|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, ZenMonkey.
ZenMonkey writes: The vast majority of all the people who've ever lived, even if you really believe that the world is only thousands of years old, have never, ever, ever had a chance to hear the gospel and know about this free pardon. Either they were born before Christ, or they lived in a place that never received the Gospel until after they were dead. And yet, nothing in the Bible or any other authoritative Christian text that I know of says that these people were sinless or weren't part of "the family of the devil." I can provide a partial answer to this, but it isn't accepted by mainstream Christianity. This is one of the main selling points of Mormonism: what you just said is almost a verbatim duplicate of the speech I gave many, many times as a missionary several years ago. God gives people a second chance in the next life if they are not given a legitimate chance on Earth. This isn't really said directly in the Bible, but it is kind of mentioned peripherally in 1 Corinthians:
quote: It doesn't really say what "baptism for the dead" is, and there is literally no context provided in the chapter: it's just wedged in there between two apparently unrelated things. However, I think it should be kind of easy to infer the meaning: what purpose would there be in being baptized for somebody who is dead? Obviously, you get baptized for somebody who is dead because they can't get baptized for themselves (they're dead). Clearly, at least some early Christians believed that a person's chance for salvation did not end at death. Why no other Christians embrace this idea is a complete mystery to me. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Apothecus.
Apothecus writes: Dr Adequate writes: A perfect man chose to disobey God? Nah, it was Eve's fault. That bitch... Okay, so, a perfect woman chose to disobey God? -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Granny.
Granny Magda writes: Basically, missionaries are offering salvation, but the net effect is damnation of most of the people they talk to. Most of us (Mormons) are in agreement that merely asking somebody if they want to hear the gospel doesn't constitute a "chance." If that were the case, we could just sit on a street corner, and claim that everybody who noticed us sitting there had the chance to stop and talk to us, and that their damnation is thus their fault. -----
Granny Magda writes: Even if denying God in this life doesn't remove the safe bet option in the afterlife, missionary work still makes no sense. Why bother? It seems like a waste of time. Why not just leave people be and they can convert when they die? Did you notice the part where people on Earth had to get baptized for people who died? How is that going to happen if there's nobody here to do the baptisms? -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Taz.
Taz writes: Anyway, the point is I think it's been universally accepted, not just by christians, that you can't continue to sin or find salvation after your death. Nothing you do matters after you die. ...? Okay...? And, my question was, "Why is that?" -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, ZenMonkey.
ZenMonkey writes: This phrase "baptized for the dead" is a beautiful case in point. What's this connector "for" mean? For the sake of? In place of? What's the difference? I don't think there is a way to interpret the connector "for" such that 1 Cor. 15:29 doesn't say that dead people can receive baptism. -----
ZenMonkey writes: Anyway, this whole baptism after death thing seems like yet another way of looking for a loophole in an evil, unjust game. But, that's what you were asking for!That my providing what you asked for didn't change your mind tells me that your asking for it was just a red herring. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, ZenMonkey.
ZenMonkey writes: The point I was trying to make is that God's damnation game is inherently unfair. I know what your point was. But, that point was just back-peddling after I provided an obvious and logical solution to the original question you asked, which was:
ZenMonkey writes: What is just or loving about a God that delivers people to eternal torment who, by reason of chronology and/or geography, have had literally no way at all of hearing about Christ, even though Christ is the only way to eternal life? Source: Message 6 After I answered this, you redirected the discussion into a completely different point about Original Sin (which I find to be as morally repugnant as you do). You asked for X.I gave you X. Then, you said that what you were really looking for was Y. And, I justifiably complained. -----
ZenMonkey writes: quote: To me, this says that it's living people who are being baptized for the dead, whatever that might mean. It doesn't say that the dead themselves are receiving baptism in some manner. This may be nit-picking... This is beyond nit-picking! This is feigning ignorance! You’re deliberately squinting your eyes so you can claim that the meaning is unclear! I repeat: there is no way to interpret this scripture such that it doesn’t mean the dead are intended to benefit from an ordinance performed by the living, no matter how many subtleties of Greek grammar you care to invoke! -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, ZenMonkey.
ZenMonkey writes: Chill, my brother. We're friends here. You're right. My bad. -----
ZenMonkey writes: But it's still doctrine that's been sifted and refined out of a single verse, and it's a practice that's unorthodox, even heretical. I'm just arguing the principle that death isn't the end of a person's chance for salvation: I didn't intend for this to be specifically about the way Mormons do it or the practicality of the operation. The "salvation game," as you call it, is certainly a peculiar beast, isn't it? I have my own complaints against it: for instance, the requirements don't seem to make any sense, and the point of it all is obscure, to say the least. At any rate, I think I've made too big a deal of this already. I'll stop using up space on this thread now. Thanks. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Dr Sing.
Dr Sing writes: What do you think "nothing can come apart from God's doing" means? Does it mean:1. God does everything or 2. Whatever happens passes God's approval before it happens. The Bible hold the second view an so do I. If Adam's actions passed God's approval, why was Adam punished for them? You have God simultaneously approving and punishing the same action. There's an inherent contradiction there. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Dr Sing.
Dr Sing writes: But essentially what you are trying to do is fit supernatural matters into a naturalistic framework (and they'll never fit, I might add). For you to imagine two varying degrees of perfection requires faith. That isn't really the problem. The problem is that you read two scriptures that apparently contradict one another about the meaning of "perfect," and concluded that there must then be two different meanings for the word "perfect." I see no reason other than that for you to claim that there are two different kinds of perfection. ----- Let's also dissect the verse that you used to support your claim that God's perfection is different from Adam's---1 Samuel 2:2.
----- What I see in this is that you are trying hard to make the Bible internally consistent, so much so that you are equating words that do not have the same meaning and ignoring contextual clues that could very easily confound your interpretation. Maybe that's what faith is to you, but I don't see why you need to have faith in this particular point. In the end, what difference does it make? ----- Let’s also look at ICANT’s original argument. ICANT believes that a perfect being (God) can only make perfect creations (Adam). This argument requires some style of symmetry in order to work right: the concept is that God can only make things of similar substance to himself. But, when you say that there are two different kinds of perfect, you spoil the symmetry in ICANT’s argument, and I have to wonder why God (Perfect type 1) can only make things of Perfect type 2 (e.g., Adam). I also have to wonder what is the difference between Perfect type 2 and imperfect, and why it is that God can create one kind of thing that is beneath Him, but not another kind. In short, the principle of ICANT’s argument is kind of lost in your logic. Edited by Bluejay, : Formatting to break up the monotony. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Dr Sing writes: Bluejay writes: Notice that 1 Samuel 2:2 was written a considerable time after the Fall of Adam, which means that Adam is no longer "perfect" by any standard at this time. It doesn't matter when the ink was spilled on paper. God formed the Bible, so to speak, before the world was created. Let’s go with this for a minute. In Leviticus, chapter 1, a description is given for the way to obtain forgiveness for one’s sins. Basically, you have to kill and dismember a sheep, a goat or a bird, sprinkle some blood around on the ground, and toss some specified animal parts in specific directions. Do you perform this ordinance in order to have your sins forgiven?No, of course not: it was done away with by the Atonement of Christ. But, it’s in the Bible! Just like Hannah’s psalm is in the Bible! You said it doesn’t matter when the ink was spilled on the paper, because God formed the Bible before the world was created. So, why does the psalm of Hannah apply across all the major turning points in Christian history (i.e. the Fall, the Flood, the Atonement, etc.), but these other scriptures do not? -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Dr. Sing.
Dr. Sing writes: Are you really asking me this? Its funny, because you have your answer and yet you ask me. I realize that English is not your first language, but, given the fluency you display in writing, it still shouldn't be this hard for you to understand what's being said to you. You happily accepted that the method of atonement for sins changed between eras of biblical history, such that an entire portion of the Bible can be disregarded. But then, when faced with the possibility of another thing changing across different eras in biblical history, you categorically deny it with no supporting evidence. In fact, the Bible directly contradicts your viewpoint by stating that Adam was perfect, and you have instead chosen to interpret "perfect" as meaning two different things, rather than accept the possibility that this particular situation may have changed. There is no consistency in your interpretation of scripture! -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Dr. Sing.
Dr. Sing writes: I English know not, Bluejay. Mercy me have on, please. I reply try to message yours.....okay? Good stuff. -----
Dr. Sing writes: One thing that could be causing ambiguity perhaps is the thought that the Bible is a product of human imagination. Some of it certainly is. However, I'm not an atheist, despite appearances: I'm a Christian myself. Full disclosure: I don't know or care if Adam was a different "perfect" than God. I have only noticed that there is an inconsistency in how you're reading the Bible, and I want to expose that inconsistency. -----
Dr. Sing writes: Are you suggesting that there is only one definition of perfect and both God and Adam were that? And are you deriving this conclusion from the Bible? If so, could you give me some references from the Bible to support your claim? What? Now I have to prove that a word means the same thing when it is used in two different places? Your support for the notion that Adam was a different kind of "perfect" comes from a 1 Samuel. I pointed out to you that, between the time when Adam was "perfect" and 1 Samuel, one major, world-changing event occurred: the Fall. Things before the Fall are not necessarily equivalent to things after the Fall.Likewise, things before the Atonement are not necessarily equivalent to things after the Atonement. You believe that what was written before the Atonement does not apply to people after the Atonement, and that what was written after the Atonement does not apply to people before the Atonement. But, you believe that what was written after the Fall does apply to people before the Fall. This is not logical. Do you believe that the Fall brought about changes? -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Dr. Sing.
Dr. Sing writes: You see, there's a reason why I don't apply Mosaic law to my life today: fulfillment of it by Christ on Dr.sing's behalf. Which gives me the right not to apply Mosaic Law to my life. Atonement of sins for you, is different from atonement of sins for Hannah. Hannah did not have the right to not apply Mosaic Law, because things were different then. A different Law was in effect, governing people's lives. So, things that were written after the Atonement do not apply to people who lived before the Atonement. Likewise, things that were written after the Fall do not apply to people who lived before the Fall. "When ink was spilled on paper" does matter. -----
Dr. Sing writes: And I'll now present another passage that supports my belief: I Cor 15: 35 Corinthians!? Really!? I don't doubt that men were not perfect in AD 50, either! I only question your conclusion that man was not perfect before the Fall. Scriptures after the Fall cannot be used to support this. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Dr. Sing.
Dr. Sing writes: ...I'm going to say the same thing again: history/time does not impede inspiration and the entire Word (including songs and poems) was inspired... And, I don't care if that's what you want to say. All I want you to do is recognize that you have to apply this to everything in the Bible. If you want the right to take a scripture from the Old Testament as meaningful outside of its context, then you must accept that I can take other scriptures as from the Old Testament as meaningful outside of their context. -----
Dr. Sing writes: So why don't we take the reverse appraoch? How about you support your claim and I shut up and listen (which I really prefer to do at this point) Because I haven't made a claim yet. I'm arguing from what you and ICANT wrote about "perfection" on this thread, not from my personal beliefs or anything else. You both agree that Adam was "perfect," but you disagree as to what "perfect" means. Your support for your argument is a few scriptures that were written at a timeframe that is, at best, ambiguously correlated with the nature of things before the Fall. I’m not sure what ICANT’s support for his argument is, but I think it goes like this:
Before the Fall, Adam and Eve could not die, nor experience pain, misery or illness. Likewise, animals and plants did not die or experience pain. Also, because Adam had no knowledge of good or evil, he didn’t have a sinful nature, as modern man does. In the Garden, things stayed exactly as God made them, and did not change. So, Adam was immortal, without physical frailties, without spiritual frailties and unchanging. This is the definition of the word perfect. This is the substance of God. Now, God is more than just immortal, without physical and spiritual frailties and unchanging: God is also omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. But, these have nothing to do with being perfect; they are entirely different things. So, "perfect" is just one of God's many qualities. When God created, He created things out of the same substance as Himself (i.e. He created them perfect). But, He did not create them with the same powers or capabilities as Himself. Thus, one need not be exactly like God in order to be perfect like God. These are not my beliefs, but I believe it is an accurate description of ICANT’s beliefs. And, I think they make a whole lot more sense than your idea that Adam and God were both "perfect," but "perfect" actually means two different things. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Dr. Sing.
Dr. Sing writes: And I gave you a valid reason (actually you gave me) for my not applying mosaic law to my context... Only, some parts [of the OT] are not applicable anymore. Right, so you don't really think "when ink was spilled on paper" is unimportant, then. -----
Dr. Sing writes: The theme of God's holiness (which in our conversation, I use the word perfection) runs throughout the Bible. There's no dearth of verses that describe it. But, there is a dearth of verses that describe God's holiness and/or perfection before the Fall. That's the critical point here. The Fall is a point in history where things changed dramatically: for this reason, you cannot assume that doctrines from after the Fall are meaningful representations of the situation before the Fall. -----
Dr. Sing writes: So when I that say God is holy, that means He is holy/separate/unique in every single attribute of His. IOW, His holiness permeates His attributes making them unique to Him and only Him. But, He's not unique in every attribute. We were made in His image, so we have to have at least some attributes in common with Him, right? -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024