God does indeed forgive, if you ask for it. But, this does not mean you get to escape the consequences of your actions. You still have to pay the penalty, and I don't think there are many "Christian Criminals" who think that they should get out of prison just because they converted. Most think they deserve their punishment. However, in God's eyes, cheating on your spouse or lieing to your father is just as bad as being a mass murderer - both demand Death and Hell - except for mercy through Jesus - you do indeed HAVE to believe.
David F.: God does indeed forgive, if you ask for it. But, this does not mean you get to escape the consequences of your actions. You still have to pay the penalty, and I don't think there are many "Christian Criminals" who think that they should get out of prison just because they converted. Most think they deserve their punishment. However, in God's eyes, cheating on your spouse or lieing to your father is just as bad as being a mass murderer - both demand Death and Hell - except for mercy through Jesus - you do indeed HAVE to believe. ************* M*W: Your post gave me something to think about, but my reply may not necessarily be in reply to your post. I believe that forgiveness is the most essential and rewarding feeling or emotion that we could possibly have. Forgiveness is a type of cleansing. Not only is it important to forgive others for what they have done or failed to do, it is most important that we learn to forgive ourselves for our own acts or omissions. Cleansing ourselves of negative acts increases our positivity. This experience isn't described by a particular church or faith, I believe it is the most powerful human experience next to birth and death. I also believe that this was an important belief that Jesus himself held. With that said, I wanted to comment on Texas prisons, not that I've experienced them first-hand nor have I experienced that infamous "ride downtown" as they call it, but I've had patients who've been there. It seems to me that prison is a place to become addicted to God and Jesus -- while on inmate status. I also know that there's not a helluva lot of stuff to do while in prison, and it seems that christianity plays an important role in helping these inmates kill time. There's probably not one other religion represented. However, I would surmise that there aren't too many incarcerated Jews or Muslims. Bibles are handed out freely and they have christian religious services every hour on the hour it seems. So, what have these prisoners got to lose? Not much. The big joke is that when their outdate comes, they walk out the back door a free man. Prison officials complained that bibles were being strewn all over the grounds outside the back door, so they wrote a statewide policy that barrel drums would be installed just outside the back door, so the first thing these guys do is toss their bible in the can! Now, you don't see many of these man retaining their faith once they leave the institution as they generally go back to whatever it was they were doing -- and it was usually drugs or alcohol or both. Is it the prisons that are propagating the christian agenda? If so, I would think that should be violation of Church and State. I fail to see where christianity truly converts these people on the outside. Of course, we all know that prison does nothing to rehabilitate an offender. All they do is trade one addiction for another! Christianity on the inside becomes the pacifier for the addict on the inside. I have an idea. Instead of giving these men and women something to occupy their time while they are incarcerated, it would seem to be just as easy to offer them some kind of non-denominational spiritual support to reach their core and help them understand the bounty within. Rehabilitation begins with the soul. When I taught medicine to medical students, I always told them that medicine is easy -- that there is only one dis-ease, and that is loss of the soul. Everything you will treat as physicians begins with healing the soul. Fortunately, now, some medical schools have included a course on spiritual healing. I hope I had a little part in bringing idea this to medical educators. Why is it that a high rate of convicts return to prison? What is it that they lack spiritually? Where do their souls need to be healed? I think it would free-up the prison systems and maybe offer some real hope to the repeat offenders. Because Texas courts are overwhelmed with drug cases, they take the convicted sentences lightly. Texas prisons are filled to 95% capacity with drug and alcohol related cases! Prisoners don't have to work if they don't want to says the ACLU, even though they would get double time for working! The sad think is that these people usually have nowhere to go when they're released, so they become refeat offenders to get back off the street. I don't see where christianity has helped any of them. They may talk it, but they don't walk it. Any comments?
For example: So I ate some sweets, even though I shouldn't. I did not eat them with the purpose to prove myself I have done something wrong. I did not eat those sweets with the purpose to "gather material tor eflect upon". I just couldn't help myself, they looked so tasty. I simply did it. But afterwards, I did feel bad. And then I didn't give in to self-pity or guilt or something. I have read and learned some other time before that sweets are bad for me. Instead of giving in to self-pity or guilt or something, I remembered what I have learned before, and that made me more convinced that I should not eat sweets again. Similarly, we can think and learn about sin before we actually find ourselves doing it. (And we likely will find ourselves doing it, at least once.) So that after we have sinned, we have our actual action to reflect upon -- but we can reflect upon it in a constructive manner, if we have prepared ourselves for that before. Such an informed reflection can efficiently stop us from sinning that same sin again. Also, there is a transfer between sins: one needn't try out all of them oneself to know they are wrong. Jenyar has already addressed that. James 2 Faith and Deeds 14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. Can you show your faith without the according deeds? Can you do deeds without having faith? 20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Hm. I could say the same to you ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It all starts from you saying We have only shown that wanting to have faith can be absurd. Look, it is very simple: If you want God's grace, you will do what you think has to be done. But if you are not sure whether you want God's grace -- then the problem is with you, not with God. Even an omnipotent God cannot give what someone doesn't know whether one wants or not. But you cannot make this sort of a deal: "I will do good works, but I refuse to believe in God, but I think I should receive God's grace anyway." No, you can't make such deals. And eventually, how will you know how to do good works, if you lack the faith? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. I am keeping it in mind. James 1 Trials and Temptations 2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3 because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. 4 Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6 But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a doubleminded man, unstable in all he does. And esp. for you: 12 Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him. It might require years of searching and torment for *you*; it might require many sleepless nights for *you*; it might require blood and guts from *you*. But know that this is *you*, and not some ideal potential Christian that you want to be, or so it seems. You strike me as thinking that *you* are the one designing your trials and having control over them. -- Trials don't work that way. You cannot be both your own experimentator and the experiment, your own tester and the test. But if you are so sure that you know differently -- that the Bible is wrong and that you were a true Christian -- then why are we having this conversation here? And so if you sin does that mean God is not helping you? Or will you say that the sinner is entirely responsible, creating a nice double standard since you claim it is God who helps us be sinless? Do you doubt that you have love? * * * But this only if that "something God does" is recognized and accepted as something God does. And whether it is recognized and accepted as something God does depends on faith. Now here we have a nice vicious circularity, or so it seems. But actually, most of our gathering knowledge works exactly by this "vicious circularity" -- which is actually nothing else but two-way inductive thinking. "Insight" or "elightenment" being the prime example of two-way inductive thinking. What happens in this kind of thinking is that one comes up with an explanation that is based on information that supports this very explanation. (The only "problem" with it is that it cannot be planned out in advance.) Yes, SouthStar -- did you give God a deadline?
It took some doing. Especially the faeces one, but I have to answer 'yes', also. That makes at least two of us. Does this not invalidate your entire argument SouthStar?
While we eventually seem to be able to will ourselves into certain affections and beliefs -- can we consider such affections and beliefs 1. autonomous 2. reliable ? Would you indeed be prepared to build your whole life on something for which you know that you have knowingly and deliberately willed yourself in, while it othwerwise appeared completely against everything you had believed until then? I don't think so.
Haven't I heard that the US government is worried because of the rampant Muslim conversion rate in prisons? They seem to be worried that the Muslims in our prison systems are training terrorists, within our own facilities???
Not yet. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Care to tell me HOW you did it? Anyone from the Philosophy thread knows where this is going.. P.S. Everyone else, I will answer tomorrow evening or later.
David F.: Haven't I heard that the US government is worried because of the rampant Muslim conversion rate in prisons? They seem to be worried that the Muslims in our prison systems are training terrorists, within our own facilities??? ************* M*W: Well, I haven't heard that one. I seriously doubt that there are that many Muslim convicts in Texas prisons. The ones who may be in there were probably affiliated with another Muslim they knew who knew of one or more of the 911 terrorists. In fact, the FBI interrogated the Muslim family that used to live next door to me. His wife was a caucasian American who told us her Pakistani husband knew someone who knew someone who knew Mohammad Atta. Shortly after that, he relocated his family to Egypt and he stayed here in Houston, but moved from next door. I don't believe that is so unusual because there seems to be something to the theory of six degrees of separation. But back to your question... training Muslim terrorists in our prison system just doesn't sound logical to me. However, I do believe that any Muslims who may be incarcerated will surely learn everything they ever wanted to about the sales and marketing of street drugs.
Yes, in the same way that seeing depends on perception -- recognition. We either trust what we see, or we don't -- faith. The process depends a lot on how and what we think of ourselves. And because we have no previous knowledge of ourselves, something to "know", we must rely on how we react on our environment to "see" who we are -- but it seems to be up to us whether we simply observe ourselves, like passive players in some determined game, paralyzed, or recognize our cognitive separation, or "free will", and compensate for it. But in a sense, we are already doing this. We have already formed certain affections and beliefs, and if we don't think we should (or may) change them -- for fear of inconsistency or pretense -- we are effectively asserting that they are 1)autonomous and 2)reliable. Can we accept who we have become, and not accept how we had become it? Are we to be a passive player, thinking of ourselves as an already painted picture, immortal that way -- a picture of Dorian Gray? "Reliable", "autonomous", but dying inside? Or do we look it in the eyes, take responsibility for our mortality and imperfections, and will ourselves to be beautiful? Shall we take the leap and see ourselves by faith, as something God does? Whatever we choose, we are consciously or unconsciously plotting a course for ourselves on which we will one day look back again, to say: "See? This is who I am! God made me this way; should I will myself otherwise?" I see people compensating for determinism and I see people compensating for freedom; some failing miserably and others failing joyfully -- but compensate we must.
Would you say then that it all comes down to what self-confidence a person has? And that eventually, when it comes to choosing a religion, it is not scriptorial/historical/etc. arguments for or against a religion, but one's self-confidence that determine whether one chooses a certain religion or not? There is an addition in my argument: "Would you indeed be prepared to build your whole life on something for which you know that you have knowingly and deliberately willed yourself in, while it otherwise appeared completely against everything you had believed until then?" But you make a good point: This addition -- while it otherwise appeared completely against everything you had believed until then -- is effective only if we take who we are, and how we have become it, as a fixed block, and most of all, if we take it for granted. If we see ourselves as some fixed blocks, then trying to will ourselves into anything that appears completely against everything we had believed so far, will seem to us as a pretense, yes. So declaring something as a pretense comes with declaring oneself a fixed block. I suppose this argument applies here: If we see ourselves as something that is achieved, completed (something done once, and then we "endure to the end"), and not as something that is built, it is only a matter of time before we break. However, the practical implication of this argument is immense: To conceptualize oneself as a process, as a life-long learner -- is a dangerously relativistic stance, to say the least. If one has to see oneself as a life-long learner, then one has to accept that one can be tomorrow something very different than one is today. I don't know how one could afford this. Afford this *without* some cynicism, that is. You are going too fast. EDIT: To a non-believer, what you are saying stinks of Pascal's Wager. How do you answer for that dilemma?
I would not say "it all comes down to" it, but nobody else is going to make such decisions for you; nobody can decide what you see; whether it is by faith or by some other process of observation -- it is *you* who see, and if you doubt yourself, you doubt everything seen by this *you*. Actual confidence or self-confidence is secondary; first you have to decide what you would trust -- where the *core* of trust lies -- within yourself and in others. If you trust nothing, you can believe nothing. And this is not only true for religion. Or are disillusioned, and become even less self-confident. We find that the harder we try to fortify ourselves, the less we are able to handle what life thows at us -- nature, life, is organic, and if we aren't growing, we're stagnating. But... Does that mean we are everything and nothing? I'm glad you raised the question. This objection -- fear of change -- is could be seen as a crack showing in our armour plating. Evidence that we realize our conceptions are threatened. We are lifelong learners, whether we accept it or not. We cannot unlearn (except by forgetting) and we cannot ignore our senses. Even in an information poor environment, people are dependent on the knowledge gained from ages of observation and conditioning. It is a process like walking is a process. Where we go might be considered "relative": we could go in any direction, if every direction is equally feasible. But being able to walk requires a spine; a body -- we're not built "relative". We can only go in one direction at a time. Nature makes that choice for us; a choice within which we have to operate. We were made for walking, but we adapt to the direction we take -- that does not mean our legs change into wheels, they only become stronger, doing what they are supposed to. And so once again, who we are -- or see ourselves as -- will "determine" which directions seem more feasible. And we gain confidence and momentum as we go. Cynicism is the opposite of that -- a moving without wanting to go anywhere. If we see our bodies or genetic make-up as the only "determining" factor, we can behave like animals without any further justification. If we see everything as relative, we will treat everything as relative. There are purposeless directions, but we do not have to take them. If we see ourselves only as a directionless process, it simply means we are not going anywhere. We have made no choices, and treat all choices are equal... at least in principle; it's easy to be cynical then. If we do act as if some choices are more acceptable than others, we are saying something about ourselves -- and reveal ourselves as consistent or inconsistent. And so we play our game. That we wager on ourselves in the first place, and that blaming our choice (or inability to choose) on Pascal or anybody else isn't going to solve anything. I don't think the two "wagers" can be separated. We don't want to be cynical, and I don't think it's easier to think of our lives as something formless and void, or rigid and cast in bronze (like Rodin's Thinker), than clay in God's hands. In God's hands we are neither void nor bronze; In our own hands we are everything or nothing -- a direction needs to be taken.
But how does one, how can one decide first, if self-confidence is to be secondary? Who is blaming anything on Pascal? That term, "Pascal's Wager" is just a practical term to denote a certain situation or state, the same as "flu" denotes a state a person may be in. But anyway. You think that we wager on ourselves in the first place? Due to "but nobody else is going to make such decisions for you; nobody can decide what you see; whether it is by faith or by some other process of observation -- it is *you* who see, and if you doubt yourself, you doubt everything seen by this *you*"? We did not put ourselves here, we did not give birth to us ourselves -- so some thinking has been done for us. What are we to do with that part on which we have no influence (at least no influence in the sense that we can't change it happened)? You are talking about believing in God as if it were a business transaction. Please don't forget that you were born into your religion, some choices were thereby made for you -- choices that you now think other people ought to do by themselves. Choices that *you* never had to make.
As much as I try to be flexible Jenyar, and really I do, I simply cannot see how the context of "Romans 9:30" somehow jumps to the book of John and then jumps to the book of Matthew. As I see from the dictionary, context the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning I don't believe either Matthew 6 or John 5 surround the words of Romans 9:30 so I can only infer that you are arbitrarily picking verses to support your theology. And so I must ask again, is there any contextual precedent whatsoever when you claimed for this verse in Romans that "the problem here is that they boasted with their righteousness -- and that was sinful." Let us recap quickly the dialogue: Jenyar: Faith does not forgive us of sin -- that is something God must do. §outh§tar: (I give a list, including Ephesians) Jenyar: Ephesians supports my point wonderfully. Now let us actually look at the structure of the verse in Ephesians 2 8For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9not of works, lest anyone should boast. And here is the challenge to any reader, ANY READER who understands anything about grammar to prove me wrong. I will reconstruct the sentence: 8For by grace you have been saved through faith (the gift of God), and not of yourselves (not of works), lest anyone should boast. As you can clearly see Jenyar, Ephesians 2:8 in fact does not support your statement that "faith does not forgive us of sin -- that is something God must do." In fact, I know not of any passage in the Bible supporting such a doctrine. I will also note that you have 'forgotten' to address the other verses which seem to be at odds with your statement, if you would care to address. Again, there is the question of context but I will not be priggish. I don't see anything in the context of Luke 17 about Jesus being asked to move mountains, where did you see that? Also, in order to not misinterpret, I need you to do more than list the verses since I do not see the correlation between those verses in Romans and either parable. So please explain the specific correlation between either parable and those verses for me. Let's not get ahead of ourselves; the existence of evil/good does not prove God and has actually been argued to be proof of the nonexistence of the Christian God. Evidential Arguments and Logical Arguments Note, I am not supporting any of the arguments provided in those links but I am saying you need to do a little more substantiation before making those kinds of universal statements. What of those who genuinely believe in being sorry and doing better by learning from their mistakes? Will they still be punished for genuine belief? What of those who see certain acts that Christians say are immoral as amoral (polygamy and slavery for instance)? Will they be punished too? Is this knowledge of sin (as you defined it) universal? You keep talking as if it is without providing any reason for doing so. I need to know your position and why before I can comment. This is the amusing double standard I spoke of. If I lost my faith, it is said it is my fault. If I kept my faith, it is credited to the omnipotent God. Saying I had to trust Him is the most criminally circular thing you can say. It was my faith that was in jeopardy therefore saying I didn't trust Him misses the point. I did not give Him a deadline. I only asked for wisdom for as long as I could keep on believing without lying to myself. Even after I admitted I could no longer believe, I STILL kept on praying and asking that somehow He would draw me back in. I wept with sadness. If after all that begging He gave me no peace shall He still find fault with me? There you go again assuming I did not trust Him. He WAS the focal point of my existence. I woke up to sing praises to Him, read my Bible, prayed, went to Church, went to preach the Gospel, ONE week before I deconverted I had made plans to leave everything I knew and become a missionary FOR LIFE. Do you really think a man who did not place his trust in God would do those things? And now you tell me that I let go of my faith! To say I did not trust Him is a tremendous insult and says a lot about what what you think of my sanity. Tell me then, how does one have hope, how does one have love, how does one believe?
As far as I know, eating sweets is not a sin and so the analogy fails. Besides that, to me eating sweets is not bad even though it may be bad to you. Therefore even if we are to respect the analogy and temporally consider eating sweets a sin, it is still not a sin to me. Jenyar too continues to treat sin as if it is some universal knowledge. Secondly, if one's knowledge of sin can be based on hearsay, then what reason can I have to trust my sources? I may trust them when they say sweets are unhealthy but that sweets are sinful? What reason can this source have to make people believe sweets are sinful, or that anything is sinful? Pascal's Wager, or threat of hell fire? Only if you consider Matthew and John to be in the vicinity of Romans 9:30.. To sum up the dialogue here: §outh§tar:Taken in context, this again attacks the Jews for striving to be better instead of just accepting "grace through faith" (which we have shown to be absurd). ["Context" refers to Romans 9:30-32"] water: I think you see it too rigidly. Read those verses on faith and works in James. §outh§tar:Which ones specifically (post them) and add why they show i am seeing it too "rigidly". As far as I am concerned, posting verses which are in direct contradiction with the ones I have posted is no way to build a good case water. Let us look at Romans 9:32 and the verse thereafter which Paul uses to defend his theology: 31but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law.[o] For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame." Let us juxtapose very quickly. Paul here in v31 says "they" (Israel) WHILE pursuing "the law of righteousness" failed because they sought it by the works of the law. It is perhaps necessary to backtrack a little to see what he means by this. Romans 3 27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. We see here that a man has to be justified by faith APART from the law. I cannot stress this enough: NOT by works but by faith. James on the other hand, claims faith WITHOUT works is dead. There is a clear and undeniable dichotomy. In fact, let us look at two further verses to show just how far apart these two theologies are: James 2 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."[g] And he was called the friend of God. 24You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Romans 4 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Note: BOTH authors use the same verse from Scripture and reach diametrically opposing points. I strongly recommmend taking a look at Paul Tobin's work on the dichotomy just so you can have a more organized presentation from which to draw your own conclusions. Therefore to try to 'disprove' me by showing a contradictory verse from the Bible really does not help your case. Why is it necessary to show faith (by deeds)? And yes I am a very slow learner.. How again did we reach the conclusion that if I want God's grace I will do what I think has to be done? Is this too not works? Why follow James when there is the superior Pauline philosophy? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Speak of the dev.. Is it deja vu or did I use this verse earlier to prove something else. Hmm.. it seems like even we used the same verse to reach different conclusions. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! In any case, as I said before contradicting my verse does not prove your point. And can you explain to me why I can't recieve God's grace even though I don't believe in Him. Also, how am I to be aware of such a requirement? If I don't believe the earth is flat, will my ship fall when it reaches the end of the ocean? Also I am not sure Ghandi had faith in the Christian God but didn't he have one or two good works? Didn't I make this argument in the other thread as well, that we must suspect if we can do anything if we don't know how? When I said I know differently, I was anticipating Jenyar's response where he would have the double standard of me being at fault if I lost faith, and God being responsible if I kept my faith. I say more about this in my reply to Jenyar so you can just read that. My text. It seems Jenyar 'forgot' to answer this as well, please help him out. I somehow doubt living in fear of unforgiven sin has anything to do with the question.. I do not know that I love voluntarily. You will do well to note this is a Fallacy of presupposition. Has also been addressed.
We'll have to wait a little until Jenyar comes back. But until then: SouthStar, do you think that a person who often, in public says about themselves, "I am good. I am trustworthy. I am honest." really is good, trustworthy and honest? Hm. First of all, where exactly is the problem? "Faith does not forgive us OF sin" or "faith does not forgive us sin"? Secondly, Faith is the gift of God. God is the one who forgives sins. You cannot forgive your sins. You cannot save yourself. Your works alone cannot save you. Your works alone cannot save you, but if you think they can, then you are boasting. You can be saved by having faith that you can be saved. If you could forge your own salvation, without God doing anything in the process -- then I suppose God would be quite redundant, and redundant from the beginning on. In short, if you think you can forge your own salvation, you effectively profess that you don't believe in God. But why then do you want salvation in the first place? I don't think that those who genuinely believe in being sorry and doing better by learning from their mistakes make a point of their genuine belief. I don't think those people talk much about their genuine belief in being sorry and doing better by learning from their mistakes -- as they feel that talking about it would betray it. Who says that?! And most of all: Faith is not some abstract object you *have*. Faith is something that is build, throughout your whole life. Faith is something to be lived. And this is done by you, God giving you the opportunity for it. Oh, Oprah. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I don't mean to make light of your suffering. You are having this conversation here, and many others, aren't you? Is this nothing to you? You shouldn't simply discredit everyday reality because it doesn't seem to have anything directly to do with your inner struggles. Then maybe this "God's withdrawal", as your present situation could be described, is your test. And it is not like you had been in this state of doubt for years -- so don't complain. A "tremendous insult"? If what some people say to you about your beliefs and unbeliefs, and you feel those are "tremendous insults", I dare say that you used to be (and partly still are) very, very proud of your belief. Boasting in it. Boasting with it. !! James 1 26 If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. One simply does. You do too. But for some reason, you are thinking those abilities away from yourself. For some reason, you seem to do as if you don't have them. *To me*, eating sweets equals a sin. My analogy stands. That sin IS, this is universal knowledge. What the particular contents of sin are, may vary. Eventually, you could discard ALL human knowledge, in any form, as hearsay. I'll repeat what Jenyar said earlier in this thread about self-confidence and believing things, deciding what to believe: /N/obody else is going to make such decisions for you; nobody can decide what you see; whether it is by faith or by some other process of observation -- it is *you* who see, and if you doubt yourself, you doubt everything seen by this *you*. Actual confidence or self-confidence is secondary; first you have to decide what you would trust -- where the *core* of trust lies -- within yourself and in others. If you trust nothing, you can believe nothing. And this is not only true for religion. I only need to observe myself. Cavities in teeth, cardiovascular problems -- the effects of eating a lot of sweets. If I don't care about cavities and my cardiovascular system -- okay, I won't care about the effects of sweets. But if I care about cavities and my cardiovascular system -- then I surely will care about the effects of sweets. The only problem, both with sweets as well as sin, is that the effects may take some time to show. Our bodies can handle small amounts of sweets, seemingly without damage. But the effects pile up as straws upon a camel's back: one straw may not seem like a lot, but eventually, there is the final straw that breaks the camel's back. This is why sin is so tricky: The potential full effect of it does not show at once, at the first sinning. So that others, like-minded perhaps, can recognize you. So that then you can "edify eachother" -- that there is made room for love. You are not alone here in this world, you know. We can go over this "20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?" a million times, with or without scriptorial reference. It is a position of evaluation that "simply has to be grasped". The same as there is no rational reason to believe that one ought to be kind or diligent, for example, there is no rational reason to believe that it is pointless to have faith and not act on it. I think this equation sums it up nicely: POWER = BELIEF X ACTION If you think about it, do you think it has merit to think this way? As for your being "rigid": Remember the "I hate crying" thread? There too, I said you were "rigid". I wish I had some *rational* argument to explain this -- but that's just the point: there is no rational argument against rigidity. There are only aruments of values and emotion -- and these are either accepted or not. But eventually, any argument and its acceptance comes down to matters of values and emotion. We reached it by insight. Ah. Do you want to be saved, or do you not want to be saved and think this whole salvation thing is just a lot of hot air? There is an important difference between REFUSING to believe in God and SIMPLY NOT BELIEVING in God. In both cases, one does not believe in God, this much stands. But if one REFUSES to believe in God, then thereby one professes to have reasons against believing in God. And if one has such reasons -- then why would one want God's grace anyway? It seems to me that some people wish to get to Heaven through the back-door. If one SIMPLY DOESN'T BELIEVE in God ("simply doesn't believe" -- I couldn't find another phrase for that), but cannot identify reasons for that unbelief, or has reasons that have nothing to do with God -- then I think this person is still elligible for God's grace. You are to be aware of that requirement by distinguishing between refusing to believe and simply not believing. We "have it implanted in our hearts that we can tell right from wrong". We have the ability, regardless of time, race, culture, to compare deeds and decide whether one is right or wrong. Instead, you are presenting Christianity as some country club, for card-carrying members only. As if they had monopoly over what exactly is right and what is wrong, as if they had an obligatory list of what is wrong and what is right. You seem to have completely ignored the part when I said: Alright. Please answer the question: If you sin, does that mean God is not helping you? If God indeed were as Christianity says He is (good, just, loving), would this mean that you would not sin? You do not know that you live voluntarily, either. It all depends on where you *direct* your love, or your life. This -- where you are directing it: this you can see, and steer.
I don't know that this information is enough for me to make a sound judgement. I don't know if any amount of information (at least as far as hearsay goes) will suffice for proper judgement. I never claimed salvation by works did I? I don't know that I need salvation, except for hearsay. I want to believe, but who must I believe and why? Certainly can't trust myself since I am a depraved sinner, but who will I trust? Another sinner? Or someone who claims to no more be a sinner? How can I trust them? I am trying to coincide everything we have been talking about in the other threads so forgive me if I seem to be rehashing. This thread raises the question of is it possible to will yourself to believe? But we must now ask, given a good amount of evidence that someone is trustworthy, is it possible to will myself to trust them? I doubt so. Can I will nagging thoughts away? No. If I wanted to could I will nagging thoughts away? No. That is something far from my 'conscious' ability and therefore we must concede that trust too is beyond our capability. This will make a bit more sense if you have read my other post first. We cannot assume it is a conscious sorrow. I cannot want to be sorry for certain things I have done and received criticism for. We can also not assume it is a conscious betrayal, a result of talking about it; there is no reason to assume this causality and we are in no position to do so. I am sure they had no say in whether or not they wanted to believe in being sorry. Free will territory is a mile wide and an inch long. And how they love going in circles.. Wow, you've really gone hook line and sinker for this "be all you can be" philosophy. Can I want to have faith? Do I know how to build faith? Do I know how to get faith? Even if I did, is it not based on hearsay? Is that too not faith? Does that not imply I am immersing my self in this same "vicious circle"? That's not why I am suspicious of your "everyday reality". I am incapable of trust; do you know how to trust? Can you tell me how?. Ignorance is bliss they say. God's withdrawal as a test would be quite weird. The One I placed my entire trust in, the One who knew beforehand what my response to His 'withdrawal' would be, for Him to hide Himself and then punish me in Hell for all eternity for my reaction (as if I wanted to react that way) is beyond my comprehension. I would understand how losing trust could be my fault if circumstances were different, but the fact is, I did not want to lose trust; my "will" was of no consequence. Let us take this verse in context. My translation reads "If anyone among you considers himself religious...". As far as my intelligence reports, I am not part of the you James is speaking to. If we are to be honest with ourselves, I cannot be the audience ("you") of 2000 years past James spoke to. Otherwise, if we are to interpolate fancifully, "you" still refers to the body of believers, which we say I am not a part of. Also, when we take the phrase "tremendous insult" it does not refer to a hurt ego, but rather to his monumental misunderstanding (and that's putting it mildly) of just how much faith I put in God. Thus we may say the insult is to my previous 'state' and is of no consequence to myself now. You are being drawn into the circle as well water, be careful. How do you know "one simply does"? So sin is now subjective. I see. So the omniscient God who knows before hand what sins we will commit has resolved to create our individual ideas on sin which He knows very well we cannot live up to. But wait, after failing, we are going to burn in Hell for all eternity for what we were predisposed to. Nice. Why do you assume sin is universal knowledge? To quote you, "the cognitive pattern" is to assume sin is not universal knowledge until proven otherwise. That is the problem it is human knowledge. Even when we try to apply this to the divine, it is still human knowledge Jenyar is in love with skirting the issue. So far, all I have heard is how the responsibility lies on the believer and nothing about the consequence. It will seem like I keep repeating myself, but it is not my fault. Decisions are NOT made consciously. Why people keep assuming that is really beyond me. Even if it is 'socially acceptable' or whatever to believe so, it does not mean that this is the best alternative to 'hopeless determinism'. The argument for this is self defeating. And if you are going to make a self defeating argument, then why argue at all? When I willed myself to trust the Pastor's message, I trusted the pastor's message. Is there a better example of a cum hoc ergo propter hoc? Even if I was to assume like others (and without valid reason), that I could consciously choose to trust someone and the end result would be that I indeed did trust that someone, you (plural) are ignoring the end result, which is I will be punished in torment for all eternity for my choice. I don't know about you, but this doesn't seem very much like free will is the "better, more positive outcome". Most people (not necessarily me) in fact, would argue that free will in this system implies "do what you don't want to/do what someone else wants you, or else you will burn for all eternity". How any rational person can associate this with free will is beyond me. Sin is actually not like that. It is not the piling that damns you, just one sin and you're out of the ballgame. In fact, we can infer from Scripture that we are born in sin. Therefore there is nothing tricky about it, or nothing to avoid, since you are born a sinner and born with predispositions to certain sins. Again, how any sane person can associate this with the "better, more positive" free will is beyond me. So that others, like-minded perhaps, can recognize you. So that then you can "edify eachother" -- that there is made room for love. You are not alone here in this world, you know. We can go over this "20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?" a million times, with or without scriptorial reference. I must object again. Let us not assume there is some conscious embracing of a position. In fact, I would argue the "unconscious" has already made up its mind whether or not we are to believe something before we ourselves (the conscious) have made the false pretense of thinking it over carefully. Why we give so much credit to ourselves, I don't know. This is why I protest when we do not factor God's 'responsibility' into the equation, He has some control (if we are to be honest, full control) over what our predispositions are. I think this is another cum hoc ergo propter hoc. We must first establish whether we are in any position to assume/know that belief is the precedent for action. For in doing so, we must then concede that action is the precedent for belief, an admission which immerses us in yet another circle. Just as you didn't choose to think I was being rigid, I didn't choose to think 'I hate crying'. Which is why we must avoid oversimplifying by factoring in predisposition. That said, it cannot be either you accept it or not as if we can choose to accept something. Whose insight? Who initiated (in the truest sense) that insight? Note: These questions are to be answered separately. But I have not said I refuse to believe in God. If I had, I would have responded as I have before that I cannot refuse to believe in something that does not exist. But I have not done so, have I? In fact, to make my position clear: I am only an atheist in the sense that I have strong reasons for doubting Christian theology. Let it be noted to all that I have not flat out rejected it, rather, I have declined to put it as my everything and my all. If the Jesus of Christianity wants me 'back', who am I to refuse? To say there is no God however, is to say all the indescribable emotions I have felt either stem from insanity or a bad case of misattribution. I am not ready to accept this. You see, Christianity disagrees with you. It is: believe or don't believe. Of course, even you see that is gross simplification, but that is the Gospel truth. The Bible offers no middle ground. Even if we are to discuss independent of Christian theology, I don't know how you arrived at that supposition. For one, I wouldn't say "we", as several characters through history had not demonstrated society's standard of morality. As for saying morality is "implanted" that presumes more than we can chew, I am content with saying the capability is there. Please 'dumb it down' for me. I am not sure what you are getting at. Sometimes the eyes burn hotly but we see nothing. James 1 13Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. 16Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. 17Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. 18Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures. To point out the inconsistency here: Note that since God brought us forth by the word of truth that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures, then we are, at least were at one point, a 'good and perfect gift from above'. Now I am not sure how we can reconcile that with Paul's teaching of original sin. If we are original sinners, then God is responsible. In fact, any way we look at it, taking responsibility from God is taking his omnipotence away from Him; in effect, saying 'God, we can do something you can't. So much for being omnipotent'. Even James says: James 1 5Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that." 16But now you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. To take this in context, James is saying "Do not claim anything is of your own doing, rather attribute it to God, for it is His will for you to "do this or that". Therefore we must attribute all responsibility to God. If I steer it, then He is not omniscient.
I apologize for the delay. I am surprised at your response. Stunned. Personally, I intuitively discard a person who often, in public says about themselves, "I am good. I am trustworthy. I am honest." Those who truly are good, trustworthy and honest do not talk about it often, and in public. I believe one should beware of people who profess themselves to be good people. No, you haven't. But you have also said how it is impossible to have faith by willing it. This way, salvation seems completely out of reach for you. Could you say that you *want* salvation though? If you simply ask yourself, without thinking what you should or should not want -- could you say that you want salvation? This is odd. If you want to believe, then you also must have some idea of *what* it is that you want to believe. Or, there is something else behind your wanting to believe. I mean no pun, but I know from personal experience that "wanting to believe" can be a compensation for something else, for something that does not directly have something to do with religious faith. You give yourself no positive credit. See your loop: You cannot trust yourself because you are a depraved sinner. You therefore need an external authority whom you can trust. But since you are a depraved sinner and you cannot trust yourself, you cannot trust your understanding of whatever anyone tells you. So whatever anyone tells you is of no use to you anyway. So it would take a miracle for you to believe. But if a miracle would happen, you would doubt it -- because you doubt yourself, you would doubt the miracle because you would think you saw wrong, depraved sinner that you are, and unable to trust yourself and your own judgement. I think I have thought this way for some two or three years. But I don't think that way anymore. What happened, what have I done? I can't say, there is no recipe, no plan. Simply put, I got tired of thinking that way. But you cannot will yourself to become tired of something, it just has to happen. Then tell me what does it take that you would consider someone as trustworthy -- what should this person be like? No problem, I think it is good that way, very good. I am following, as you can see. No. You are forgetting something very important. For our reason to work properly, it needs data. Data takes time and energy to gather and analyze it. We only have a limited amount of time and energy. So we, forced by the immediacy of life (for we must eat and all that), act. Act somehow, even though we know we have not collected all the data that we could or think that we should have. This lack of data we compensate for with trust. We cannot but trust, whether we are aware of this trust or not. How much we trust (whether we end up abulic or acting on blind faith) and what we think about our trust, how we evaluate it -- this is what actually is the issue when we are talking about trust. So this is what we ought to talk about. You just said, "God, give me patience, but make it quick!" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You are capable of trust. You just don't see it. Yet. And you don't trust your trust. Every irrational thing that you do or believe is not trust yet; but trust defnitely is irrational. When you tie your shoelaces, you then forget about them, and you *trust* the knot won't become undone. If you wouldn't trust, you'd be checking your shoelaces all the time. Yet when they do become undone, this surprises you, at least a little, doesn't it? Not to take this example too far; but we act on some trust all the time, whether we like it or control it or are aware of it -- or not. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHETHER YOU WILL END UP IN HELL. Right now, times may be hard. But you don't know whether you will get to hell or not -- until you actually get there. If you believe in the Christian explanation of hell, then you will see where you'll come after you die here. But as long as you are alive, you do not know what is going to happen then. To have it your way: NOW, you are not part of "those James is speaking about (with the fanciful extrapolation)". But ONCE IN THE PAST, you considered yourself to be part of those. It was that time IN THE PAST that you put all your trust in Him. And for THAT TIME IN THE PAST, the verse from James does apply to you. Let's remind you that you now don't have the faith you had once, and that that "tremendous insult" was directed at that faith that you had once. So that verse from James applies. It is of consequence to yourself now. That insult was directed at your "previous state", and your reaction shows (reaction: you felt insulted) that you were (back then) going against that verse in James, you were boasting with your faith. And you were boasting with your faith, this is the bad thing about it, the bad thing whose consequences we can see *now*. That you took insult, and the way you took insult, helps us to reconstruct what went on in your past. And what went on back then lead to what is now. I trust myself that way. I know it hurts. But don't be cynical. Human societies, I think all of them, have the concepts of "good" and "bad", or "good" and "evil". They discern between "right" and "wrong". The actual contents of these concepts may vary throughout societies, but the fact that these concepts are present testifies of that certain distinction being made between phenomena. We cannot use cognitive patterns ad lib, and apply them whenever we find it convenient. Yes, so it is, in a nutshell. Decisions are made consciously, they just take more time than you are willing to admit at the moment. You are looking at trust and deciding statically, as if trust were something that can be declared and accepted, just like that. I know this well; I had "friends" who declared that they are my friends, and then they expected me to think them friends, even though they did nothing that would, in my estimation, justify calling what we had "friendship". The other option besides mechanically declaring and accepting trust is to not trust at all. And you seem to be wandering between these two extremes -- as if these two extremes (and some unindetifiable in-between) is all there is. What did we say about the circles of thinking -- and how we can enter a new, bigger circle only after the smaller one cannot accommodate us anymore? And you do not believe in forgiveness, or what? The "theory" of sin is part of Christianity, and the "theory" of forgivenes is also part of that same Christianity. Meaning that you have to apply both the "theory" of sin as well as the "theory" of forgiveness if you want to be true to Christianity. It will come. Things take time. No. What is really troubling you, and I think you can see it, is that "consciously embracing a position" looks as if it were a one-time act. And it is so: but only if we observe it in retrospection. The perspective we choose to view things does change the way we see them: whether we observe someting ex post or ex ante makes a difference in what we actually see. While if we are in the present, we may be *in the process of* "embracing a position", and we are doing it consciously (we can observe that we are weighing arguments), but until we have actually *finished* that process, we can't name it "embracing a postion" at all! While we are in this process, to us, it is just some shapeless thing that we are in; but what this thing is, we will be able to tell only once it is finished. What it is we can tell only after we have entered the bigger circle, and this we can do, only when we in fact can. Because as long as we are in the process, we are in some smaller circle, and we can assume that there will come a bigger one to accomodate us, but until we are so far, we cannot know what that bigger circle is. This is what it looks like, yes. But all this can be explained with your circles theory, or with the "holistic explosion", and it is reasonable to believe that all human knowledge is gained that way. We do it in retrospect, and from this, we gain confidence for future decisions. All-knowing does not mean all-controlling-and-exercising-this-control! Technically, this is true. But we do not always start everything from scratch. We do learn and remember things. And once we have learned and remembered things, this then can function as belief, and if we act on what we have learned and remembered, then this is action. You do not learn from scratch each morning how to brush your teeth, do you? Yes we do. Only that "I chose to accept something" is said in hindsight -- this is the factual part. What is problematic is "I will choose to accept something" -- this is the dogmatic part. Ours. (Yes, I know your objection.) They "were there", and we, due to holistic causality, "worked on those thougts". No, you haven't said that. I just felt I need to make it clear, as I often see it confused. I think that the way it was, they way you knew it, the way you were taught, it was not sufficient for you -- that's all. But this doesn't mean all faith and religion is lost and over for you. "A bad case of misattribution" would be if you were to think that God is that old man with a beard. But if we have no clear-cut definition of God, then we can also hardly speak of misattributions. Ah. Oh. What is that about perseverance and character and hope?! What does the Bible say about that?! And as for Christians who tell you there is no "middle ground": Fuck 'em. If their Christianity consists of going around and pointing fingers, and being busy playing card-carrying country club members, then they aren't worth listening to anyway. Those people don't care about *you*, they only care about propagating what they think Christianity is, and you are merely an object in their play. They give you no credit whatsoever, they undermine the faith that you do have, and they treat you as if you were an uncapable mindless thing. It's not worth to be an object in someone's play. By experience. I am saying hat things take time. Tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime sometimes. Years. And blessed are those who persevere. You, on the other hand, seem to be viewing your faith as a school test, that actually has a school frame -- a something that is to be studied for a week or two, and then absolved, and then you have the grade written in your report, and that's it. On top of it, you want to be the one who writes your own test, and grades it (as if you were the teacher), and then, somehow, you are to put yourself into the role of the student and solve the test. In other words, you are assuming you already are in that bigger circle, while you, at the same time, see that you are still in the smaller one. No. I want you to answer those questions as *you* see fit, don't give me some Bible quotes. No. You are allowing for only these options: Either 1. God does it all, and we are puppets. 2. We do it all, but then God has his fun punishing us. If 1, then we could also have no knowledge of God -- as entities, in order to be puppets, do not know they are puppets, and so for them, there is also no puppetmaster: it is the puppets who think it is only them and nobody else. 2 is just negativistic wishful thinking. Note that 1 and 2 can be mixed up though, into a hellish brew called relativism. No. Your reading is a possible reading, certainly, but I think you are going into extremes. The way I read that passage, it says, "You can't rule over circumstances. [Sometimes it looks like you can. But this should not make you presumptuous.]" No. Omniscient does not mean all-controlling-and-exercising-this-control!
I don't want to distract from Water's answer, so I'll try to keep this concise and to the point. Paul's argument, from Romans 9, in (the immediate) context: XI - CAPTION verses: The place of the Jews in this overall redemption. 9: 1- 5 DEVELOPMENT Para.: Israelites who are the children of promise inherit. 9: 5 - 14 CONCLUSION: Their redemption is entirely by grace 9:14. Verse 9:14 is then a new Caption to 9:14-10:21 XII - CAPTION verse: Their redemption is entirely by grace 9:14 DEVELOPMENT Para.: The redemption of the Israelites will rest, as it always has, on the same basis God makes available to all 9: 14 - 10:21 CONCLUSION: They have rejected the grace of God 10:21 XIII - CAPTION verse: Has God then rejected them? 11:1 DEVELOPMENT Para.: They inherit on the basis of grace and faith, as do all. 11: 1- 10 CONCLUSION: Rejection of that basis leads to hardening of the heart. 11:10 XIV - CAPTION verse: Rejection of grace leads to a hardened heart. 11:10 DEVELOPMENT Para.: God will fit even that into their final redemption. 11: 10 - 36 CONCLUSION: The mystery of grace triumphs over all 11:36 Now we briefly summarise what remains. If salvation has always depended on faith and if the promises are only ever made to faith, was Israel deceived when God gave her the Law? ... as though He misled her thereby into believing that her acceptance depended, not on faith at all, but on works? "No," says Paul, "God did not deceive her. Her own pride deceived her." That is the burden of 9:30 - 10:21. That is why Paul brings in Deut. 30:11-14, where Moses testified to the Israelites that the commandment was not too hard for them, nor so high as to be unreachable. "It is very near you," he told them, "in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it." In the context of those chapters, the whole point is that obedience was possible to them because of the living presence of the living God in their midst; if they believed in Him Who was so near to them, nothing would be impossible to them. And all Paul does is press home that same truth to the Christian by saying, "God is just as present to you ... in the person of Christ in the heart."Source: Plan and argument of Romans. Faith is not an entity -- "it" cannot forgive. Capiche? God forgives, and God alone. Who does He forgive? Whomever He chooses. How do you know whether you are one of those chosen, "elect"? By faith, not by works. Thus: Election is based on faith, not works. Now. What is our response to God's grace -- to this realization above? What does this "faith" look like? This is where James comes in. Faith without works is an empty skin; it's not the kind of faith that recognizes God's election. It doesn't have God's Spirit "in it". Not to put too fine a point on it, but Paul is aware of the gospels, and expounding on Jesus' teaching. So Romans is in context -- the context of Jesus teaching; in this case, Jesus words in Luke 17 are relevant. I'll try to work in the verses I haven't addressed. Jesus explains that grace is over and above any compensation for our duty (which Paul calls 'works'). Doing our duty merely fulfills our contractual obligations, it does not bring us anything of redeeming value, any "reward". Therefore, boasting is excluded (Romans 3:27-28). In Matt. 20:9-15 Jesus explains that the rewards for doing our work is already generous, but that it will be the same for everyone. Determined. The way justice determines suitable punishment. You are not "destined for hell", 'sinners' are: those who have AWOL'ed and broken contract; and those who were born 'out of contract' and would have been excluded from its promises. It is the realization that there is such a contract -- such a constitution, bills of rights, such commandments -- that makes us act according to duty. But it doesn't restore the covenant that was broken, the trust that was broken. That is why God interevened. People were suffering unjustly, and were dying without hope. All they had was faith that a just God would see their suffering, and do them justice, and because they believed that justice would be done, they also acted accordingly: asked for forgiveness, and repented from wrongdoing. This is effective faith in God, which He credited as righteousness (Romans 4:5). But what would be the means of this -- the mechanism of justification? How can the contractual obligations be met by those who were born and lived outside it, if it wasn't possible by their own efforts? Through Jesus Christ (John 3:16; Romans 5:1). In him the law is contained, and his blood satisfies the demands of the contract. He is the requirement and fulfilment of all legal obligations, written in a person, not on tablets of stone or pieces of paper (cf. 2 Corinthians 3). He is the justification of our faith, and the expression of our duty: The Word of God. A living word that can forgive as God forgives, not a fixed law that silently condemns and can do no more. Jesus is the certainty of our hope, and the visibility of God (Hebrews 11:1). I didn't even bring God into the argument at this point, so who's getting ahead of himself here? If we feel any obligation to do good, it matters whether we think such obligations are decisive or not. If they're not, it's merely an arbitrary consideration -- if they are, what do we do with our guilt? Give ourselves over to the police? Why should anyone "genuinely believe in being sorry and doing better"? To satisfy their conscience? If there is no punishment anyway, it's just a personal way of handling things and no more. But if they have offended a real authority -- someone other than themselves -- then even the best intentions and most genuine beliefs won't make them innocent. What would the consequences be if our individual conscience were the only, or highest, authority? Even if we secretly believe it is, we certainly do not act that way. Morality is a set of standards within a culture, often a culture that has no specific, just, or otherwise consistent standards. Like a culture of slavery, or capitalism, or socialism. We might right now be part of a culture that commits worse sins than slavery, the "way things are done", and not admit our guilt while we are take part in a thriving slave-trading culture of piracy, freedom, money, and sex. The point is: if only our beliefs determine whether we are to be punished, nobody may deserve (or expect) punishment. If those beliefs have to answer to a higher authority, we had better take note of it. Nobody thinks stupidity deserves death, but stupidity kills nontheless. So does ignorance and arrogance. Nobody has anything to boast about -- it is not duty that declares us innocent. A clear conscience might keep you from sin, but it won't save you. Because the kind of faith that perseveres can only be credited to God, it is faith in God, after all, not faith in yourself. If you continued to act on your faith, in humility and doubt, that would have said more than merely "keeping" it. Your faults are your faults whether you have (or had) faith or not. An analogy: hanging from a ledge. If you let go and fall, whose "fault" is it? And if you hang on to it, who's "doing" is it? Yours. But are you in control? Now a hand is stretched out to help you back. You're still not in control, but you have a choice. Now you can let go, but with different results. Or you can reject the help for the sake of crediting yourself for "holding on". You "hold on" in both instances, but you put your trust in different places. The lack of peace you experience is no different than anybody else's. And the reasons why you had to keep "lying to yourself" lies outside the scope of religion. The circle of doubt you are in is much more personal than any doctrine or claim, it affects everything and everyone you once trusted -- not just Christians, and certainly not just God. It's not a fault intrinsic to you, but to the world you find yourself in, a world of sin, lies, suspicion and cynicism, where we seem destined and condemned to suffer. Don't confuse the two -- you can choose to identify with it or not. It's possible to want to become a missionary FOR LIFE to try to make up for some doubt. As a sort of resigned attempt to drown your doubts. Many "Christians" do just that by becoming fervent "defenders of the faith". I'm not saying you did this, but it's certainly no indication of the faith God wants. Those things you mention are all deeds, and maybe your trust was also such a "deed", a button you push to "put God into action". You certainly had a lot of faith in your faith, which is why it could be so 'tremendously insulted'. So what water says might be true. Of course, this in no way isolates you from anyone else. We are constantly tempted to "compensate for grace". We like to constantly remind ourselves of how we "are actually condemned to hell" -- it's a kind of tempting sweet bitterness: We are the victims! How dare God!? We want to deserve the good as well, not just the bad. We don't want good to be merely a result of our duty, we want it to be a result of our great faith! And as Paul told of the Israelites: our own pride deceives us. I think what water says in her post is of great importance. The decision won't necessarily feel like a decision -- certainly not a great, mountain-moving act of faith. We don't make great leaps of trust, or love, or hope. We align ourselves with them, and build them up if we consider them our duty: observing love, trust, and hope in action. As she said: you implicitly trust things every day, you intuitively exercise love, and expect certain results (hope). God created us with an affinity for these things; they become ways of recognizing His work and words. But you must pay attention, recognize these things, cultivate them, and thereby turn something that seems determined by circumstances into something that you play an active part in. Identify with them, and they will become part of you. All this will reveal a trust in your life, that God can use you if you place yourself humbly within His will. If you place His commandments so near to you, "in your mouth and in your heart", God will also be near to you (Rom. 10:8-10). Verse 11: As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” But it must never be an attempt to manipulate Him, or "achieve" His grace -- that is arrogance.
Not sure how, if at all, that has anything to do with my original request so I'll just leave it alone. "No," says Paul, "God did not deceive her. Her own pride deceived her."Besides which either Paul is a schizophrenic or you are just plain lying because according to him it was God who "blinded" Israel: Romans 11:7- Isaiah 29:10- (which he calls prophetic confirmation of this in v8) Isaiah 6:9-10 (Which is described in the NT as prophetic confirmation of this) Matthew 13:14-, Mark 4:12-, Luke 8:10-, John 12:40 So is it "God did not deceive her. Her own pride deceived her." or is it "God has given them a spirit of stupor... to this very day" Somebody here is not telling the truth. Faith is not an 'entity' but God is? I'd be happy if you could demonstrate the reasoning behind that for me preferably without resting citing Bible verses as "proof". Besides, I thought election was based on predestination (Romans 9:18;Romans 8:20, 29-, especially Ephesians 1:4-5, 11, 2:8, James 1:17, especially 2 Timothy 1:8) So again I ask, is election "based on" faith, or predestination? Can you please cite your source for this information? I didn't know Paul was aware of the gospels. If you could explain just who agreed to this 'contract'? I am not familiar with it. Why is faith credited as righteousness? How do you know faith is credited as righteousness? How does Paul know faith is credited as righteousness? A circular answer will obviously not win you any points and disrupts your argument. This part was not really necessary as I am familiar with the theology of modern Christianity. But if you could explain why works do not bring any 'reward'? Also, how does Jesus blood satisfy any contract? If it is true that no one can be saved except through believing in Jesus and the atoning scheme of God, then what happens to all the human beings who never had a chance to receive news of Jesus' atoning death because they lived before his time? Also, if Jesus has paid the debt for my sins, why do I need forgiveness? In similar tone, I too will ask: Why should anyone think a supreme God will punish Himself on a cross before forgiving the sins of mortals? Stupidity? [This is not a rhetorical question. Please answer it] Are you saying a Supreme Being will scrutinize the litany of individual moral systems scattered over the earth for 10,000 years and burn the majority of mortals in a hellish fire because they failed to obey them perfectly? And for the second part: Are you then saying that since they are sinners by default and cannot adhere to these moral systems, the Supreme God of the Universe will torment them in fire? Can you please explain to me Romans 5:12? [Please answer this questions separately] Excellent. Now please explain to me who created me with those faults. And for the second part, please explain to me who created me knowing very well I would succumb to those faults and yet will still torment me in hell for my failure to overcome these faults? [Please answer this questions separately] Oh no! I was definitely a hardcore fundamentalist Christian who eat, breathed, and saw God's handiwork in every nook and cranny of every nook and cranny with no doubts. If I had any doubts, they were in whether or not I was pleasing God as best as I could (1 John 3:20), not in (the Christian) God Himself. I have been waiting an awfully long time for God to reveal/manifest Himself "in my heart" but nothing has happened so far. Will He blame me then?
