
a. are they reasonable scenarios to consider.
b. are we able to determine based on observed bahavorial patterns whether there are people who fit the description.
I have personally observed that I stick to my claimed principles far more than the majority of the people I know. The question is why. There are a number of possible explanations of which 'Hiding from God' is one. Another possible explanation, is that if I set my own principles I am more likely to stick to them than if they are imposed on me by someone else - even if that someone else is God or a respected figure of authority, and even when I knowingly and willingly choose to submit myself to those principles.
What other explanations can you think of?
In my case it is probably partly upbringing. I was brought up by parents who were fairly honest and who taught me to be the same.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI would say that 1) and 2) most definitely do happen. I think there are Christians who have been careless about sin because of salvation by grace. I have no argument with you on this one.
So would you conceed that it is entirely possible that:
1. Some people sin more readily because they feel forgiven and thus do not have a burden of guilt detering them from repeat behaviour.
2. Some people have a strong motivation for believing that they are forgiven for thier sins regardless of whether they have changed thier lifestyle etc. (faith with ...[text shortened]... bringing. I was brought up by parents who were fairly honest and who taught me to be the same.
But I also know that many Christians have remained bound up in fear and guilt unneccessarily and this has prevented them from moving on also.
The fact that an idea or concept can be taken and misused by individuals is not relevant because it works both ways. For every Christian who is lax about sin because they take their salvation for granted , there is another who cannot feel accepted by God and falls into miserable insecurity and perfectionism. Both are extremes. Both are mistakes.
ToO thinks in a polarised fashion and that is my beef with him. He does not integrate both poles. We must be assured of salavation but also press on to perfection. That was St Paul's message , ToO grossly misrepresents him because to him anyone who advocates salvation by grace is condoning sin. It's a bit like saying anyone who is not 100% behind global capitalism is a raving commie. That is ToO's mental error , watch his posts and you will see it.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt is about how "Christianity" has for the most part abandoned the teachings of Jesus for the teachings of Paul. I see the teachings of Paul as undermining the teachings of Jesus.------------ToO---------------
Not that I haven't tried to explain this to you a dozen or more times, but my position isn't about whether or not any given individual has overcome sin. It is about how "Christianity" has for the most part abandoned the teachings of Jesus for the teachings of Paul. I see the teachings of Paul as undermining the teachings of Jesus. For lack of a better ter that you feel no guilt about it either. What's this thread about again?
I do know that's what you are about , but your words have little authority unless you can talk about these issues from experience and practice. It's a bit listening to someone talking about driving who has never stepped in a car. Unless you have experienced God's grace , unless you have struggled with sin (and overcome?) , unless you have wrestled with these commandments , ---then what do you know? Your knowledge will always be incompete. You will be talking about a process of which you have no experience. You then have to ask yourself what did Jesus think about people who felt they had the right to preach to others about going down a road which they have not walked themselves. This is why I ask you these questions. If you were preaching someone else then it wouldn't matter so much. And you are right , I don't really take you seriously and never have done because to me knowing the truth is about experience not words. You cannot back up your words with experience so why should I take you seriously?
The fact that you see your own life as irrelevant is neither here nor there because Jesus certainly would NOT have seen it as irrelevant - and (in case you forgot) - it's Jesus that you are preaching here. So if you are going to preach Jesus then you had better damn well get your house in order first. That's what he taught. You expect others to take your musings on Jesus seriously if you at the same time deny one of his basic principles regarding hypocrisy?
Originally posted by knightmeisterI don't know what you mean by 'not relevant' in this context.
The fact that an idea or concept can be taken and misused by individuals is not relevant because it works both ways.
I agree that ThinkOfOne was definitely over generalizing in his opening post when he said:
Thus "salvation by grace" Christianity is a subconcious means of "hiding from God."
As it is clearly incorrect and unfair to claim that all "salvation by grace" Christians are motivated in that way.
I similarly object when people over generalize about Athiests and thier motivations - as you appeared to do in one of your threads where you claimed that a significant number of atheists were reacting to bad experiences with religion in thier past.