Happy Atheist Forum

Did Jesus need to be resurrected from the grave to save us from our sins?

Quote from: "defendor"Did Jesus need to be resurrected from the grave to save us from our sins?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The short answer to this is; Payment made, but not hope for the gift = Payment useless and God dead.
Again, if you wish to discuss this, open another topic for it.

Further more, Christ is our Advocate...Christ sent us the HS to convict...none of this could happen without Christ resurrecting.

Again, if Christ didn't resurrect, we'd be "worshipping" a dead God, or at least a god that is a liar and not immortal...how then could this god, who himself is mortal, impart immortality?

I agree with that statement as a whole.  But the notion I am looking at is in a very particular sense, the payment of sins.  I hold the understanding that as sins are concerned, Christ's death solely instituted sufficient payment.  I think this is agreeable between us.  I also used the reference that Jesus rose to show power of death and also impart his life to us, which I think you agree with.  So the forgivement of sins was completed at the hour in which Christ died, but the resurrection did more than just provide an opportunity for us to be cleansed of our sins (as all old testament sacrifices were designed to do).  So I agree, we needed the resurrection to live a spirit and christ filled life, but he did not need to resurrect to have sufficient atonement of our sins.  But he did not merely come to just forgive us of our sins.  I used this quote once and I love it ha although I jacked it from Ravi Zacharias its "Jesus did not come to make bad people good, but jesus came to make dead people live.  

So in this understanding, yes he in fact HAD to resurrect himself, but as just for the pure atonement of sins, Christ's work was finished on the Cross thus the phrase uttered "it is finished" But it wasn't finished, for he had to come back, so I hope the disparagement is cleared up a bit ha

If you really wanna get on a theological dispute, start with Armenianism versus Calvinism haha

Quote from: "defendor"I agree with that statement as a whole.  But the notion I am looking at is in a very particular sense, the payment of sins.  I hold the understanding that as sins are concerned, Christ's death solely instituted sufficient payment.  I think this is agreeable between us.  I also used the reference that Jesus rose to show power of death and also impart his life to us, which I think you agree with.  So the forgivement of sins was completed at the hour in which Christ died, but the resurrection did more than just provide an opportunity for us to be cleansed of our sins (as all old testament sacrifices were designed to do).  So I agree, we needed the resurrection to live a spirit and christ filled life, but he did not need to resurrect to have sufficient atonement of our sins.  But he did not merely come to just forgive us of our sins.  I used this quote once and I love it ha although I jacked it from Ravi Zacharias its "Jesus did not come to make bad people good, but jesus came to make dead people live.  

So in this understanding, yes he in fact HAD to resurrect himself, but as just for the pure atonement of sins, Christ's work was finished on the Cross thus the phrase uttered "it is finished" But it wasn't finished, for he had to come back, so I hope the disparagement is cleared up a bit ha

I'll play along even though I disagree.

Ok.  Christ's death paid for the sin of the world.  Christ is dead and cannot, either resurrect Himself nor be resurrected.

What now?  What is the point of making this "fact"/point?  What is the point of Christ dying?

If you agree as it seems you do, that Christ HAD to resurrect from the dead, what is the point in saying He didn't need to?  Are sinners still saved?  Where does this premise conclude?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I'll play along even though I disagree.

Ok.  Christ's death paid for the sin of the world.  Christ is dead and cannot, either resurrect Himself nor be resurrected.

What now?  What is the point of making this "fact"/point?  What is the point of Christ dying?

If you agree as it seems you do, that Christ HAD to resurrect from the dead, what is the point in saying He didn't need to?  Are sinners still saved?  Where does this premise conclude?

So we would be forgiven of sins but still be wallowing in our own brokenness.  

In the entire ministry of Christ, he needed to resurrect himself.  He didn't come to merely just forgive sins.  That is a big part of it, but as we have agreed, thats not all there is to be a Christian (just being forgiven of sins).  So there seems to be a 2-fold idea: salvation and sanctification.  Dying in our sins with Christ, and being reborn and living in Christ's resurrected life.  

So yes I agree that Christ's sacrifice and resurrection was full atonement and justification.  But to just pay our sins, all he needed to do was die for us.  But he didn't come to just pay our sins, he came to reconcile us with the Most High God.  This involves living in repentance, I think you will agree in principle.  I'm not saying Christ didn't have to resurrect.  But what value of "paying our sins" did Christ fulfill when he resurrected?

Quote from: "defendor"But what value of "paying our sins" did Christ fulfill when he resurrected?

That's simple.  There is absolutely no value in simply paying for sin if there is no reconcilliation.
So the point is, there is not point to making the point that "Christ didn't have to resurrect to pay for sin."
It's like putting a cast on the broken leg of an already dead person and leaves God dead.

I agree with you wholeheartedly about salvation. I'm just breaking down the exact mechanisms for which Christ has saved us.  Dying would not be full restitution, for it is incomplete in doing what Jesus wanted accomplished, but his death is full payment of our sins or atonement. It does take both the death and then power over death, resurrection.  But simply his death on the cross was payment of our sins in the full.  But Christ did not merely come to pay for our sins.  For paying of our sins without us repenting is worthless, thats why he rose, to impart to us his spirit. The resurrection validated the atonement on the cross because it showed that he has victory over death.  So the resurrection let everyone know that what he did was legit.  In other words, if he would have stayed in the ground, people would have known that he was just another dude that rots in the ground like the rest of us.  But when he came out people realized that he really was who he said he was, the Son of God, who has the authority to wipe away sins by his perfect sacrifice.

Romans 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his bloodâ€"to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.

I would like to mention this is a pretty meaningless argument, if I am wrong I will probably go to sleep fine tonight knowing that Christ has both died and resurrected in complete fulfillment of the law and atonement and justification.  

I would also like to mention we're really just splitting hairs with this one.

Quote from: "defendor"I agree with you wholeheartedly about salvation. I'm just breaking down the exact mechanisms for which Christ has saved us.  Dying would not be full restitution, for it is incomplete in doing what Jesus wanted accomplished, but his death is full payment of our sins or atonement. It does take both the death and then power over death, resurrection.  But simply his death on the cross was payment of our sins in the full.

I disagree.  See the previous post and the cast analogy.

Quote from: "defendor"But Christ did not merely come to pay for our sins.  For paying of our sins without us repenting is worthless, thats why he rose, to impart to us his spirit. The resurrection validated the atonement on the cross because it showed that he has victory over death.  So the resurrection let everyone know that what he did was legit.  In other words, if he would have stayed in the ground, people would have known that he was just another dude that rots in the ground like the rest of us.  But when he came out people realized that he really was who he said he was, the Son of God, who has the authority to wipe away sins by his perfect sacrifice.

Romans 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his bloodâ€"to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.

I would like to mention this is a pretty meaningless argument, if I am wrong I will probably go to sleep fine tonight knowing that Christ has both died and resurrected in complete fulfillment of the law and atonement and justification.  

I would also like to mention we're really just splitting hairs with this one.

I have no idea why you're making this point.  If in fact it is a meaningless argument (which I believe it is 100% so) then all I did was +4 my post count here.  Nothing else.

I think this a good place to debate any theological ideas. If all else, it will give atheists insight to a truer understanding of faith, that its not just believing what we don't understand.

The question I have for you is 'do you believe in predestination?'

Quote from: "defendor"I think this a good place to debate any theological ideas. If all else, it will give atheists insight to a truer understanding of faith, that its not just believing what we don't understand.

Well this is as futile as two atheists having a discussion from an atheist perspective but hoping a theist will overhear, unless communication is tailored to include the language and understanding of the intended audience I doubt the intended audience will properly understand or ever agree with the conclusions.

From my perspective
1. It is highly likely that there are no gods
2. Even if there are gods, it is highly unlikely that they match the description of any of the scriptures, or fables, or myths that people know of
3. There doesn't seem to be any way to observe any of the gods in today's time
4. There doesn't seem to be any way to know that any of the gods were observable at any time in the past
5. Everything in our universe seems to adhere quite consistently with laws of physics and laws of probability
6. There doesn't seem to be any way to validate that any worshippers, choosen few are any better off, statistically or laws of physics wise than any other people
7. By an understanding of the Christian god as described in the bible and as per described by its worshippers it seems that this god is all powerful and has no limitations whatsoever, is all loving and all forgiving.
8. By 7, it appears to me from an atheist perspective that the theory is that the Christian god has no constraints, no limitations, which would mean the Christian god has no requirement for blood sacrifices.
9.  There seems to be no connection between myself and the death of Jesus Christ over 2,000 years ago. This symbolic self sacrifice had no impact on myself and could never have had one. It is totally isolated from myself and hence did not save my soul or attone for my "sins" made over 2,000 years later.
10. It is highly unlikely that Jesus Christ came back from the dead in flesh and blood.
11. A sacrifice of a God (assuming JC and the Christian god are one in the same) seems pointless, given that Christians beleive that God and/or Jesus Christ continue to exist.

So my simple answer would be that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for me was a pointless and nonsensical event within the bible. However I understand that Christians hold this to be one of the most meaningful events for them, for whatever reason. Historically it seems lots of people were into blood sacrifices, they thought there was some powerful mystical aspect to killing animals (humans included)

Quote from: "defendor"I think this a good place to debate any theological ideas. If all else, it will give atheists insight to a truer understanding of faith, that its not just believing what we don't understand.'

I don't think that any atheist is interested in this type of theological discussions. Like AD already said "the argument is meaningless".

Quote from: "defendor"The question I have for you is 'do you believe in predestination?'

Define Predestination.

Ha it is not by any means lack of free will.

I believe we all have free will but all choose hell.

But God in his Grace chooses some, or the elect.

http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/rel ... estination (http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/religionsaves/predestination)

I think this is a very interesting concept, check it out

Quote from: "defendor"I think this a good place to debate any theological ideas. If all else, it will give atheists insight to a truer understanding of faith, that its not just believing what we don't understand.

You seem to be labouring under the impression that atheists don't understand faith. You'd be entirely wrong in that, of course. Indeed, atheists understand faith far better than believers, because they actually understand its true value.

More importantly, though, you are overlooking the fact that the vast majority of atheists weren't always atheists. You might want to think about that.

As for the topic, this fallacy is known as the fallacy of the complex question. Embedded in the question are the implicit assumptions that a) Jesus was resurrected and b) that we need to be 'saved' (whatever the holy fuck that means). I categorically reject both assumptions as unfounded wibble, and the question as fallacious in the extreme.

Quote from: "hackenslash"

Quote from: "defendor"I think this a good place to debate any theological ideas. If all else, it will give atheists insight to a truer understanding of faith, that its not just believing what we don't understand.

You seem to be labouring under the impression that atheists don't understand faith. You'd be entirely wrong in that, of course. Indeed, atheists understand faith far better than believers, because they actually understand its true value.

More importantly, though, you are overlooking the fact that the vast majority of atheists weren't always atheists. You might want to think about that.

As for the topic, this fallacy is known as the fallacy of the complex question. Embedded in the question are the implicit assumptions that a) Jesus was resurrected and b) that we need to be 'saved' (whatever the holy fuck that means). I categorically reject both assumptions as unfounded wibble, and the question as fallacious in the extreme.

If you weren't ever a Christian  then you could never really understand what a Christian believes or how they believe.  Or, if you were a Christian and then turned away, then you never really understood faith or Christian community or the nature and character of God, or else you wouldn't have turned away.  You may have heard all the rules to be good, (see pharisees) but rules just reveal your sinful nature.  You never got taught Christ.  Maybe you never experienced depravity so you never fully comprehended the grace made abound to you.  So you don't see what the hubbub is all about cuz you never thought you were bad enough needing of saving.  So god is letting you stray away like the prodigal son, soon to return. (just maybe)

So in this discussion of revealing the nature of God and topics of Faith and other various theological assertions, either way you would benefit whichever side of the spectrum you fall on.

Quote from: "defendor"If you weren't ever a Christian  then you could never really understand what a Christian believes or how they believe.

The courtier's reply will suffice here.

Quote from: "PZ Myers"I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

    Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

    Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed â€" how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry â€" but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

    Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

QuoteOr, if you were a Christian and then turned away, then you never really understood faith or Christian community or the nature and character of God, or else you wouldn't have turned away.

And nobody was ever born in Scotland. You really don't get this 'logic' thing, do you? I'd love to be able to say that rarely have I seen such a poor understanding of logic but, unfortunately, it's an all-too-familiar feature of the supernaturalist aetiology.

QuoteYou may have heard all the rules to be good, (see pharisees) but rules just reveal your sinful nature.  You never got taught Christ.  Maybe you never experienced depravity so you never fully comprehended the grace made abound to you.  So you don't see what the hubbub is all about cuz you never thought you were bad enough needing of saving.  So god is letting you stray away like the prodigal son, soon to return. (just maybe)

This amounts to no more than preaching which, apart from committing the fallacy of blind assertion, is against the forum rules. Please desist. There has been no grace imparted by your cretinous mythology, only intellectual servitude and the subjugation of reason.

Oh, and saving from what, precisely? Do you think that I need one of your made-up entities to save me from another of your made-up entities?

Really, you haven't put much thought into this, have you? This is a sorry excuse for apologetics (pun intended).

QuoteSo in this discussion of revealing the nature of God and topics of Faith and other various theological assertions, either way you would benefit whichever side of the spectrum you fall on.

Actually, there is no benefit whatsoever in making shit up about made-up entities. Unless, of course, you want to discuss the moral implications of Peter Pan?

Were you a Christian at one point?

Quote from: "defendor"If you weren't ever a Christian  then you could never really understand what a Christian believes or how they believe.  Or, if you were a Christian and then turned away, then you never really understood faith or Christian community or the nature and character of God, or else you wouldn't have turned away.  You may have heard all the rules to be good, (see pharisees) but rules just reveal your sinful nature.  You never got taught Christ.  Maybe you never experienced depravity so you never fully comprehended the grace made abound to you.  So you don't see what the hubbub is all about cuz you never thought you were bad enough needing of saving.  So god is letting you stray away like the prodigal son, soon to return. (just maybe)

So in this discussion of revealing the nature of God and topics of Faith and other various theological assertions, either way you would benefit whichever side of the spectrum you fall on.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

Quote from: "defendor"Were you a Christian at one point?

No, I was never gullible. I did try when I was young, mostly because it seemed important to those around me, but it was clearly nonsense from start to finish, and when I asked questions to attempt to see why others couldn't see what nonsense it was, I was essentially told to shut up and believe, which roughly translated as 'don't ask questions that we should have thought of and haven't got any answers for'.

Not much has changed, of course, except that I am no longer 5, and the questions I ask are far better formulated.

I could never be a christian, because the magic man portrayed in that book definitely doesn't exist. End of story.

So if you were never a Christian, don't you think you could benefit from learning what it is, so you know exactly what it is you are disagreeing with?

Quote from: "defendor"So if you were never a Christian, don't you think you could benefit from learning what it is, so you know exactly what it is you are disagreeing with?

But in your mind, the only way for us to be True Christians(tm) is to never stop being a Christian.

Depends on your theology.  I believe in the perseverance of the saints, so those that were truly saved to begin with, don't lose their salvation.  So ya, you could be still saved, but aren't necessarily conscious of it.  If you leaved the faith, were you ever really a Christian to begin with?

John 6:66 "From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."

Matthew 7:21 ''“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven"

But that's not to say you still aren't numbered among the elect, check out the story of the Prodigal son.  He left his Father's house and returned to Grace.

Quote from: "defendor"Depends on your theology.  I believe in the perseverance of the saints, so those that were truly saved to begin with, don't lose their salvation.  So ya, you could be still saved, but aren't necessarily conscious of it.  If you leaved the faith, were you ever really a Christian to begin with?

John 6:66 "From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."

Matthew 7:21 ''“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven"

But that's not to say you still aren't numbered among the elect, check out the story of the Prodigal son.  He left his Father's house and returned to Grace.

It looks like you're trying to have it several ways here. You used two verses that occur chronologically before christ's resurrection story, therefore, the "rules" or standards of what it takes to become saved are different. In fact, they haven't even been laid down yet. None of the current salvation methods in Protestant Christianity occur without the actual resurrection. Catholicism is a whole different ballgame on this point, so I'm leaving it out.

You also seem to be combining the "No True Scotsman" argument with the antithetical argument of "once you're saved, you can never have your salvation revoked". Which is it that you're arguing for? Are you saying that people who make a decision to leave the church, or no longer believe in the fairy tales were never Christians to begging with, or that they are still christians and just don't know it?

I personally prefer the latter.

The parable of the Prodigal Son is a good parable, but it doesn't really state anything other than the argument that if one comes back to the father, then one can be forgiven. Which is odd, because it sort of makes its point the hard way, since the analogy has to be tweaked considerably to match with current salvation theology belief of having one's name written down in the Lamb's Book of Life eternally, with no way for salvation to be taken away, once given.

Quote from: "defendor"So if you were never a Christian, don't you think you could benefit from learning what it is, so you know exactly what it is you are disagreeing with?

You don't have to be a stunt driver to understand what a car crash is.

I agree with what you have said, but the same salvation methods have been in place since the introduction of Mosaic law.  The punishment of sin is due in payment of blood.  So it was always a shadow of the sacrifice of Jesus.  This was always in place as was the messianic prophecy of the fulfillment of the law.

But as for the verses in context, it is in reference to the Kingdom of God.  Jesus said, all who come to me are only those who are enabled by the Father in John 6:65

So the indication that Jesus is bringing is in forbearance of what entails to be a follower of Christ.  Simply doing a few 'church' things doesn't identify you as numbered among the elect, but is directly called by God and transformed by the Holy Spirit (born again).  But the ideas of salvation predated the resurrection and hold validity for God has continually explained what it was that saved.  Even people in the Old testament were saved.  Jonah went to the capitol city of Assyria I believe to reap a harvest of converts.  So as we look behind to the narrative of Christ, the people Old testament were merely looking ahead to the same event.  But it is the same hope and the same Holy Spirit.

But I am not necessarily a 5 pointer, but I do hold the views of Calvinism or 'Reformed Theology'.  So if someone does leave the Church, I think they have to assure themselves of salvation, as do most people in the Church.  But nobody in the Church these days likes to think that not everyone who shows up on Sunday is saved.  It is a far cry from biblical doctrine.  That was what Jesus was saying, not everyone who comes to him saying "lord, lord" will enter the Kingdom of God. The term Lord, Lord... or simply repeating a name twice is a term of endearment only used 5-7(?) times in the bible.  I am unsure of the actual amount but I know for a fact in the single digits and is used sparingly to address exceedingly intimate relations.  So what does that mean here? there are some people that have proposed to be intimate with Christ, and have had signs follow them.  They drove out demons, and performed miracles and prophesied.  Apparently that's a pretty big deal.  But notice what Jesus said, he did not say "oh you used to be so close to me" or "why did you depart from me?" Jesus plainly said "I NEVER knew you"  So someone can be around church, doing church things, have a "relationship" with God but never know him.  That’s kinda troublesome.  The bible does say work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, not sunshine and unicorns. Not a haunting fear but a somber exaltation of worship and obedience, ex. you fear your parents.  2 Peter 1 tells us to seek proof of our election and calling.  So if someone genuinely has a change of heart and becomes as the bible says an adopted son of God, actions will follow that signify he is in fact an adopted son of God. As C.S lewis said, "aim for heaven and have the earth thrown in, aim for the earth and get nothing"

The prodigal son is a great parable.  But the interesting thing about it, is also in Romans, the showing of God's wrath.  How he lets people over to themselves to either bring an air of repentance or to depart from him.  But I believe God is active in the processes of reconciliation.  Jesus is the author and perfecter of our faith.  That is why blaspheming the Holy Spirit (whatever that is) is the only unforgivable sin, is due to the Holy Spirit's power in repenting.

Still waiting with bated breath for your elucidation of precisely what it is I need saving from. Frankly, the only thing I ever came across that I would like to be saved from is the unsupported, cretinous wibble of supernaturalists. If your preposterous magic man can grant me that, I might actually consider your position. Of course, it will require evidence that this entity actually has some basis in reality.

5,000+ years and still counting.

Edit: Oh, and fuck the holy spirit, and the entirely fabricated horse he rode in on.

That's my sinning for the day taken care of.

I, frankly, don't care if defendor doesn't believe that ex-chrisitans use to actually believe or not; that's his opinion and he can be happy being wrong on yet another point if he so chooses.

Anyway, it is not necessary for someone to actually hold certain beliefs in order for them to fully understand what they do not believe in.  I don't believe in little green men crashing saucers into hick farmer's houses...yet I can still understand the awe and fear people who do believe in such things must feel at the thought of it.

The question is and was on "knowing God" or God knowing us.  I think the latter is a more biblically accurate concept.  

So I think beginning to know God is a great and deep chasm for us to understand.  In regards to a true understanding of knowing God and thus salvation, I think this question needs to be understood.  

So from my understanding, there are those who leave the faith and are still saved, and those that leave the faith are not.  So it really is an interesting dilemma. So my point is the second one, "those who leave the faith and not saved."  From their own conclusion, they would make the argument that they did in fact believe, did in fact love God, but then fell away.  So assuming that they were never saved (although I believe some to most are) they never really knew God.  So this is a brand new topic.  Those who "turned away" may have known the ritualistic underlinings of their respective church, but  never fully grasped the depth and fortitude of a personal God.  

This sole fact, is something distinctly unnatural to the natural world, for it supersedes the physical world itself.  It lays beyond the emotions and intellectual pursuits to something far beyond any existential grasp.  It is a spiritual issue.  If you never have been "born-again" then you don't have the ability to understand.  So for most non-believers I will say, 'you may know doctrine, but you never knew who that doctrine was talking about.'

Quote from: "defendor"The question is and was on "knowing God" or God knowing us.  I think the latter is a more biblically accurate concept.  

Biblical accuracy might be a useful yardstick if the bibble were remotely accurate. Given that it cannot, though, correctly count the number of legs on an insect, to name but one thing of many that it gets horribly wrong, biblical accuracy is not something that remotely concerns me.

QuoteSo I think beginning to know God is a great and deep chasm for us to understand.  In regards to a true understanding of knowing God and thus salvation, I think this question needs to be understood.  

So from my understanding, there are those who leave the faith and are still saved, and those that leave the faith are not.  So it really is an interesting dilemma. So my point is the second one, "those who leave the faith and not saved."  From their own conclusion, they would make the argument that they did in fact believe, did in fact love God, but then fell away.  So assuming that they were never saved (although I believe some to most are) they never really knew God.  So this is a brand new topic.  Those who "turned away" may have known the ritualistic underlinings of their respective church, but  never fully grasped the depth and fortitude of a personal God.  

Wibble wibble wibble. You still haven't answered the relevant questions posted above with regard to this nonsense. What, precisely, do I require salvation from?

QuoteThis sole [strike:1imorw7q]fact[/strike:1imorw7q] rectally extracted blind assertion, is something distinctly unnatural to the natural world, for it supersedes the physical world itself.  It lays beyond the emotions and intellectual pursuits to something far beyond any existential grasp.  It is a spiritual issue.  If you never have been "born-again" then you don't have the ability to understand.  So for most non-believers I will say, 'you may know doctrine, but you never knew who that doctrine was talking about.'

Frankly, this is just more of the same. It constitutes argumentum ad nauseum and doesn't begin to address the fallacies you have already committed. Please try to answer the questions put to you in a coherent manner. Indeed, please try to present a coherent definition of god. Nobody has ever managed it before, so there is fertile ground available for you to make hay, as it were.

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/cosmic-treason/ (http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/cosmic-treason/)

As the identity of energy was only what it can do (the ability to do work), I hope a similar definition of God will work too- One who has the ability to do as He pleases.

Quote from: "defendor"http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/cosmic-treason/

As the identity of energy was only what it can do (the ability to do work), I hope a similar definition of God will work too- One who has the ability to do as He pleases.

That's what energy is. That is its rigorous definition. What it can do is diverse. Your fatuous non-answers are noted. A similar definition of your preposterous magic man will not suffice, because it is alleged to be an entity with will and attributes.

Quote from: "defendor"Ha it is not by any means lack of free will.

I believe we all have free will but all choose hell.

But God in his Grace chooses some, or the elect.

http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/rel ... estination (http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/religionsaves/predestination)

I think this is a very interesting concept, check it out

I don't have time for a sermon on predestination.  I'm going to assume you define predestination as;

Quote from: "defendor"But God in his Grace chooses some, or the elect.

If so, I reject your God arbitrarily choosing some and not others.

So again, define predestination...if different from what I assume.

Quote from: "hackenslash"That's what energy is. That is its rigorous definition. What it can do is diverse. Your fatuous non-answers are noted. A similar definition of your preposterous magic man will not suffice, because it is alleged to be an entity with will and attributes.

You disagree but have no grounds on which with you disagree.  As the argument of being of energy is only defined by its capability, then a similar definition of God should suffice.  But as you have said that it doesn't, then how can you agree with what energy is only on the confines of its ability as opposed to understanding what its objective being is?  SO the same logic for God should also suffice in the same manner that you choose to define energy.

So with the definition of God in place, you choose not accept it.  I made the definition - "one who has to ability to do as he pleases."  You said because it is 'alleged to be an entity with will and attributes'.  That is assumed by this definition

entity- the inference of complete autonomy with no restrictions, as one who has the ability to do completely as he pleases
will- to do as he pleases
attributes- the ability to do what is pleasing to Him

I mentioned this on the other thread, I think you just don't want Him to exist for whatever reason.  If that is so, you never really understand the nature and character of God and could benefit from learning about him.  Thus, the purpose of this thread is fulfilled.

Predestiny- basically, we all choose Hell, God chooses some.  Check out the first 30 minutes if you can

Quote from: "defendor"Predestiny- basically, we all choose Hell, God chooses some.  Check out the first 30 minutes if you can

If we all choose Hell, then why does God, instead of letting us choose our own destiny, go against our freewill to choose?
God then chooses, in your definition of predestination, for us.  Therefore, we have no freewill.

Quote from: "defendor"One who has the ability to do as He pleases.

So...um...that would make us all gods.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "defendor"One who has the ability to do as He pleases.

So...um...that would make us all gods.

Are you saying that everything you would do if you could is done?  I can't do all I please.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "defendor"Predestiny- basically, we all choose Hell, God chooses some.  Check out the first 30 minutes if you can

If we all choose Hell, then why does God, instead of letting us choose our own destiny, go against our freewill to choose?
God then chooses, in your definition of predestination, for us.  Therefore, we have no freewill.

We have free will, and we use our free will to go against God.  God in his love and his grace chooses some.  The bible says how we are all "sinful before birth", how "no one seeks after God, no not one."  The bible also says, that God desires all men to know him and repent, but also that no one comes to him except those that the father has enabled.  If you find time, you should definitely watch that video.

Quote from: "defendor"We have free will, and we use our free will to go against God.  God in his love and his grace chooses some.  The bible says how we are all "sinful before birth", how "no one seeks after God, no not one."  The bible also says, that God desires all men to know him and repent, but also that no one comes to him except those that the father has enabled.  If you find time, you should definitely watch that video.

If God makes the choice, then we do not have freewill.  It's simple logic.

What's that verse about Good News and beautiful feet?  God chooses those that choose Him in that those that choose Him are THEN predestined to be with Him.  By God's foreknowledge, He knows those that will choose and SO then predestines them.  It's their choice, but God knows it and so affords them salvation.  It is by grace THROUGH faith, by Christ.  It is not by grace by God's choice...as if God were picking names out of a hat.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "defendor"One who has the ability to do as He pleases.

So...um...that would make us all gods.

Are you saying that everything you would do if you could is done?  I can't do all I please.

I do everything I would do if I could do it. I do as I please, making me a god according to this definition.

Quote from: "Davin"I do everything I would do if I could do it. I do as I please, making me a god according to this definition.

You do as you please within the limitations of what you can do.  Which is not doing everything you please, but doing everything you CAN do.  The difference is that God's 'can do' list is quite a bit longer than your 'can do' list or mine.  This may make you  a 'god' (if you're comparing yourself to speck of dust) or God-like if you're defining yourself as made in the image of God.  This in no manner, then, makes you God.

Davin- If you pleased to transport yourself to another dimension, could you?  Could you go back in time if you wanted?  If you pleased to resurrect yourself from the dead, could you?  Did you choose to be born?  Would you like to go to mars?  What about the center of the Earth? Can you save yourself from death?

These are extreme questions, but it shows the magnitude in what you cannot do, even if you pleased.  This is the initial sin of Adam and Eve.  Make your own rules, know good and evil, and you will be like God.  This is the greatest deception.

Animated Dirt- I think the topic we're discussing is the Human ability to simply choose God.  You are on the side, that God in his omnipotence looked down the corridor of time, saw who was going to choose him, then he chooses those who he knows will choose him.  But this view begins with us choosing him first.  Which conflicts with the Bible.  I'm not saying I understand what or how God saves the individual.  I may never, all I know is that I'm called to obedience.  Take a look at Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus.  Saul was on the way to persecute Christians, not join them.  Do you think he chose to ask God to blind him and knock him off his horse?

Personally, I'm more of an Arminianist but Biblically I'm a Calvinist.  So as believers, we can argue our thoughts all day long, which amounts to nothing.  It is only when we begin to understand scripture that we debate with tangibility as opposed to 'i think.'  Foreknowledge of who we are to be in Christ may be a big idea of how we are saved.  For instance, in the moments after were are saved, we thank God for saving us.  God who is outside of time, would he hear that prayer before you were converted and answer this prayer from the future?  Kind of like, you'll thank me later for God knows the future and has plans to"prosper us and not to harm us"

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/wh ... _theology/ (http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/what_is_reformed_theology/)

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I do everything I would do if I could do it. I do as I please, making me a god according to this definition.

You do as you please within the limitations of what you can do.  Which is not doing everything you please, but doing everything you CAN do.  The difference is that God's 'can do' list is quite a bit longer than your 'can do' list or mine.  This may make you  a 'god' (if you're comparing yourself to speck of dust) or God-like if you're defining yourself as made in the image of God.  This in no manner, then, makes you God.

I've yet to see any limitations on things I want to do.

Quote from: "defendor"Davin- If you pleased to transport yourself to another dimension, could you?  Could you go back in time if you wanted?  If you pleased to resurrect yourself from the dead, could you?  Did you choose to be born?  Would you like to go to mars?  What about the center of the Earth? Can you save yourself from death?

Do I want to? No, no I don't.

Quote from: "defendor"These are extreme questions, but it shows the magnitude in what you cannot do, even if you pleased.  This is the initial sin of Adam and Eve.  Make your own rules, know good and evil, and you will be like God.  This is the greatest deception.

Note the key portion of the concept: if I pleased. So far I have not pleased to do those things.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "defendor"One who has the ability to do as He pleases.

So...um...that would make us all gods.

Are you saying that everything you would do if you could is done?  I can't do all I please.

I would be willing to bet you have done everything you please...just that sometimes what we want to do is affected by how we wish to interact with others around us.  If i were to decide to become a mountain woman I could serve as a more obvious example of one doing as they please as I wouldn't have the wishes of society altering my own desires.

My main point is that defendor's definition of god is not only overly simplified but wouldn't be an acceptable definition of god for most theists.  I would think the whole creating the universe thing would be part of the definition with doing whatever it wants being secondary at best.

Quote from: "defendor"You disagree but have no grounds on which with you disagree.

Oh, really?

From the first raft of definitions given by a quick google search for the definition of energy:

(physics) a thermodynamic quantity equivalent to the capacity of a physical system to do work; the units of energy are joules or ergs; "energy can take a wide variety of forms"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

In physics, energy (from the Greek ἐνέργεια - energeia, "activity, operation", from ἐνεργόÏ, - energos, "active, working") is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/definition.html (http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/definition.html)

QuoteAs the argument of being of energy is only defined by its capability, then a similar definition of God should suffice.

Nonsense. You are trying here to equate your imaginary friend with measurable quantities. Which bit of 'where is the evidence for your magic man' is escaping you here? Attaching the preffered label of your celestial peeping-tom to things that we already have names for, and robust definitions to boot, is not going to wash with any possessing the intellectual capacity of an amoeba, let alone anybody seriously experienced in assessing nonsensical claims.

QuoteBut as you have said that it doesn't, then how can you agree with what energy is only on the confines of its ability as opposed to understanding what its objective being is?  SO the same logic for God should also suffice in the same manner that you choose to define energy.

You entirely miss the point. 'The ability to perform work' isn't just a description of what energy does, it's what it is, in its most robust definition. If I were to define it by what it does, I would define it in terms of lifting, pulling, pushing, etc. That is what it does (any other things beside). What it is is the capacity to effect change in a thermodynamic system. That is what the word means in a scientific contextt, which is the only context in which a rigorous definition is possible for a word that deals with the effects of real things on other real things. The distinction here is drawn by the utter faiilure of apologists to a) provide a coherent definition for 'god', and b) show any evidence that this preposterous entity has any basis in reality.

QuoteSo with the definition of God in place, you choose not accept it.  I made the definition - "one who has to ability to do as he pleases."  You said because it is 'alleged to be an entity with will and attributes'.  That is assumed by this definition

Energy can be shown to have a basis in reality. And the evidence for your magic man is..? Provide this and you can forget all this internet forum nonsense, you will be given a free holiday to Stockholm (a beautiful city, by the way), along with an expensive dinner and a niche, shiny medal with your name engraved next to a picture of the man who invented dynamite. So, should I get my tuxedo out of mothballs? I have the Nobel committee on a speed-dial on my phone, so I can get things moving straight away...

Oh, wait. Perhaps we'd better look at that evidence first. It's almost 3 am in Stockholm, and you know how grouchy real scientists can get when you knock them out of bed at that time.

Quoteentity- the inference of complete autonomy with no restrictions, as one who has the ability to do completely as he pleases
will- to do as he pleases
attributes- the ability to do what is pleasing to Him

Completely as he pleases? So, omnipotence, then? Are you really sure you want to expose yourself to that preposterous claim?

QuoteI mentioned this on the other thread, I think you just don't want Him to exist for whatever reason.  If that is so, you never really understand the nature and character of God and could benefit from learning about him.  Thus, the purpose of this thread is fulfilled.

See, I got a bollocking for being uncivil in that other thread, while you commit the most offensive discoursive malfeasance possible, in my opinion, in the shape of your weaselly and idiotic proselytising. I have no interest in your imaginary friend, and that's the way it will remain until you can present some evidence that this entity actually exists. At that point, of course, we'll all be booking tickets to Sweden and dusting off our best frocks.

Can't wait.

QuotePredestiny- basically, we all choose Hell, God chooses some.  Check out the first 30 minutes if you can

Ah, so we don't have free will, then. How it actually works is this:

Your cosmic curtain-twitcher is a made-up entity, and apologetics and theology are respectively the failure to think about it properly and the making-up of more guff about this made-up entity. The particular magic man whose feet you wish us to grovel at doesn't exist. That's demonstrated beautifully enough by the silly book of lies, ignorance and manifest falsehood describing it. The rest is just wibble.

Quote from: "Whitney"I would be willing to bet you have done everything you please...just that sometimes what we want to do is affected by how we wish to interact with others around us.  If i were to decide to become a mountain woman I could serve as a more obvious example of one doing as they please as I wouldn't have the wishes of society altering my own desires.

My main point is that defendor's definition of god is not only overly simplified but wouldn't be an acceptable definition of god for most theists.  I would think the whole creating the universe thing would be part of the definition with doing whatever it wants being secondary at best.

Defendor's position stems from Calvinism (I'm guessing).  I suppose it would be best for him to answer as he sees fit.

Whitney, do you avoid death?  If you were to start crossing the street and all of a sudden notice a car was closer than you had anticipated or simply didn't see, would you get out of the way or stand there and take the hit?

If energy is only a term describe for the ability to do work, then it wouldn't exist other than a conceptual idea to describe work after it is done.  So either energy exists and is the entity behind the work or it is merely a term for work after work has been completed to describe what has been done.

Btw what is work?

Just curious, what is the extent of your education in science?

Yes I am more 'calvinistic' but that's only what I've gotten from reading the scriptures.  If my philosophies disagree with the bible, it is not the Bible that is wrong but me.

Quote from: "defendor"So if you were never a Christian, don't you think you could benefit from learning what it is, so you know exactly what it is you are disagreeing with?

Christianity; an institutionalised superstition based on the unproven 'God' hypothesis.  What more does one need to know to dismiss Christianity?

See also:
Islam; an institutionalised superstition based on the unproven 'God' hypothesis.
Judaism; an institutionalised superstition based on the unproven 'God' hypothesis.
Sikhism; an institutionalised superstition based on the unproven 'God' hypothesis.
Hinduism; an institutionalised superstition based on the unproven 'God' hypothesis.
Etc.

Based on what? Your perception or truth?

Quote from: "defendor"Based on what? Your perception or truth?

You get the point, stop squirming. Your world view is a discredited scam and you're a victim of that scam, you just haven't worked it out yet. Sorry to be blunt.

Quote from: "Tank"You get the point, stop squirming. Your world view is a discredited scam and you're a victim of that scam, you just haven't worked it out yet. Sorry to be blunt.

World View: Atheism - A standardized pseudo system based on the unproven "no god" hypothesis.

Your worldview is also a discredited scam.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Tank"You get the point, stop squirming. Your world view is a discredited scam and you're a victim of that scam, you just haven't worked it out yet. Sorry to be blunt.

World View: Atheism - A standardized pseudo system based on the unproven "no god" hypothesis.

Your worldview is also a discredited scam.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg517.imageshack.us%2Fimg517%2F6655%2Fpmslsu0.gif&hash=864936626eaf8fd08f72c935dec3770cf5cd5bb5)


Oh sorry, you were serious!

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg517.imageshack.us%2Fimg517%2F6655%2Fpmslsu0.gif&hash=864936626eaf8fd08f72c935dec3770cf5cd5bb5)

Quote from: "Tank"Oh sorry, you were serious!

No seriousness needed.

Its kinda funny to me.  There is no overwhelming evidence to an argument, yet there is such an appeasement in mocking.  

Jesus did say "the world hated me first"

To discredit Christianity, you would have to know it right?

Quote from: "defendor"Its kinda funny to me.  There is no overwhelming evidence to an argument, yet there is such an appeasement in mocking.  

Jesus did say "the world hated me first"

To discredit Christianity, you would have to know it right?

Defendor, have you ever been an atheist?

If not, how can you attack our position? Don't you need to experience something first hand before you disagree with it?

Everyone is born an atheist.  It's just how long it takes for God to reveal himself.

Quote from: "defendor"Everyone is born an atheist.  It's just how long it takes for God to reveal himself.

Well... All I need is that scientific evidence to believe in your god. But I presume you used the "To make known by supernatural or divine means" definition of "to reveal".

Technically it is true that we are born atheist but probably with strong predispositions to believe in a higher supernatural power that are byproducts of our evolutionary traits that have favoured our survival. But the reality of this world is that most of us were born into a more-or-less religious family. We unlearned all that non-sense by applying common sense and scientific reasoning.

Quote from: "DirtyLeo"Technically it is true that we are born atheist but probably with strong predispositions to believe in a higher supernatural power that are byproducts of our evolutionary traits that have favoured our survival. But the reality of this world is that most of us were born into a more-or-less religious family. We unlearned all that non-sense by applying common sense and scientific reasoning.

Wow!  Any Atheist have any problem with this?  I may use this point.

To use Dawkins' analogy, it's like a moth's flying into the flame doesn't prove its being suicidal. Its evolution dictates that it uses a distant light source, a constant for its purposes, for navigation but it spirals into its death when faced with a close light source, such as a candle. It is a mis-firing of a natural behaviour that is important for the survival of its species.
Probably masturbation would go into the same category.
I hope my meaning is clearer now, in case there was a doubt.


Edit: typo

Quote from: "DirtyLeo"To use Dawkins' analogy, it's like a moth's flying into the flame doesn't prove its being suicidal. Its evolution dictates that it uses a distant light source, a constant for its purposes, for navigation but it spirals into its death when faced with a close light source, such as a candle. It is a mis-firing of a natural behaviour that is important for the survival of its species.

How many more millions of years would you think it will take for evolution to teach the moth the difference between good light and a suicide?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "DirtyLeo"To use Dawkins' analogy, it's like a moth's flying into the flame doesn't prove its being suicidal. Its evolution dictates that it uses a distant light source, a constant for its purposes, for navigation but it spirals into its death when faced with a close light source, such as a candle. It is a mis-firing of a natural behaviour that is important for the survival of its species.

How many more millions of years would you think it will take for evolution to teach the moth the difference between good light and a suicide?

A moth doesn't live for millions of years. And evolution does not teach anything to anything.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"How many more millions of years would you think it will take for evolution to teach the moth the difference between good light and a suicide?

I don't think that, given this example, fire is a true selective pressure. I'm sure the number of moths killed by the death spiral is negligible compared to the entire moth population.

How long would it take for humans to learn masturbation doesn't make babies?  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"How many more millions of years would you think it will take for evolution to teach the moth the difference between good light and a suicide?

It most certainly would happen. Humans have been making fire for only a few thousand years, light bulbs for much less time. The ecology has not had much time to evolve and adapt with regards to the influence of humans.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"How many more millions of years would you think it will take for evolution to teach the moth the difference between good light and a suicide?

It most certainly would happen. Humans have been making fire for only a few thousand years, light bulbs for much less time. The ecology has not had much time to evolve and adapt with regards to the influence of humans.

And so fire has only been around since humans started making it?  I think it's my turn to do a facepalm.  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"And so fire has only been around since humans started making it?  I think it's my turn to do a facepalm.  

I don't think I have ever done a facepalm to you or anyone for that matter. I guess you are learning some habits from others on this site.
Fires in nature tend to be quite catastrophic, burn everything down, kill everything and also tend to be sporadic.
Man made fires tend to be controlled and frequent. The type that living creatures can survive, learn from, adapt from, the type that individuals with a tendency for avoidance can avoid.

@AnimatedDirt

We are capable of altering the nature around us quite drastically and abruptly, which has devastating effects for the other living beings around us as our existence is just a blink compared to their evolutionary lifetime. If fire were a true evolutionary pressure moths would either go extinct or would evolve in order to survive. If, hypothetically, fire were one of moth's predators, they would have evolved together with tiny steps which is very different than the brusque changes that we introduce into our ecosystem.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"And so fire has only been around since humans started making it?  I think it's my turn to do a facepalm.  

I don't think I have ever done a facepalm to you or anyone for that matter. I guess you are learning some habits from others on this site.
Fires in nature tend to be quite catastrophic, burn everything down, kill everything and also tend to be sporadic.
Man made fires tend to be controlled and frequent. The type that living creatures can survive, learn from, adapt from, the type that individuals with a tendency for avoidance can avoid.

The facepalm was directed at the many excuses given for the moth to not already have figured it out.  Fire is destructive at the catastrophic level and at the one flame level.  To a moth, a flame is quite large and flying into it causes catastrophic damage...mostly death.

Back to the topic of Predestination/freewill.