Survival

[Shermana]

As odd as you may think it, Catholics and Orthodox alike (who account for the vast majority of Christians BTW) would agree with you. "Faith alone" is strongly rejected by any non-Protestant Christian.

Not odd at all, one of the things I'll give and have given for awhile for the Orthodox and Catholics is that they aren't deluded on this post-Lutheran "Faith alone" malarkey, regardless of what "works" they believe are necessary.

 

[Juanita]

But isn't your position based on your opinion? What proof can you produce that supports your position?

The better question is what proof is there that any of the christian myths ever happened? I would refer you to "Who Wrote The New Testament?" The making of the christian myth by Burton L. Mack, a biblical scholar and historian of religion...

 

[Kenny]

The better question is what proof is there that any of the christian myths ever happened? I would refer you to "Who Wrote The New Testament?" The making of the christian myth by Burton L. Mack, a biblical scholar and historian of religion...

I guess we both believe we had the better question. You say it is a myth but have no support. I say we have proof and have a variety of letters of that time, supportive documentation early after and additional documentation from unbiased sources within the first 300 years.

You have the support from a skeptical man who lived 2000 years later.

I think the burden of proof is on your side.

 

[Kenny]

What gives you the authority to decide whether my views or correct or not? Maybe it's you who is viewing incorrect sites perhaps? What Paul says in Galatians 5:21 is not necessarily what it means to follow "The commandments of God". Most people who claim to be Christians misunderstand the difference between what Paul taught and what Jesus taught.

This is a debate forum, isn't it? Are you asking me to just :clap you and that is it?

I referenced my position which contradicts your point. When Paul said in 1st Cor 6:8 Nay, ye do wrong , and defraud , and that your brethren. 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived : neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. is that not the second verse that says to follow the commandments of love?

It would appear that it just might be you who do not see that Paul preached what Jesus preached and that you misunderstand when Jesus was talking about the law vs when He was talking about the New Covenant. He spoke about both during His walk on this earth.

There is a difference between when Jesus was talking to the Jews in context of the law and when He was talking about the grace of Abraham before the law was even instituted.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

There's good reason to believe that "The commandments" in Revelation means the same "The commandments" that Jesus was referencing when he said "You know the commandments" in response to the Rich Man's question of how to achieve eternal/age-long life.

Which is why I've argued that people have misconstrued what "love your neighbor" means

The assumption is that love is a passive action and relates to only an emotion. But that isn't true. The story of the Good Samaritan reflects this really well. The Samaritan passed by the man and did not just take pity on him "a passive action" he then proceeded to go and take the man to get care, and proceeded to care for the mans needs even when he was gone. That was love for his fellow man and one full of action.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I guess we both believe we had the better question. You say it is a myth but have no support. I say we have proof and have a variety of letters of that time, supportive documentation early after and additional documentation from unbiased sources within the first 300 years.

You have the support from a skeptical man who lived 2000 years later.

I think the burden of proof is on your side.

Unbiased sources? May I ask who?

 

[Kenny]

Unbiased sources? May I ask who?

It can be found pretty readily on the internet.

Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Babylonian Talmud are just a few. The first three are within the time-frame of the Apostles.

 

[Tristesse]

I guess we both believe we had the better question. You say it is a myth but have no support. I say we have proof and have a variety of letters of that time, supportive documentation early after and additional documentation from unbiased sources within the first 300 years.

You have the support from a skeptical man who lived 2000 years later.

I think the burden of proof is on your side.

It wouldn't matter if you had a thousand documents dating from that period (which you don't), textual evidence is not enough to support the claims offered by that book. I mean there are people you can talk to today, and get first hand reports from, who claim to have been abducted by aliens, and I'm willing to bet that you don't believe their claims of alien abduction. But why not? Is not the first hand testimony of an individual standing in front of you more credible than ancient text that simply claims these stories to be true?

I suspect that the reason you don't except other miraculous claims is because you also recognize the standard of evidence that goes with these other claims. If somebody claims to be a god, or the son of a god, that type of claim is gonna require more than simply the "say so" in an old book, or even outside text to confirm it. Text is not sufficient to accept a claim of this magnitude. And anyhow, there are also no outside text from the bible to confirm the miracles. And even if you had such text, it would still not be sufficient to accept that a miracle occurred.

And please don't cite the typical historians from "around" that period. None of which actually lived during Jesus' life. Because they don't speak of actual miracles he performed. I'm not doubting the existence of an historical jesus, I'm doubting the supposed miracle claims.

By the way, the burden of proof is always on the individual making a claim. I'm not making a claim, I'm simply doubting your claim, there's a distinct difference. I do not shoulder a burden of proof, you do.

 

[Shermana]

This is a debate forum, isn't it? Are you asking me to just :clap you and that is it?

Uh no, I'm asking you to actually substantiate claims like that you think I'm wrong instead of just saying so.

I referenced my position which contradicts your point.

I suppose you can say you did. But those that Paul speaks of aren't the entirety of "The commandments" but just portions.

When Paul said in 1st Cor 6:8 Nay, ye do wrong , and defraud , and that your brethren. 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived : neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. is that not the second verse that says to follow the commandments of love?

"Commandments of Love" includes the entire commandments, the entire Mosaic Law. That's why Jesus says all the Laws HANG on Love of God and Love of Neighbor. What Paul speaks of here are a few of the Laws. Now the issue of whether Paul himself was preaching in favor of the Law or against it, and whether Galatians is being radically misinterpreted because of the fact that gentiles weren't even required to be circumcised in the first place, is a matter of dispute. However, "The commandments" since the days of Moses are no different than the "Commandments of Love". Where do you see the difference? There is no such textual distinction between "Civil Law" and "Ceremonial Law" as Aquinas and later writers tried to make to get past this problem, and even then they can't even agree which is which, so it's impossible to say which commandments are in a different classification.

Do you believe that Paul gave a comprehensive end all list of what constitutes this "Law of Love" that one must follow?

Regardless, the Book of Revelation says the Saints are those who follow "The commandments" of God. It does not say"The commandments of Love". There is absolutely no reason to separate "The commandments" from "The commandments" just because it fits an arbitrary theological doctrine of antinomianism.

It would appear that it just might be you who do not see that Paul preached what Jesus preached

Paul seems to preach that the Law itself is no longer important, which Jesus said quite the opposite of.

and that you misunderstand when Jesus was talking about the law vs when He was talking about the New Covenant.

Jesus never said the Law was going to be any different in the "New Covenant" which is only for "Israel and Judah". It would appear it just might be you and the rest of the Antinomian Church that radically deviates from what Jesus taught. He said those who break and teach to break the Least of the commandments (in reference to Matthew 5:17 which is about the entirety of the Law itself) shall be called the Least in the Kingdom. The issue of what constitutes the "New Covenant" itself is a disputable topic as well. Messianic Jews for example believe it's merely a "Renewed Covenant". We see that in the Book of Acts, even by the so-called "Council of Jerusalem" (which may be, according to some modern and early 20th century scholars, a complete fabrication by those trying to reconcile Nazarene and Pauline Christianity) that James and the Jerusalem Church will still completely obedient to the Law of Moses. Paul even took a Nazarite Vow to prove he wasn't violating it.

With that said, by all means please tell me where you think there's a deep distinction between "The commandments" in reference to the "New Covenant", name some verses specifically from Jesus. Do you think Luke 16:17 is such a verse?

He spoke about both during His walk on this earth.

Again, it's debatable as to what exactly the "New Covenant" entails and what Jesus means by the "Commandments" in terms of what it means. It can be just as well argued that Jesus was teaching a return to the commandments the way Moses intended, away from what the Pharisees and Sadducees were misinterpreting them into, and Jesus actually says this very specifically when he says that they have deviated from it for their own traditions.

There is a difference between when Jesus was talking to the Jews in context of the law and when He was talking about the grace of Abraham before the law was even instituted

Then you should have no problem proving that Jesus was talking about "The commandments" in a case where he was talking about the grace of Abraham without any question or doubt. By all means, provide an example.

And of course this would include the distinction between clean and unclean animals and the sacrificing of 10% of your income to a Priest of course, right?

Anyways, my point is that those who survive will be those who obey "The commandments". If you want to believe that "The commandments" means something other than "The commandments" in the context of the Law, then have at it, but I would give it some sincere prayerful inquiry as to what exactly God meant before you risk your soul in the process chasing after some manmade Theological doctrine that not even the earliest Jerusalem Church followed.

 

[outhouse]

You say it is a myth but have no support. .

Actually this person has plenty of support. Ancient man has a track record or writing theology in mythological ways.

They told stories that were important to them, and placed valid morals and lessons in said mythology.

This is not even up for debate.

I think the burden of proof is on your side

Just the opposite.

Those making claims need to back them.

If you claim supernatural events are real, you need to provide your best case for it.

 

[Kenny]

Actually this person has plenty of support. Ancient man has a track record or writing theology in mythological ways.

They told stories that were important to them, and placed valid morals and lessons in said mythology.

This is not even up for debate.

On the contrary… it is up for debate. If because someone makes something up means everything is made up then there are enough made up "missing links" for mankind that are now in the junk pile to suggest that those in your camp are just as good in making mythology.

Just the opposite.

Those making claims need to back them.

If you claim supernatural events are real, you need to provide your best case for it.

I disagree. It was you that say that Jesus is a myth and I asked for your evidence.

I mentioned the some secular historians who verified that a Jesus existed… you, on the other hand, are now showing yourself to be a flat-earther. No matter what evidence is available to the eye, you are just going to deny its true.

 

[Father Heathen]

Life challenges are finite. The challenge of hell is infinite.

Justice is when the punishment fits the crime. No human is capable of anything remotely proportionate to eternal torture. Therefore hell is unjust. If there is any grand cosmic force or entity that fits our concept of "god", they would be a being of pure love and pure logic. Therefore, anything devoid of reason or compassion cannot be of god.

 

[Father Heathen]

There are many things worse than death.

Like a life squandered wallowing in irrational fear and willful ignorance?

 

[Shermana]

Justice is when the punishment fits the crime. No human is capable of anything remotely proportionate to eternal torture. Therefore hell is unjust. If there is any grand cosmic force or entity that fits our concept of "god", they would be a being of pure love and pure logic. Therefore, anything devoid of reason or compassion cannot be of god.

Which is why the hell is "age-long", not "eternal" as many translations mistranslate. Everyone goes to hell to pay for their sins. Even good Christians.

 

[Father Heathen]

Pascal's Wager

Which is a fallacy. Pascal's Wager incorrectly presumes that, if there is a god, then all of the presumptions Christianity makes about god is true (such as creating hell and casting souls into it). What about the possibility that another religion is correct, or perhaps none of of them have it right? Pascal's Wager doesn't factor in any of that, so we must dismiss it as the illogical garbage that it is.
If there is a "god", "he" wouldn't have gifted us with the ability for reason and the capacity for compassion if "he" didn't intend for them to guide our thoughts, feelings, and perceptions.

Hell is mankind's own sadomasochistic revenge fantasy, borne of our own negative emotions and imaginations.

 

[Father Heathen]

Maybe I misunderstood you. My point was even if one does believe in reincarnation, that would still require a supernatural explanation.

Well no ****.

True, but I also think it is important for people to have good logical reasons for why they believe what they believe, Christians most certainly do.

Oh, really? Feel free to present and substantiate these "logical reasons". :sarcastic

 

[Father Heathen]

'The wrath of the Lamb?'

Well that doesn't sound too impressive.

Perhaps it comes in the guise of indigestion from mutton? :eat:

 

[Father Heathen]

The historicity based on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for one thing.

Source (other than the bible)?

 

[Kenny]

If there is a "god", "he" wouldn't have gifted us with the ability for reason and the capacity for compassion if "he" didn't intend for them to guide our thoughts, feelings, and perceptions.

Yes, you are right, He did. And yet we also find in the Holocaust the capacity for inhumanness beyond description.

Apparently man has the capacity to violate reason and compassion and become the very present evil.

Which is a fallacy. Pascal's Wager incorrectly presumes that, if there is a god, then all of the presumptions Christianity makes about god is true (such as creating hell and casting souls into it).

Indeed Wager could be correct or incorrect. What I do know is the scripture was meant for Satan and wasn't created for man. Free will and people choosing where they are going to go?

What about the possibility that another religion is correct, or perhaps none of of them have it right? Pascal's Wager doesn't factor in any of that, so we must dismiss it as the illogical garbage that it is.

Only if he was wrong (which should be considered). Could some religions be partially correct and partially wrong? Could religion be totally wrong? If so, could it also not mean that one faith could be right?

Of course, each one must decide for himself. (free will)

Hell is mankind's own sadomasochistic revenge fantasy, borne of our own negative emotions and imaginations.

I'm sure we will find out soon enough.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Yes, you are right, He did. And yet we also find in the Holocaust the capacity for inhumanness beyond description.

Apparently man has the capacity to violate reason and compassion and become the very present evil.


Indeed Wager could be correct or incorrect. What I do know is the scripture was meant for Satan and wasn't created for man. Free will and people choosing where they are going to go?


Only if he was wrong (which should be considered). Could some religions be partially correct and partially wrong? Could religion be totally wrong? If so, could it also not mean that one faith could be right?

Of course, each one must decide for himself. (free will)


I'm sure we will find out soon enough.

Which fits more with the Jewish idea of conflicting natures. Christianity particular the writings of Augustine took too much from Manichism, and forgot its roots.