Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by jayleew, Nov 19, 2012.
That statement is an ideology. Ideology is everywhere.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
From yours or my perspective, yes, but we can't determine what is or isn't truth with them.
So a rejection of the truth is self-condemnation, whether we know what truth is, or not.
Yes, I speak in defense of the Bible and theism, although not Christianity, so yes, in this respect alone I am an apologist. The term does not necessitate any particular belief. But you have claimed that I was a Christian, otherwise I have no idea what you mean by claiming I believe in the Christian god. You are only backpedaling after finally realizing how ridiculous it is to paint someone with a belief they do not actually hold.
Ah, typical evasions of atheist apologetics. The problem is that your literal/figurative equivocation of hell is empty. You will find as many, if not more, reference to hell as either being a state or a general place of the deceased as you will a literal place of torment in these references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell#Abrahamic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_Hell
In terms of hell being a state of separation from god, which the above links and many people support, people who reject Jesus are directly condemning themselves to that separation. Get that? Those who reject god are necessarily separating themselves from god. Very simple. You have not supported your claim that hell must be a literal place, and now you are backpedaling from your own example of rape, seeing how you have completely embarrassed yourself. Your rape example was the straw man tangent here. Quit projecting.
I did not say "you think otherwise", I said "any thinking otherwise". I described a garment, and you apparently have claimed it fits you just fine. That is none of my doing.
Where have you once made ANY reference to the book (bible) other than the scriptures others have spoon fed you? Every argument of yours has been in comparison to your own world, where the comparable discussion of a work of fiction always accepts its world as given. There is no question of whether a fictional character is real because there is no dispute that a modern work of fiction is just that.
You are too myopic to see that if you accept the world of the bible as given, just as in any discussion of a fictional work, then you accept the premises of that world, and completely kneecap you earlier argument:
Clearly, the rejection of Jesus (remember, there is a context to this discussion) is also the rejection of the premise of "believe in Jesus or burn forever." So it can't even be said that unbelievers were choosing between Jesus and hell; they were rejecting the premise outright. -Balerion
This is like trying to discuss Homer's Odyssey and insisting the Greek gods had nothing to do with it. You are hardly discussing the Odyssey at all. Just empty and tired atheist apologetics.
Free will necessitates a causality in which people are subject to the consequences of imprudent choices.
There you go again, making ridiculous assertions that you know the beliefs of others better than they do. Do you claim to be psychic too? If you have not employed a single fallacy then why have you completely failed to justify any of them?
Only in the mind of a bully. A fideist bully, at that.
Oh, come on. Having some expertise in referencing the Bible and commenting on the verses does not make one a Christian, much less an apologist.
Because that is how a fideist bully thinks.
Hmm... where to start!.
Clearly, both you and Balerion are looking at this from your own personal perspectives, a clear case of not respecting the scripture, or more to the point, the context
which these verses are placed. That is the equivalent of coming out of a Superman movie saying what a load of crap, no human can fly by himself, in the earth or out in space, thereby missing the whole point of the movie. IOW, your personal belief or opinion is of no real importance with regard to what is said.
1. It say's ''they are condemned already for not believing in the NAME of God's one and only son. His NAME was already prophesied by the prophet Isaiha:
Isaiha 7.14. Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel .
The word ''Immanuel'' means ''God is with us. So if one doesn't believe that God is with us, then one acts as though God doesn't exist. This action is what condemns us.
2. What do you mean by ''believe in Jesus''? Can you actually describe that action?
What is belief?
Earlier I described your and Balerion's attitude as coming out of a Superman movie exclaiming how crap it was because everyone (or any rational person) knows that humans can't fly, unaided, in the earth what to speak of outer-space. If this were to occur it would be based on your own belief. But while seemingly correct in your understanding, you would be missing the whole point of what the director had in mind, and would miss out on some essential things.
Believing the Bible is not the point here, because if you don't believe, nothing is going to change that until you change your position. What is important however, is the context.
If you are being honest, then you will understand the context, otherwise you will disregard it, already an act of ones own self-condemnation.
Coming back to my point, there are 2 types of belief: One which lies at the forefront of our conscious awareness, i.e. I believe for the sake of the film that Superman can fly, or I believe in God because it seems like a better deal than not believing, or because my parents believe. And the other one which is the basis for every single thought and action.
The underlying reasons for why consciously do things. The latter, we cannot identify with our brains, because we are already immersed in it, and cannot step out of it the way we can step out of the former. I regard this as the sub-conscious awareness (for want of a better description)
Jesus (Immanuel) made a claim. He said: “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
Now we know he didn't mean light as in ''sunlight'' or something to improve ones eyesight. So according to Strongs Concordance dictionary, that leaves the other option:
...Which falls in line with his NAME (Immanuel: meaning God is with us). The latter of the two descriptions of ''belief'' I gave would be conspicuous in the way of those that heard
the words of Jesus would understand what he was saying, and know that to be truth, while the former would not understand it, but make a decision on whether or not it is truth by their own understanding.
3. That is former belief thinking. Trying to make sense of something you haven't quite grasped, and convincing yourself that it is un-graspable.
4. Because you've reasoned it into being so.
''Christian'' is nothing more than a title.
Read this, it's very interesting.
You, of course, have perfect understanding of everything, and you are to be worshipped as God.
A big fat Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! to you.
Keep your patronizing bullshit to yourself.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
See it like that. All I did was respond to your ''bully'' assertion. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Jesus did not say that. He did not speak that language.
That is an English translation of a Greek wording of a secondhand version of an alleged quote from an alleged prophet who may or may not have been named Jesus. The original language, if all the allegations are somehow (and unlikely) accurate, probably would have been Aramaic. Reading such a distant and dubious phrase closely for its original subtle metaphorical content is an exercise of faith difficult to defend by reason.
The modern Christian invents the Jesus they need. There's nothing wrong with that, but likewise no reason for self-deception.
It doesn't really matter, as we are using the Bible to decipher the meaning of a biblical phrase.
But outside of that, the quote is line with other scriptural injunctions regarding similar types of characters.
It doesn't matter as long as no self-deception is involved - as long as you take responsibility for who you decide your prophet should have been, and what he or she should have said.
What you're doing is merely interperetation and extrapolation.
That is not the same as sabda.
Not to worry. The indwelling Holy Spirit is necessary to truly grasp the written Word of God--and It's central theme: God's plan for the ages accomplished thru The Word of God Incarnate, Jesus Christ. The written Word is as alive as the Incarnate Word. It's ability to impart life is also consistent with Christ. Possession of the Incarnate Word by faith brings with Him the Holy Spirit, by which you will be able to understand The written Word.
The Truth is found totally and completely in the Person of Jesus Christ. If it is HIM you truly seek after, to know and learn from Him, your desire will be granted.
I always worry about gods plan
Did this gods plan include us, in the sense that we Humanity had a voice in writing up this plan?
Worrying belies lack of trust without which no relationship is possible.
In the sense that humanity's representative is the God-Man Jesus Christ, yes.
But Jesus is the son of God
He is NOT a representation of Humanity, no one person could be
He is the Son of God, and He is humanity's Representitive.
Separate names with a comma.