14 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhitehead============================
Not at all.
[b]I notice, you are still evading Jesus telling His disciples to [b]"rejoice" that their names were recorded in the heavens.[/b]
I am not evading it. I am pointing out that both of us know perfectly well that that verse took no part in your decision. If you deny it then you are a liar.
My decision was based on the realization th ...[text shortened]... er will save you from being condemned to being made a eunuch and forced to serve Venus?
I am not evading it. I am pointing out that both of us know perfectly well that that verse took no part in your decision. If you deny it then you are a liar.
=================================
The point is that Jesus would not tell His disciples to "rejoice" in something that He considered a selfish act against His own teaching.
==============================
So all your verses and excuses were just attempts to sidetrack me.
==============================
I think you are sidetrackting yourself.
You thought you were being clever. Ie. "If this man wants to be saved, that is so selfish that he is acting against the teaching of Jesus."
Meanwhile Jesus is teaching His disciples to "rejoice" that their names are recorded in the heavens.
==============================
You are mistaken if you think that I manufacture clues. I am a reasonably honest individual and believe what I say most of the time. I do look for and think of good arguments against your position, but I do not 'manufacture' them. I genuinely believe them to be valid arguments. This is quite in contrast with most theists I argue with about religious matters - they readily concoct things they don't believe to support their position - and usually when it is pointed out, they admit as such.
============================================
You concocted a silly argument which I think you are still trying to rescue.
There is no way you can demonstrate that the desire to be redeemed by the Redeemer is too selfish as to be against the Redeemer's teaching.
==================================
And why do you think he did that? Was he insane? Or is it possible he didn't know the choice was available?
==============================
I don't know what Judas's problem was. Perhaps he cared more for how he looked to man than how he looked to God.
I pointed out the disingenuity of his show of effection to Jesus, with a hidden agenda to destroy Him.
It reminded me of someone saying "But if you wish to have you name recorded in the book of life, you are being too selfish and therefore contrary to the teaching of Jesus."
This strikes me as not genuine, off the hip, a slip shod, quick and clever argument against the Gospel.
My only question now is how much effort you will put forth to save face. That is to show your bit of cleverness has some substance to it.
==============================
But I am not aware of it, so I can not make a choice.
===============================
You are not aware of what ?
You are not aware of John 3:16?
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone who believes into Him would not perish but have eternal life."
You want to fine security in an attitude - "But I don't believe God exists. I don't believe God loved the world. I don't believe that God sent His only begotten Son. So no offer has been made to me."
I think instead of seeking security in ignorance or in not having been offered a choice, it would be better to seek security in the only begotten Son of God. The Person of Christ is the best security and the best enjoyment.
=============================
If he did exist and asked me then yes I would probably tell him that, but then he would probably know it already.
===================================
So you have two refuges. One is the this God doesn't exist. The other is that if He does He already knows something.
I think your best refuge is in neither of these positions but in the living Person of Christ. He is eager to come into your heart as the life giving Spirit.
You said before that you and I both knew something. Well I say now to you, I think you know that there is power behind the name of Jesus. And I think you would stay clear of the event horizon of stepping out on faith and asking the Savior Jesus to cleanse you of all your sins and come into your innermost being.
I hear atheist compare Jesus to the Pink Unicorn and the Spaggetti Monster. But I think they realize that there is power in the name of Jesus.
I think that something deep within you realizes that there is a difference and that there is something lurking in the name of Jesus.
I expect you to deny this. So deny it as a good atheist would. Go ahead.
============================
Except that now I read your question more carefully I see you have subtly changed the scenario. The question is not whether or not an offer has been made, but whether or not I have made a choice on the matter. My claim is that I cannot make a choice on a matter that I am not aware of.
===================================
Not aware of what ?
======================
Since I doubt you can see it yet, let me ask you this:
Have you decided to reject Plutos offer of a knighthood in his 7th Kingdom?
Do you think any protestations of not being aware of the offer will save you from being condemned to being made a eunuch and forced to serve Venus?
==============================
More cleverness.
Every atheist also thinks he is very clever.
14 Jul 10
Originally posted by jaywillI think I understand you now. It seems I totally misunderstood what you were getting at.
I think you are sidetrackting yourself.
You thought you were being clever. Ie. "If this man wants to be saved, that is so selfish that he is acting against the teaching of Jesus."
Meanwhile Jesus is teaching His disciples to [b]"rejoice" that their names are recorded in the heavens. [/b]
You concocted a silly argument which I think you are still trying to rescue.
There is no way you can demonstrate that the desire to be redeemed by the Redeemer is too selfish as to be against the Redeemer's teaching.
And it seems you misunderstood me too. I wan't trying to demonstrate that in the first place. I never claimed it nor argued it. I said the way you talked about wanting your name in the book of life sounded selfish. I didn't even claim that it was.
I think you would not dispute that Jesus taught against selfishness in general.
I don't know what Judas's problem was. Perhaps he cared more for how he looked to man than how he looked to God.
I pointed out the disingenuity of his show of effection to Jesus, with a hidden agenda to destroy Him.
So you don't actually know whether he was aware of the choice, so hes a rather bad example.
Do you have any genuine examples?
You are not aware of what ?
You are not aware of [b]John 3:16?
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone who believes into Him would not perish but have eternal life."[/b]
I do not believe it to be true, so yes, it its content is genuine then I am not aware of it.
I think instead of seeking security in ignorance or in not having been offered a choice, it would be better to seek security in the only begotten Son of God. The Person of Christ is the best security and the best enjoyment.
Better if God existed, but he doesn't. That is what you just don't seem to get. You seem incapable of seeing it from my point of view.
I think your best refuge is in neither of these positions but in the living Person of Christ.
I am not looking for refuges because I don't believe I need them.
You said before that you and I both knew something. Well I say now to you, I think you know that there is power behind the name of Jesus.
And I can assure you with all honesty that you are mistaken.
I expect you to deny this. So deny it as a good atheist would. Go ahead.
Your welcome.
But at some point you really need to consider the possibility that you are wrong about this. That your belief that all atheists are faking it is not well founded. That maybe, just maybe, some of us actually believe what we say.
More cleverness.
Yes it was clever, wasn't it? But did you get the point, or did my sheer awesomeness blind you to what I was trying to explain? Do you now agree that if you do not believe a offer has been made, you cannot make a decision on it?
Every atheist also thinks he is very clever.
I rather doubt that.
14 Jul 10
Originally posted by PinkFloydThanks, Pink Floyd. Seems as if little has changed in thousands of years...
Since the term was used first by the previous poster, this is only a guess. I believe he meant that a cultural Christian would be what we in the South call a Sunday-morning Christian. People who attend church regularly (usually a big church) to "network", to be seen--you know, going to worship for all the wrong reasons. The last survey I read indicated ...[text shortened]... hristian.
Of course, I could be wrong. The author may have meant something else entirely.
still about deceptiveness, ulterior motive and 'as seen in the eyes of men'.
......................................................................
================================
Yes it was clever, wasn't it? But did you get the point, or did my sheer awesomeness blind you to what I was trying to explain? Do you now agree that if you do not believe a offer has been made, you cannot make a decision on it?
==================================
I think you know too much.
"He who believes into Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed into the name of the Son of God.
And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil." (John 3:18,19)
By not believing into the Son of God the sinner abides under condemnation already. The choice is to believe so as to step out from condemnation.
You want to be taken as honest. I sympathize with you. At the same time I wonder why you do not sympathize with Christ. He has come in His love for each of us. The nails in His hands He bore for us. The nails in His feet He bore to save us.
In His our of trial when He was tempted to save Himself, His prayers were not for Himself but that we would be saved.
I wonder why you want all to see your motive is honest and pure, yet you will not see that love of Christ for you is honest and pure. No, instead the red flag seems to always rise up in you: "God is negative. God is a tyrant. If God exists He is an arbitrary dictator who cannot have my well being in mind."
You want to be taken as sincere in your unbelieef, honest in your refusal to trust God. It is sad that you don't consider the feelings of the Son of God "Who loved me and gave Himself for me".
It is very personal at the same time it is universal. God can do this.
It is difficult for the sinner to take refuge in ignorance. This is difficult from our perspective:
" ... rest with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven with the angels of His power, in flaming fire,
Rendering vengence to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.. They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His strength." ( 1 Thess. 1:7-9)
Maybe my interpretation of this passage is not perfect. But it seems that the ignorant "who do not know God" and/or "who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" are only awaiting "vengence."
I think the militant atheist seems included in both groups. He has not obeyed the Gospel of Christ and neither has he known God. At least according to this passage such a one may expect divine vengence on his head.
It is hard for a person like yourself to claim a loophole.
16 Jul 10
Originally posted by jaywillAnd belief is not a choice.
The choice is to believe so as to step out from condemnation.
At the same time I wonder why you do not sympathize with Christ.
I do, in the same way that I sympathize with Frodo Baggins.
I wonder why you want all to see your motive is honest and pure, yet you will not see that love of Christ for you is honest and pure. No, instead the red flag seems to always rise up in you: "God is negative. God is a tyrant. If God exists He is an arbitrary dictator who cannot have my well being in mind."
Because the evidence is all around me. I see suffering and pain every day. You claim God is capable of preventing that, yet he doesn't. A couple of nails and a bit of a show really doesn't go anywhere.
If Saddam Husein put on the same show, would you see his love as honest and pure?
You want to be taken as sincere in your unbelieef, honest in your refusal to trust God.
Not at all. Now you are loosing it. You have forgotten already that I do not believe in God. I have never refused to trust him.
I think the militant atheist seems included in both groups. He has not obeyed the Gospel of Christ and neither has he known God. At least according to this passage such a one may expect divine vengence on his head.
It is hard for a person like yourself to claim a loophole.
I do not claim a loophole. I do not want a loophole. I do however claim that I have not rejected the offer that you claim has been made to me.
You are so busy preaching that you are missing the point altogether.
16 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead"I do however claim that I have not rejected the offer that you claim has been made to me."
And belief is not a choice.
At the same time I wonder why you do not sympathize with Christ.
I do, in the same way that I sympathize with Frodo Baggins.
I wonder why you want all to see your motive is honest and pure, yet you will not see that love of Christ for you is honest and pure. No, instead the red flag seems to always rise up in m has been made to me.
You are so busy preaching that you are missing the point altogether.
Reject Christ... ipso facto you've rejected the gift, the ultimate relationship in time and eternity with Him.
16 Jul 10
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI have not rejected Christ. I cannot reject something I do not believe to be an option. That is my whole point, yet it seems too many people think a claim to atheism is a lie, that we are all closet theists, and worse, that we are all closet Christians. Are we all closet < insert your denomination here > as well?
Reject Christ... ipso facto you've rejected the gift, the ultimate relationship in time and eternity with Him.
16 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe only significant proposition and critical issue on planet earth is 'faith alone in
I have not rejected Christ. I cannot reject something I do not believe to be an option. That is my whole point, yet it seems too many people think a claim to atheism is a lie, that we are all closet theists, and worse, that we are all closet Christians. Are we all closet < insert your denomination here > as well?
Christ alone'. The play of our uncoerced volitions triggers eternal consequences.
16 Jul 10
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAnd how is that relevant to what I said? I don't understand what you are trying to express.
The only significant proposition and critical issue on planet earth is 'faith alone in
Christ alone'. The play of our uncoerced volitions triggers eternal consequences.
16 Jul 10
3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b] ========================
And belief is not a choice.
[b]At the same time I wonder why you do not sympathize with Christ.
I do, in the same way that I sympathize with Frodo Baggins.
I wonder why you want all to see your motive is honest and pure, yet you will not see that love of Christ for you is honest and pure. No, instead the red flag seems to always rise up in m has been made to me.
You are so busy preaching that you are missing the point altogether.
I do, in the same way that I sympathize with Frodo Baggins.
======================== [/b]
Are you suggesting that the New Testament was written purely for entertainment value ?
That's a neat idea. Let's pretend that the Greek New Testament and the Hobbit children stories are exactly on the same liturary level.
Frodo Baggins and Jesus Christ roughly the same thing.
I take it back now. You were being clever. Now you're acting either like ... well, either like a logical child or a severely illogical adult. I don't know which.
16 Jul 10
Originally posted by jaywillNo, I was suggesting that I treat Jesus as described by you as a non-existent character. This has nothing to do with my views on why the New Testament was written.
Are you suggesting that the New Testament was written purely for entertainment value ?
I take it back now. You [b]were being clever. Now you're acting either like ... well, either like a logical child or a severely illogical adult. I don't know which.[/b]
You are simply reading more into what I said than is actually there - probably just trying very hard not to get my point because it doesn't suit your atheist denial arguement.
19 Jul 10
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySolomon was right: There is nothing new under the sun.
Thanks, Pink Floyd. Seems as if little has changed in thousands of years...
still about deceptiveness, ulterior motive and 'as seen in the eyes of men'.
......................................................................
20 Jul 10
Originally posted by PinkFloydThat comment would impy that everything has already been discovered already(??)
Solomon was right: There is nothing new under the sun.
(amongst other things..hmmm).
Perhaps this subject may deserve its own thread. Does anyone agree? Or am I just off on another dead-end tangent?