Resurrection

[hackenslash]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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).

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.

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?

[defendor]

Were you a Christian at one point?

[LegendarySandwich]

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.

[hackenslash]

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.

[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?

[LegendarySandwich]

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.

[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.

[McQ]

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.

[hackenslash]

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.

[defendor]

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.

[hackenslash]

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.

[Whitney]

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.

[defendor]

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.'

[hackenslash]

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.

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.  

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?

This 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.

[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.