Honour Amongst Christians

Okay. This is something that is easy to be honest about. Unless God manifested himself to you in such a way that left you in no doubt as to his existance then you would not, could not...indeed should not, believe in his existance. No. I didn't believe in God's existance until after I was convinced. I was convinced > then he evidenced himself > then I believed he existed (in the certain-belief sense of the word). That was the sequence. Indeed it had to be sequence otherwise I would have been locked in a Catch-22. I could never have been saved in that case. From the above it might be seen that this question is irrelevant. Your conviction doesn't rely on you having to first believe in God's existance. Like, there are plenty of people who do 'believe' in God's existance and they are not saved. Perhaps they never will be. Even the demons 'believe' in Gods existance Not at all. You need not do a thing. Okay. You may have to digest the points made above before we can look specifically at honour-and-you. There are some notions you seem to be labouring under which might be causing you to suppose dishonour where none exists.In the meantime, let me ask you a question. In war, is it honourable to admit defeat when you have been brought to your knees by your enemy. Assume that the fight was fair and could have gone either way - but that your enemy has managed to gain the upper hand and defeat you entirely. I'm sure that is the case. It just happens to drip Christian-threshold-theology. Which is, curiously enough, what we happen to be talking about. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Fair enough. The related question we will look at in a minute is whether you arrived at and maintain this status honestly. No. Receipt of the gift occurs the moment you arrive at the point of no return. That point is conviction by God. You don't have to do a thing to get yourself to that point; not ask, not hope, not perspire.Subsequent events, such as asking for (and receiving) forgiveness, God demonstrating his existance to you (so that you can honestly say you do believe he exists), feeling thankful and expressing it.. are all post-receipt of the gift. They are the contents of the box you are unpacking. I asked for (and received) God's forgiveness about 6 months after I was saved... for instance. It took me that long to unpack that element. On the other hand, God demonstrated his existance in the days (iirc) after I was saved. There is no strict formula for the manner of the gifts delivery, the contents of the box or the manner in which it is unpacked.(It wasn't the need for God's forgiveness that I was convicted of b.t.w. It was total conviction that the only person who could possibly get me out of the trouble I was in would be God - if he existed. So I asked him whose existance I didn't have any reason to believe in to step into my life.) Simply put. Yes. Regarding asking forgiveness from the mother of the child you killed whilst DUI. You could say you're asking of your own volition. And could also say that you are compelled by the force of regret and conviction as to your wrongdoing. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other? Happily or unhappily (depending on your final destination), that's not possible You can use your last breath to testify honestly that you were never convinced of God's existance. But you can't arrive at that point honestly. The only way to arrive at that point is by preventing God convincing you. And the way you manage to do that is by suppressing the truth that God reveals to you. Truths issued by God all your life through which would have surely built up and convinced you, Stile, to your knees. Were it not for your suppressing them and denying them.Suppression of God's truth is not an honest thing to do. Such suppression is the illegitimate and dishonourable avoidance of something God is legitimately entitled to reveal to you. Nor is it a smart thing to do. He will reveal this truth to you one way or the other. It's just that on this side of the grave it works towards your salvation. The same truth on the other side of the grave, when it is too late, merely condemns you. There is only one soldier on your side in this war - you. You were fighting for your very life and the possibility of winning remained open until the point where you were brought to your knees. You are now on your knees and your enemy offers terms: unconditional surrender or die.Which is honourable? To admit defeat or no? Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The lines (rather than what lies between them) state that God will not convict everyone. It’s not that he doesn’t attempt to convict everyone (he does), it’s just that everyone is permitted (by God) to prevent their being brought to the point of total, saving conviction. In other words: you are saved once finally convinced - but you can escape being finally "cornered". If you don’t know in what form God’s truth is revealed to you personally, how would you know whether you are being honest or not with it? And if you don’t know this way or that, then you can’t know whether you have something to worry about or not. Fly in the ointment time. Because you're a sinner by nature you don’t have to try to suppress God’s truth. It’s as natural for you to do this as it is for cats to chase mice. You suppress the truth every day - and countless times at that. Hell, I do it too.. and I’m saved!To put it another way. I take your point that you find it best / natural / sensible / honourable . to be honest. But you seem to be supposing that your “honesty compass” is accurately calibrated. Therein lies a fatal error: biblically speaking, your compass is completely wonkey and the course you chart using it is miles out. In fact, the course you chart is taking you to Hell.You might not be conciously unaware that you are lost at sea but unawareness of that fact doesn’t alter that fact. Indeed, one of the flavours of conviction is the dawning awareness that you are lost. It stands to reason that in order to sing "I once was lost but now I'm found" a person must be able to appreciate both positions. It's a characteristic of the lost not to realise that they are lost. I’m confused In battle, there is a point where you reckon you can win or a point when you reckon you can’t or a point where your not sure either way. There are none other that I can think of.Surrendering when you reckon you can win isn’t honourable. Surrendering when your not sure either way isn’t either - you would sue for stalemate perhaps, but not surrender. And you think there is no honourable way of defeat either.I would have thought otherwise. Your enemy has battled (ultimately) to have things his way and you, in turn, have fought to have things your way. That’s the root rationale behind every battle when you think about it. But to deny your enemy what he has fought for and won would be dishonourable. Take a world title boxer losing a titlefight and refusing to hand over his title belt - dishonourable. The victor has rights and it is not for you, the loser, to deny those rights but to enable those rights.The victor offers unconditional surrender or death to you the loser. It is his right as victor to offer what he likes. It is for you the loser to chose. To not chose would be dishonourable of you - for it forces the victor to chose for you - which is not for you, the loser to demand. God offers unconditional surrender or death. You'll lose. God’s view is that you are an enemy of his. You are currently fighting on the losing side of a rebellion afterall. Satan heads up that rebellion... and you are his footsoldier. Says God. I’ve given you some fresh information. Your nature means you cannot be honest with the information given to you. Which means you are not in a position to evaluate it accurately. You see the dilemma - your assuming your compass is calibrated correctly and the Bible says it's wonkey. Reliant upon your own compass. Reliant upon your honesty. Reliant upon your evaluation skills. Reliant upon yourself in a word.One day you might be convinced to rely on Jesus Christ and him alone.

I think I do. But first let's indeed agree to exclude folk setting your compass - on the grounds that peoples 'good intentions' and 'their accuracy' need not be bedfellows. Let's also agree that you must also be excluded from the list of potential compass setters. For you are no better qualified than they. Take something you say later as an example: You accept the possibility of a wonkey compass. You should also accept that you have no way of knowing how wonkey - if wonkey. Given this, it follows that you are flying blind. Perhaps on a crash course, perhaps not. Who knows (from your perspective), perhaps your death is the end of it all. What is clear is this: "all I can do is be honest and hope that I find God or he me" is stating your intention to continue flying blind for want of any other option.I said I had alternative option. And I do. The principle involves facing truth whenever you come across it - as opposed choosing to suppressing it. And I've given you some truth here. Strike yourself from the list of compass setters. If that leaves you with no options then so be it - the truth would simply be that you have no options. The alternative is to suppress this truth and continue fooling yourself that you are in some kind of control of your destination. Given the options previously described to you, at what other point in proceeding is it honourable to admit defeat - if not when you have first reached the point of knowing you are defeated. You say above that there are no options at this point, when there clearly are. You can continue to struggle even though on your knees. You can spit in the face of your victor. You can refuse to unconditionally surrender.. and die. Contrary to what you say above you do have options - other than admit defeat when defeated.Is it honourable for you to admit defeat when you don't have to? Perhaps God has already made his offer and you have already refused. The offer of salvation doesn't necessarily extend to your dying day. We might assume otherwise though. The discussion would be pointless if we didn't.As to what you lose? In the case of you choosing death, what you lose doesn't bear thinking about. If you choose* unconditional surrender you lose your life. That is to say: you, as you know you, would cease to exist. You'd be killed off and be born again - into a new kind of life. There would be many recognisable features about you (in the new you). Your girlfriend might not be able to tell the difference straight away. But in many and vital ways you would be completely different. Unconditional surrender means unconditional. You don't get a say in what happens to you. It sounds painful and it can be- childbirth is like that. But I can't recommend it enough *Choose. In reality, "choosing unconditional surrender" is similar to "asking forgiveness" - they both occur as a result of your already having received the gift at the point of total conviction by God. Remember that that was the point of no return? The honour/dishonour issue arises alright. But it's along the way in your dealings with the truth aimed at bringing you to final conviction.For example: in your future dealings with the truth given you above on compass setting. You know it's true, the question is what you do with it. Stay where it places you, ie: optionless. Or suppress it so that you are free to go in the direction you want to go in. You don't have to chose to stay in the truth - your already exposed to it. The only choice you can exercise is to suppress it.Suppression of truth will permit you to retain this: Truth holds you currently here Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

"like looking for a needle in a stack of needles" The dilemma turns into advantage once viewed from an alternative angle.There is one 'choice' that doesn't require that you contribute in any way towards a....er....let's call it... 'postive afterlife outcome'. You don't even have to choose for it.On investigation, all the rest (including including some which name themselves Christian) will have at their core, the requirement that you contribute. Don't take my word for it. Go look for yourself. It's obvious with Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Catholicism. But the story doesn't change when you get into the cults. A lie cannot change it spots. Only disguise them this way and thatWhat if one way swims against a tide of 90,000+?

Other than hold up your possibly wonkey compass, what makes you think you are able to accurately perceive and judge truth?And how do you suppose yourself objectively honest if you have no way of knowing whether you are being objectively honest or not?Would it be safe to say that you do place some trust in your own ability to steer yourself along?Or would it be safer to conclude that you accept that you are reliant on something other than yourself to guide you to the truth - if ever you are to get there. That someone else must fly your plane home for you.

Irrelevant. I'm not honestly searching. If the set-up is such that your correct selection forms part of things then yes. If not then no. And failing a way to be sure we are accurately perceiving and judging truth, our conclusion must be that our correctly selecting doesn't form a part of the set-up I've already landed. And found out that he selected me. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Perhaps you are being presented with better alternatives but your perception and judgement (whose ability is suspect) don't permit you see that. I was thinking more the person God and infinitely less the person human. Would you be prepared to hang up your wonky compass and take your hands off the controls altogether and let God (if he exists) steer the plane home for you? If ever you become convinced that there is truly nothing left for it but to do that then recall that you only have to get on your knees and ask.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I'm not trying to tell him his ability to select is flawed. I'm telling him (and he is accepting) that he can't necessarily rely on his ability to select. We are talking about his search. Not me. Okay. You asked: The answer to your question is clearly yes. But what if the correct person is God and God decides to select you - and not you him? How can I be sure God exists. Because God is able to make me sure that God exists. If he couldn't he wouldn't be much of a God, would he?

Good. I'm sure they do. But what happens when you filter out the noise? For instance, can they point to a specific root* attribute common in all the other 'false' systems, which operates in a polar-opposite sense to the same root attribute in their own 'true' system. You might agree that a claim to be swimming upstream, when all the rest swim downstream, would involve such a specific and polar-opposite attribute. If there is no such attribute then you cannot make the claim.* the example root attribute I have posed can be stated thus: "Contributing to a desirable afterlife outcome - yes/no?" That different contribution-based systems involve you contributing in different ways is not relevant to the root issue of whether you must or not.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

You do in fact. You choose to use your wonky compass over anothers. You say so here. The question asked was whether you would be prepared to let go you of your compass and the controls too. To quit in your attempt to fly your plane blind. Your answer... Love to hang up your wonky compass and let go of the controls altogether. And at one and the same time continue flying according to your wonky compass? You can appreciate if I am a little confused. So you say. But could you provide an actual example from another system? Bearing in mind it must have crystal clear qualities outlined below and the sense of upstream/downstream. You contributing vs. you not contributing is a crystal clear delineation. It is easy to see whether you have to contribute or not. You simply have to examine the statements of a religion whilst looking for words that indicate your contribution. Words such as"Work", "chose", "accept", "pray", "pay", "be", good", "meditate", "seek" etc. Verbs really...Note that we've already see that verbs such as "ask" in Christianity are actions that are pressed out of you by another. That is the mechanism posed so there can be no talk of your contribution. Having something pressed out of you is not you contributing. The credit goes to the squeezer - not the sqeezee Stile's own religion. One which relies upon his own contribution. Just like all the other ones - bar one.

No. My suggestion is that if rejecting all wonkey compasses you should include tossing your own on the scrap heap too. Your reasons for holding onto your own are illogical in the face of such a conclusion - although you are entitled to do as you like.Rejecting your own compass too and taking your hands from the controls which steer according to your own compass, places your fate in the hands of "God" (if he/it exists) to steer you where he/it will. You'd be trusting him/it to do that even though you have no reason to believe he/it exists - other than the force of desire in your sails.In Christianity, such a move is called a leap of faith.I'll get back to the rest of your post later. Dinner time here.IanEdited by iano, : No reason given.

-continued Salvation and rightstanding with God are the "goodies" on offer in Christianity. In Buddhism the goodies are "enlightenment". In Wicca they'll be something else. What the "goodies" are, is as irrelevant to my query as are types of work each religion says you have to do to get the goodies. Both are non-root details.So let me rephrase the question. All those swimming downstream hold that the "principal goodies offered by the system in question" are obtained as a result of your partial or total contribution/work/effort/chosing-for-them/etc. Except the one who swims upstream. Can you give an example of a non-Christian system/philosophy/religion which doesn't swim downstream in respect to contribution-towards-goodies? You said that it would be noteworthy if there was a way by which one system coud be set apart from all the others on offer. If we can set non-contributing-Christianity apart from all others (including contributing-Christianity) then it might be interesting to look at this level of detail. But let's separate the wheat from the chaff first? You don't have a religion in the formal sense. But every person has their own system of living. A cult-of-one let's call it. And your own system is peppered by words and notions that indicate your thinking is that you must contribute to whatever goodies there may be. Unlike an established religion, which sets out the goodies and the way to get them, your's involves a suspicion or hope or realisation that there is/must be "something". And that you need to do something to achieve it.Your system differs with every works-based religion/cult only on detail - not on swimming-direction. Heck, even the atheistic proposition: "Life's what you make it" is works-based-systematics writ large Let's see how we progress with separating the wheat from the chaff (above) before deciding that this is the case?...and all who call on the name of the Lord shall be savedEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

A quick glance at the wikipedia article on the subject indicates Wicca to be littered with law. If folk want to subject themselves to a series of laws they must reckon some advantage arising from it. Let's not make one up. Lets perhaps take a little bit of direction from the conclusions we can draw from the hard reality around us - if drawing some conclusions is part of our search. You said this to Truthlover: You've made a claim about "all relgions in the same boat". I presume that you can show such a thing. To make it easy for you I've indicated one way to differentiate one from all others (in a not insignificant area). Come up with one actual other and I'll take your claim as demonstrated. We don't have to conclude God-behind-it from this. Just one is unique in 90,000.Could you deal with the actual query head-on? Dealing with it by making up a religion on the spot might get me thinking you're being extremely defensive . Give me a while whilst I assemble a sample of what you actually say. You're jumping the gun a little. The context of what I said had to do with simply figuring out if there was one running upstream vs. the rest heading downstream. If so, then that would very noteworthy in your book. That's not arriving at God-given or no. But it might be a step along the way to finding out.It must beat flying blind...Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Some examples of what you say with comment. Why, unless you think it somehow depends on your best effort? Are you relying upon your ability to choose? Presumably suspecting that if you don't see it you'll miss it. Reliant on your ability to see? Curiously, the Bible says you won't see it until after your saved! Reliance on ability to judge? Trying your best so as to contribute to a successful search?