Author Topic: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?  (Read 10945 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #145 on: January 03, 2014, 09:54:14 PM »

You have an odd need to misrepresent what I said. I didn't say universalism is the ONLY denomination that denies repentance.

I don't see the misrepresentation.  I never quoted you to say, "universalism is the only denomination that denies repentance".  You said, "Exception to everything I guess... I did forget  Universalism".  By saying, "exception to EVERYTHING" I added that you were wrong again because of hyper-calvinism. 

My exact words were, "Wrong again!  Christian Universalism is not the only exception to the fact that one has to repent to be saved".

If it's anyone doing any misrepresenting it is you. 
 
I am a calvanist and you clearly don't understand calvanism let alone hyper calvanism. Study it a bit more and then get back to me with rather repentance is truly necessary.  Maybe while your at it... who makes repentance possible, you or God?  By the way calvanism is a theology not a denomination.


First, I would like to say that I at least know one thing more about Calvinism than you.  That is, I know how to spell Calvinism!  I would like to point out that you misspelled calvinism three times and calvinist once just in this paragraph.  If you are truly a calvinist and adhere to the "theology" of calvinism you should at least know how to properly spell the theology you adhere to if you want to be taken seriously.  The MURDERER John Calvin's last name is CALVIN not CALVAN.  Yes, I said, MURDERER (post #142).  I thought this mistake might have been a simple typo at first but I just kept noticing the misspellings and am convinced that you have no idea how to spell the "theology" that you adhere to.

Secondly, I didn't mention Calvinism at all so how would you know that I don't understand Calvinism.  I mentioned "Hyper-calvinism.  I GAVE YOU a link on hyper-calvinism and quoted you article 26 and then you said I don't understand hyper-calvinism and then you GAVE ME NOTHING.  I studied more like you said and I wish I could get back to you with the good news that this theology teaches that repentance is truly necessary but I can't.

Hyper-calvinism is (1) denying that the call of the gospel to repent and believe is universal, i.e. for all alike, and (2) denying that the unregenerate (natural) man has a duty to repent and believe in Christ for salvation". 

Link:  http://www.theopedia.com/Hyper-Calvinism

Furthermore, "hyper-Calvinism, simply stated, is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility".   

Link:  http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm
 

I didn't think you have trouble with telling a lie or being deceptive. The evidence would suggest as much anyway.


Why would you assume that I would have no trouble with telling a lie or being deceptive?  Are you that delusional to think that I would have no trouble telling a lie because I am not a Christian and I cannot be moral without God.  And what evidence Harbinger?  Have you ever caught me in a lie?

The yoke of jesus IS light. I'm still flesh though. and until glory comes it's rather frustrating that everyone has a comment and each thinks his/hers  is deserving of reply. Some simply are not.


I totally agree and understand that some posts are not deserving of a reply.  At first, I didn't think this post of yours deserved a reply but then a "still small voice" (probably my conscience) told me that I should respond to at least educate you on the spelling of the "theology" you adhere to. 

However, what is wrong (in my opinion and your God's opinion) is when you say you are going to respond (post #106) when you have more time and then you don't respond.  That is a deceptive tactic.  If posts are not deserving of a reply then don't say you will respond to them later when you have more time... and then not reply back at all.  You hinder your reputation by saying you will do something and then not acting on that promise.  James 5:12 says, "But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment".

I would like to point out that I think James is a jerk for not excluding people with mental disabilities from this requirement.  Harbinger, I don't know you personally but if you, in any way, have a mental disability then please disregard my opinion.  It is O.K. to not follow through on a promise if you are mentally disabled.         

Honestly most of the time I laugh

We have something in common.  I want to thank you for the good laugh.  I found it comical that you said I clearly don't understand Calvinism but then come to find out, you don't even know how to spell Calvinism.  That's funny!   


The gun thing again?
 I'm sorry you would give in to some punk. Do you have no Intestinal fortitude? I would fight to defend my wife. I guess that makes us different kinds of men though. I said almost because personally it IS a favor. I have kids though and they need me. This still doesn't effect my being ready and willing to go when called.

I know this is a hypothetical situation here but hypothetically... I'm a soldier you would never get close enough to my wife without getting yourself shot in the first place.

Wow!  Them are fighting words. ;D  Once again, I would "give in" and say F#*K if that's all it took to save my wife.  That's the point to this hypothetical situation.  It's not about intestinal fortitude.  The hypothetical situation ASSUMED that the "punk" got through the weak defense that you provided for your wife and had the gun pointed at her head telling you to say the word F#*K to save her life.  The fact that you say, "I'm a soldier and you would never get close enough to my wife without getting yourself shot in the first place" really shows your ignorance as to what a hypothetical situation really is.

I am amused that you now say a Christian physical death IS a favor.  Let's test your "intestinal fortitude".  I told you before that I don't think you are a true Christian.  Let's test if you are a true Christian through a science experiment.  What you do is you go out and buy some deadly poison.  Then read Mark 16:17-18 where it says that one of the signs that will accompany a true believer is that he/she will not be harmed by drinking deadly poison.  Now, turn your kitchen (if you have one) into a laboratory and poor the deadly poison straight down your gullet.  Now act like a scientist and start writing down your observations.

NO....WAIT.....HARBINGER STOP!!!  I was just kidding.  Don't do it.  Your kids need you.  In addition to it being highly plausible that your God doesn't exist, this section of text in Mark is considered uninspired by many Christians because this text is not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts.         

Please don't perform this science experiment.  Graybeard's right!  We do need more Christian's like you to "throw to the lions".

In addition, I like you too much.  I enjoy toying with you.  You are too valuable as a "Look what Christianity did to this guy" example.

By sayin "not the ONLY exception" are you not implying that I meant ONLY exception when I said "AN exception"? Is that not the ONLY way I can be "wrong again?"

 
Does a spelling error really mean that someone can't hold any view? What if I suffer from mental handicap, ADD or Dislexiaand for example and have trouble with spelling? can I then hold no views?
How can one truly understand Hyper-calvinism  without first understanding plain ol' calvinism
One is a product of the other.
Could it be that you don't understand fully the doctrine of election? Do you even know that's what your quote refers to?

calvinism states that repentance is a gift. It's not necessary in the sense that you can't be saved until you repent. That's a whole different and much more common theology. Rather repenting is brought on by God's act of regenerating thus the man who is dead in his sin is now acutely aware of his sinful nature and then will repent. There is no what if I don't repent. When the Holy spirit regenerates a man that man WILL repent. The holy spirit won't regenerate the non-elect. Until then, much like yourself, there is no desire to repent nor can there be. repentance is necessary, you just have the order backwards that's all.

Further, Am I to assume that because you quoted from a web site you must understand what it means?
 If I quote from this web site http://www.ictp.it/ would you believe I fully understand the material?

without looking it up... what can you tell me about total depravity?

Why do you continue to misrepresent what I say and then get upset when I think you would have no trouble misrepresenting yourself for an experiment?
Are you better than me and somehow off limits to yourself? further why do you suggest what you assume would be suicide as an experiment, yet get offended when I suggest a less than lethal experiment?

Why do you insist that "I want" must mean "I will"
Is it possible that "I did it" is an answer? That on a later occasion I thought the question was answered and now see no reason to expound upon the answer?

On what standard do you measure me as a Christian?

You laugh, but you may be interested, if only for comic relief, to see that some follow your scripture reference right down to drinking poison. Guess what... death from untreated snake bite or poisoning is rare among these people.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cwBVcsWYJd8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DcwBVcsWYJd8
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #146 on: January 03, 2014, 10:04:04 PM »
I like the varying different translations[1] of vary Bibles for Mark 16:18. Because with a different word, even a synonym of the "original" word can change the meaning of the line. So some say "no harm" if drinking poison and even some change the word "poison" to be something less, therefore drinking it may not harm you but in changing certain words one could interpret it to mean, "It won't injure[2] but it'll kill you!"

They attempt to place a more logical conclusion in varying versions but always, mostly, fail.

-Nam
 1. or interpretations
 2. one version I read that in

Can you provide an example or two for comparison so that we may discuss it?
Otherwise this is an unsubstantiated claim.

I just read five of my different translations and none of them support this claim.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6100
  • Darwins +683/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #147 on: January 03, 2014, 10:09:40 PM »
You laugh, but you may be interested, if only for comic relief, to see that some follow your scripture reference right down to drinking poison. Guess what... death from untreated snake bite or poisoning is rare among these people.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cwBVcsWYJd8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DcwBVcsWYJd8

30,000+ get bitten by poisonous snakes every year in the US, and at most, 10 or 12 die. There was a kid fascinated by cottonmouths that I lived near in Illinois, and he'd been bitten three times but never told his mom or had the bites treated because he was afraid she wouldn't let him play with snakes any more. She found out when he was 16 and got interviewed by a newspaper reporter. That's when he confessed. He showed the reporter the places he'd been bitten to confirm his story.

25% of poison snake bites are "dry", which means the snakes don't get any poison into the victim.

So while you're impressed, I'm thinking those folks are luckier than crap that they don't live in Australia, where the snakes are frickin' wicked and you don't walk away too often.

And the drinking of poison? Who is the control. Who also drinks it but doesn't believe and dies? We science types need stuff like that or we won't blindly accept the results.

Snake handlers to die. But of course that means they didn't believe. So no biggie.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6100
  • Darwins +683/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #148 on: January 03, 2014, 10:14:09 PM »
By the way, Hindu's have similar habits, and they too do well.

Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Online xyzzy

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Darwins +48/-0
  • "Nothing happens"
    • xyzzy
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #149 on: January 03, 2014, 11:21:39 PM »
You laugh, but you may be interested, if only for comic relief, to see that some follow your scripture reference right down to drinking poison. Guess what... death from untreated snake bite or poisoning is rare among these people.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cwBVcsWYJd8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DcwBVcsWYJd8

I wonder, I really do, if you are not wearing Jesus-powered rose-coloured glasses[1] when you read the same information that we do?

First, no. I don't laugh when people die and if I laugh when they do stupid things, it's not because I wish them ill.

I wonder, though, what goes through your mind when you say Guess what... death from untreated snake bite or poisoning is rare among these people?

ParkingPlaces has already mentioned how rare death is from snakebite in the US, so why are you impressed when both father and son of a snake-handling religious family died from a snakebite when that is totally the opposite to what your faith says will happen? If your faith provides protection then no-one should die from that. Not one person. If they died because they were not "True Christians", then why don't these handlers get bitten each and every time they play with snakes?

Wikipedia has an article on deaths from snake-bite. It's probably not complete, but it provides a fascinating insight none-the-less.[2]

The video you linked to references the Wolford family. Well, the younger Pastor Wolford was one of three people listed as succumbing to snake bite in 2010 - effectively, that's 1/3rd of the victims. Where was your god, other than not there?

The elder Pastor Wolford died in 1983, the only death attributed to snake poisoning in that year. 100% failure for the JC-vest of protection. In the 80's, as it turns out, 2 out of 3 of the deaths from snake bites were to people who foolishly thought their religious beliefs would protect them.

So when you say "rare", what you mean is rare as compared to death from spontaneous self-combustion?

By the way, I think the religious answer to ParkingPlace's question regarding Hindu snake charmers is that Jesus is imprinted on their hearts, but they just don't know it. See, that was easy.
 1. OK, Jesus (geek joke)
 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_snake_bites_in_the_United_States
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 11:35:11 PM by xyzzy »
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool -- Richard Feynman
You are in a maze of twisty little religions, all alike -- xyzzy

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6100
  • Darwins +683/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #150 on: January 03, 2014, 11:33:37 PM »
By the way, I think the religious answer to ParkingPlace's question regarding Hindu snake charmers is that Jesus is imprinted on their hearts, but they just don't know it. See, that was easy.

Of course, the little kid couldn't read, so god had to imprint a very cute picture book on his young heart.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11679
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #151 on: January 04, 2014, 01:00:39 AM »
By the way, I think the religious answer to ParkingPlace's question regarding Hindu snake charmers is that Jesus is imprinted on their hearts, but they just don't know it. See, that was easy.

Of course, the little kid couldn't read, so god had to imprint a very cute picture book on his young heart.

Don't you mean, "pop-up book"? ;)

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #152 on: January 04, 2014, 01:25:44 AM »
So while you're impressed, I'm thinking those folks are luckier than crap that they don't live in Australia, where the snakes are frickin' wicked and you don't walk away too often.

As an Aussie, i can say that the snakes here would MURDER the crazy snake theists.

The buggers here can slither faster than you can run, virtually never dry bite, and tend to hang up with their fangs to pump more venom into you.

Then you get into Taipan snakes, the things that grow to the size of an average Python, and have the most potent snake venom in the world.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #153 on: January 04, 2014, 01:47:26 PM »
You laugh, but you may be interested, if only for comic relief, to see that some follow your scripture reference right down to drinking poison. Guess what... death from untreated snake bite or poisoning is rare among these people.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cwBVcsWYJd8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DcwBVcsWYJd8

30,000+ get bitten by poisonous snakes every year in the US, and at most, 10 or 12 die. There was a kid fascinated by cottonmouths that I lived near in Illinois, and he'd been bitten three times but never told his mom or had the bites treated because he was afraid she wouldn't let him play with snakes any more. She found out when he was 16 and got interviewed by a newspaper reporter. That's when he confessed. He showed the reporter the places he'd been bitten to confirm his story.

25% of poison snake bites are "dry", which means the snakes don't get any poison into the victim.

So while you're impressed, I'm thinking those folks are luckier than crap that they don't live in Australia, where the snakes are frickin' wicked and you don't walk away too often.

And the drinking of poison? Who is the control. Who also drinks it but doesn't believe and dies? We science types need stuff like that or we won't blindly accept the results.

Snake handlers to die. But of course that means they didn't believe. So no biggie.

Impressed? I didn't express a view. I only presented it's out there.

I think the pastor controls the poison and of course drinks it as well.

why have you asked me to support my claims through science while you make unsubstantiated claims of your own?
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #154 on: January 04, 2014, 02:04:20 PM »
what's amazing to me is the statistics of it. These people don't run into a snake from time. The handle them minimum 52 Times per year. not counting wednesdays or the occasional get together. they don't handle them in the sense that a zoo keeper might. They dance all crazy and sling the snake around. Rattle snakes are very aggressive I'm sure the snake gets mad or defensive enough to kill that it may run away. These people statistically should be dying right and left... but they are not...
that's the only interesting point of this to me.

and deadly snakes... The Tipan in general is #4 while a specific species of Tipan Is #1 as far as land snakes go. and is said to not be aggressive and rarely encountered in the wild.
These "crazy theists" use the eastern diamond back rattle snake of the pit viper family. #10 The deadliest snake available.

"Thus, a rattlesnake bite is always a
potentially fatal injury. Untreated rattlesnake bites, especially from larger species, are very often
fatal."
http://listverse.com/2011/03/30/top-10-most-venomous-snakes/
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline Graybeard

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6418
  • Darwins +456/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #155 on: January 04, 2014, 02:24:54 PM »

You laugh, but you may be interested, if only for comic relief, to see that some follow your scripture reference right down to drinking poison. Guess what... death from untreated snake bite or poisoning is rare among these people.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cwBVcsWYJd8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DcwBVcsWYJd8
From Snake handlingWiki:
Quote
Some of the leaders in these churches have been bitten numerous times, as indicated by their distorted extremities. Hensley himself, the founder of modern snake handling in the Appalachian Mountains, died of a snakebite in 1955. In 1998, snake-handling evangelist John Wayne "Punkin" Brown died after being bitten by a timber rattlesnake at the Rock House Holiness Church in rural northeastern Alabama. While members of his family contend that his death was probably due to a heart attack, Brown's wife had died three years earlier after being bitten in Kentucky. Another snake handler died in 2006 at a church in Kentucky. In 2012, Pentecostal Pastor Mack Wolford died of a rattlesnake bite sustained while officiating at an outdoor service in West Virginia, as did his father in 1983.

Herpetologists have opined that the risk of fatal bites is significantly reduced by the familiarity of the snakes with humans, and by the poor health of snakes that are insufficiently fed and watered.
I am also aware from time spent in India, where venomous snakes are also handled, that the snakes are usually milked of their venom before being shown in public and handled.
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 79
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #156 on: January 04, 2014, 02:42:25 PM »

Very good, Patrick, except you are trying to dodge the point. I'm sure that all sorts of people have thought themselves 'saed' but have not bothered to understand any theology but that hardly makes the theology not worth doing. After all, the simple belief that belief in Jesus 'saves's a person is far from simple as it makes lots assumptions - assumptions which really need to be examined. Shall we try?

Firstly, I know that lots of people join churches and believe without the theology to back it up yet do they really? Why would a person like you, for example, not go to a Roman Catholic or an Anglican church? I'm assuming that if you don'#t go to such a church you will probably have some objection to the theology - whether its the confessional, where the sinner ought to speak direct to god, or the communion, where the bread and wine 'become' the body and blood of Jesus. In the Catholic church you will also need good works on top of beliefs to be saved whereas many no episcopalian churches say faith alone is all that is needed.
First of all, I wasn't "trying" to dodge your point, but speak to it.  I believe that God calls people and they believe in their hearts.  Jesus knew the heart of the thief on the cross and he was saved.  God is Judge and Savior.  Faith is the prerequisite, as it says in Romans 4.  Now assuming that we have much more time on earth and can delve into theology, it IS important to have the right theology based on what the bible says.  I know that we are getting into what the bible really teaches and there are different interpretations.  But my point is that faith in Christ is the key and HE will decide your eternity based on the merits of what HE has done for you.  But you must believe in HIM.   My point is that there is a certain threshold to pass over.  It is Christ.  Now who is Christ?  Well if Christ isn't really God then how can someone believe that their sins are truly forgiven?  There are all sorts of implications to the person who thinks about that one.  Can a created being forgive and pay the price of eternal punishment of the sins of the world?  I don't think so, and I think the early church believed that Jesus was eternal and was able to pay that price because of who HE is, was, and always will be.  Hebrews 13:8.
From early on there were false teachings and also plenty of warning against them, as we read in many different books in the new testament.
 

Anyway, that belief in Jesus 'saves' is all about who people think Jesus is. Its all about a concept of the Trinity because it is not really a biblical doctrine and because churches  all have a different view of the topic. The only thing they all have in common is that the clergy don't like to preach on the trinity as its too hard for them! Since we are discussing and neither of us (I hope) are on our deathbeds, I think it would be helpful to see your view on this.
Well I disagree.  The concept of the Trinity is derived from the bible.  Yes it is a difficult to teach and understand, but unlike what you think, I've heard many sermons on it over the years.  So I believe that God can and does save people based on their heart and faith in Christ.  The gospel message when it's all put together in its simplest form, sends this message.  I also think that for people who accept teachings that Jesus was not eternal, that deviate from the gospel and actively believe in a different gospel or another gospel, are on thin ice.  Because eventually a different gospel will lead a person from faith in Christ to faith in themselves or a different god altogether. 2 Timothy 4:3-4.   Now, if a person is in the process of deviating, but has a basic belief in Christ as their Savior......?  I fall back on what I said earlier, that God is the Judge, not me!  Christians need to teach and admonish people regarding truth and deviation from the truth.  But ultimately God will Judge each individual soul.   Colossians 2 : 8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority

A warning to not follow false doctrine combined with teaching that Christ is God.



Then there is the 'saves'. 'Saves' from what? Well, apparently Original Sin (OS). You know, Adam and Eve and the fruit and the wily snake. Well, it turns out that, using the same Genesis text, Jews don't find OS at all. They see it as something the couple did that doesn't affect us today. Yoyu have Paul to thank for introducing the world to the need to be 'saved'. Anyone wodering about being 'saved' really ought to come to terms with the concept and decide if it makes sense.

The problem is, though, that the money coming in on the plate would fall, as would the numbers on the pews, if the congregations had to start and get their heads around this stuff because it takes some interesting philosophy to make it all work. Aristotle and his concept of 'substance' in particular. Yet if people are being brought into the churches without the understanding of the basis of faith (and Aristotle's dodgy philosophy) is it being honest to the people?

So, anyway, have a look and Nicea and try some theology, Patrick - it might chnage your life.

I like theology and have regarded its importance for a long time.  But it also doesn't save a person by itself.  Good theology is good, but God saves people. 
I know the Nicene creed and Apostle's creed. The gospel message has changed my life and I personally know people who didn't need everything in theology to simply come to belief in Christ.  I thought that I needed more to come to faith in Christ, and theology has helped, but I've come full circle and realize that the simple teaching from Jesus in Matthew 18 is what I needed to do.  Come to faith in Christ like a child.  Putting away my puffed up human pride and regarding our intellect as the highest thing.  He didn't mean to check your brain in at the door, but He meant that we must TRUST in HIM.  That is what this Christian thing is all about.  If Jesus really is God then how can we fully grasp HIM?  How can we come to HIM in any other way but by faith and checking our pride in at the door?  Matthew 18 says we can't. 
Now that is good theology. 

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #157 on: January 04, 2014, 03:11:13 PM »
Graybeard....
 I may have you all wrong. This is the second time I'm aware of you have supported me... Thank you.

or are you refuting me? I'm confused now....
As evidenced by your own wikilink. These are not milked snakes.

"Some of the leaders in these churches have been bitten numerous times, as indicated by their distorted extremities. Hensley himself, the founder of modern snake handling in the Appalachian Mountains, died of a snakebite in 1955."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_handling
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #158 on: January 04, 2014, 10:30:04 PM »
and deadly snakes... The Tipan in general is #4 while a specific species of Tipan Is #1 as far as land snakes go. and is said to not be aggressive and rarely encountered in the wild.
These "crazy theists" use the eastern diamond back rattle snake of the pit viper family. #10 The deadliest snake available.

Venom toxicity is pointless when Aussie snakes get huge and are as aggressive as a rabid dog.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 79
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #159 on: January 05, 2014, 04:17:29 AM »

Salvation based on belief in the Trinity:  It seems the thief on the cross was saved, I doubt that he fully understood the Trinity.  Maybe Zacchaeus didn't understand the Trinity completely either.   While the Trinity is important to understand, ultimately it is a changed heart that leads a man to repentance and belief in Christ.

This is a first for me.  I have heard a lot of pastors say it is important to BELIEVE in the Trinity but I have never heard anyone say it is important to UNDERSTAND the Trinity.  The reason why you are the first person I have heard mention this is because NOBODY can UNDERSTAND the Trinity.  If you, or anyone else, can fully understand the Trinity then you need to write a book.  Trust me, if you can logically fill all the holes apparent in the doctrine then you need to write a book and let everyone know that you solved the mystery to the doctrine of the Trinity.
I don't think we can gain a full understanding of the Trinity.  I meant "understand" in the sense that someone would be aware of the concept.  I'm not sure the thief on the cross would have even been aware of the concept of the Trinity.  Since it became more fully revealed in the new testaments.  I could have used the word "believe" in this case.  I hope you get my point.

You say that Jesus is one nature with the Father and is fully the one true God.  You say He claimed it through the "I am" statement in John 8:58.  So the bible says that God "knows all things".  But then speaking of the timing of his second coming, Jesus says, "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone". So if Jesus is "one being" with God and He knows all things then why does Jesus claim ignorance as to the timing of his second coming?

I'm not a prophet but I am going to predict that the answer you will give me will sound a lot like you are trying to round the corners of a square to make it a circle so they can be the same shape.  Nothing you say will make sense to me because this is a contradiction.  My guess is that you will "round the corners" and say that Jesus didn't have all the attributes in His humanity.  If this is the case, then He wasn't fully God.  Saying that Jesus is fully man and fully God is a CONTRADICTION.  This is one example out of many why the doctrine of the Trinity is impossible to understand.  CONTRADICTIONS DON'T MAKE SENSE TO HUMANS WHO ARE LOGICAL!
Sounds like the age old question "can God make a rock that is too big for Himself to lift?"
I don't know the answer.  It's not only a contradiction to a logical human being.  It's a contradiction to all human beings. 
There are things about God that are really impossible to understand.  But in many places in the bible, it doesn't shy away from this fact.  Ecclesiastes, Job, Isaiah, all attest to this.  Yet there is still belief in God. 
[/quote]

   
Believing Jesus is the eternal Son, that the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of man to bring him to salvation, and in the Father is all plenty of understanding for most people.  Because it's what the bible says.
Here's another comparison for you:

The words "Eternal Son" put together are not in the Bible     like     The word Trinity is not in the bible

And you say it's what the bible says???  Maybe it's what YOU say the bible says.  I'll challenge you on this claim that the bible teaches the Son is eternal (no beginning).  Warning: It will get "scholarly" again.  By the way, I'm still waiting for a rebuttal to BeDuhn's "scholarly" arguments concerning the "I am".
Well the bible seems to say it by implication in several verses.  By eternal I mean to say that from my perspective Jesus is eternal.  What happened before the creation of our universe is something that I look forward to learning about when it's revealed. 
I have been working on BeDuhn's take on John 1:1 and have read some about him as well. 
Here is a debate that I've been reading.  Maybe you would like to read it too. 
http://www.forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/JB-RH.Jn1_1.Index.htm
[/quote] 

But this is something that I'm interested to know about you.  When you were a Christian, did you believe that it was absolutely necessary to have just the right view of the Trinity?  That salvation depended upon intellect and knowlege?


As a Christian I believed that Children before the age of accountability (whatever age that is) were saved without intellect and knowledge no matter what.  Individuals who were mentally disabled, etc. fell into this category for me as well.  Why did I believe this?  I don't know.  I think I was creating God in my own image because there is not too much scriptural backing to support this view I had.

Everybody else after the age of accountability (whatever age that is) was responsible for their salvation.  They were supposed to work out their salvation with fear and trembling as Paul puts it.  And yes, intellect and knowledge played a role.  People had to KNOW they were sinners and repent from their sins and have the INTELLECT to believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God and that he died on the cross as a sacrificial atonement for one's sins and rose again. 

This was pretty much as far as I went when it came to the requirement of intellect, knowledge and belief one had to have in order to be saved.  I didn't think people had to have "just the right view of the Trinity" because I didn't think the bible taught the Trinity. 

I don't think you would find the concept of the Trinity if you were stuck on an island alone and found a bible and read it for the first time.  I seriously doubt that you would pull the doctrine of the Trinity out of it.  I don't think you would say, "That was cool that God revealed himself as one being in the Old Testament but then as one being in three persons that are co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial in the New Testament".  Who knows, I could be wrong.  It's just a guess on my part.  I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is taught through INDOCTRINATION.  It won't take you that long to think about this but how did you come up with the idea that Jesus was claiming to be God by saying "I am" in John 8:58?  I'm going to make another guess and say that you did not discover this on your own but THE CHURCH made this connection for you.  I don't think you would have ever made this connection on your own if you were on an island alone reading the bible from cover to cover. 
I don't remember the time the connection was made, but it may have been made for me.  I accepted it because it made sense though. That the Jewish leaders were going to stone Him for saying it, makes it even more evident.
[/quote]


In addition, through indoctrinating people, fear is added to the process by saying that the people who do not believe in the Trinity are involved in a cult.  I saw this first hand.  I've read a lot of material concerning this issue.  Every non-trinitarian "Christian" group is considered a cult according to the majority of Christians.     

I never let the doctrine of the Trinity (or Binity) overlap into the doctrine of salvation.  As a Christian I would have said your gospel is to "inclusive" as you would have to say that one has to believe that Jesus is the "I am" of the Old Testament in order to be saved.  Because you believe that Jesus claims to be God by saying "I am" in John 8:58 you would have to say that one will "die in their sins" if they don't believe that Jesus is the "I am" (John 8:24).  Am I wrong?  I don't want to misrepresent your gospel. 
I don't emphasize that it's an absolute pre-requisite for salvation.  I hope that I've conveyed that clearly enough.  But I understand what you are talking about.  I know that many do emphasize it.
[/quote]


If you agree, then I would have said that you are adding to the gospel of salvation by making this belief a requirement and are accursed in Paul's eyes (Gal. 1:9).

Here's another question:  Where does a non-trinitarian gospel lead a person?


My answer to where a non-trinitarian gospel leads a person will be threefold (or a trinity):

1. Personally, a non-trinitarian gospel led me to pastoring my own home fellowship for about 6 months.  I was OSTRACIZED from my church.  The closest church that shared my non-trinitarian gospel was 50 miles away and I could not make the drive every week.

2. Eternally I will mention five options:

1.  Your gospel is right and the non-trinitarians will go to hell

2.  The non-trinitarian gospel is right and you will go to hell

3.  Trinitarian's and non-trinitarians will go to hell

4.  Trinitarian's and non-trinitarians go to heaven

5.  Nobody goes to heaven or hell because God doesn't exist.

     My guess is #5!


3.Historically, a non-trinitarian gospel has led people to EXCOMMUNICATION from the church.

One example:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius

A non-trinitarian gospel has led people to PUNISHMENT AND IMPRISONMENT.

example:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_Act_1697

A non-trinitarian gospel has led people to DEATH.

One example:   http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/michael-servetus.htm

This last example I found interesting.  Michael Servetus was a participator of the protestant reformation. He was a non-trinitarian that John Calvin was instrumental in putting to death. By order of the Protestant Geneva Governing Council, which John Calvin has association with, Michael Servetus was convicted of being against infant baptism and denying the trinity. John Calvin said, "I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed on him, but I desire that the severity of the punishment be mitigated". Servetus was burned at the stake with what was believed to be the last copy of his book chained to his leg. Historians record that his last words were, "Jesus, son of the eternal God have mercy on me". Notice Servetus didn't say "Jesus, the eternal God have mercy on me".
Very interesting about John Calvin.  I didn't know that.
[/quote]

If the Christian God exists, all this is mind boggling to me.  I'm sure you think that God is all-knowing as 1 John 3:20 suggests. So God would have known when he "inspired" his word back in the first century that there was not enough information in the bible for human brains to figure out concerning his nature. Also, since god is all knowing then he must have known all the disagreement, excommunications and killings that would result from this unclear and confusing doctrine.

Don't you think God could have clearly explained the doctrine of the trinity better in his revealed word?  Don't you think the nature of the Godhead could have been expressed more clearly in the bible to avoid disagreements, excommunications, and killings?  In fact, a MAN who tampered with the bible spelled the doctrine of the trinity out more clearly than God did. In the King James Version we find 1 John 5:7 say, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one". This is the clearest expression of the trinitarian concept in the bible. However, this verse is not found in ANY of the earliest Greek manuscripts. You can't find this verse in any of the new testament manuscripts before the sixteenth century. This tells me that a MAN who tampered with the bible could express the trinity clearer than God.

If the omniscient Christian God exists, my only conclusion as an outsider is that God didn't want to communicate the doctrine of the trinity clearly in his revealed word because he likes to see his children disagree, excommunicate, and kill one another over an unclear, confusing and contradictory doctrine found in his revealed word.
I understand your point, but I disagree with your conclusion that God likes to see His children.......kill one another......over contradictory doctrine.   This sounds no different than the arguments that God must not be real or He wouldn't allow evil and human suffering. 
Surely you knew that wars have been fought over doctrinal differences and power struggles over the centuries.  What Calvin was a part of probably seemed justified to him.  I don't understand how, but living in that time of religious authority, I can imagine it.  It's no excuse though, he should have been convicted by God but really a Christian is capable of committing sin against another person as we both know.
I don't fault God for that.  You may disagree, but the scriptures are clear enough, that believers should know better than to kill over such things.   At least from the new testament.  I don't get that, and I don't think it's in there. 
I would think that option # 4 is a possibility for you.  If God doesn't reveal all things to us directly, but through a combination of the bible and the Holy Spirit, and we know that is taught, wouldn't it make sense that human beings, even Christians, will evolve in their faith and understanding of Him?  Including how to treat each other?  We are all truly sinners, and in need of God's grace and grace to give each other.  I read that as a message throughout the new testament.  That we are to love others and follow God's word.  But love is the context in which we do things.  I really think that Christians still miss this.    But I don't blame the bible.  I get that from Jesus and the new testament.
[/quote]


Regarding the unity of the church and common belief:  The short answer is that there are essentials of the faith that unite people.   Salvation by grace through faith in Christ as the final attonement for our sin, is the one thing that unites people.



I find it fascinating that you used the word "essentials".  You know, I looked up the word "essentials" through blue letter bible (NASB).  The word "essentials" only appears in the bible once and it's in Acts 15:28 (NASB):

“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials":

You want to know what the "essentials" are?  Verse 29: "that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication". 

Let me ask you this PH.  Does your "unity" with your fellow Christians involve saaaay, abstaining from blood?  If you ask me, the JW's who are considered heretics follow the bible more closely as to obeying the "essintials" of the New Testament Church than you do.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Can you BIBLICALLY explain to me why the "unity" with your fellow Christians should not involve abstaining from blood and from things strangled?

Man says, "salvation by grace through faith in Christ as the final atonement for our sin, is the one thing that unites people".  The alleged word of God suggests something different.     

Here is something else for you to read regarding Acts 15:29
https://bible.org/seriespage/great-debates-acts-151-41

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #160 on: January 05, 2014, 05:07:37 AM »
This sounds no different than the arguments that God must not be real or He wouldn't allow evil and human suffering. 

Please explain how an ALL loving being with the power to do anything could allow such things.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Graybeard

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6418
  • Darwins +456/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #161 on: January 05, 2014, 07:46:30 AM »
Here is something else for you to read regarding Acts 15:29
https://bible.org/seriespage/great-debates-acts-151-41
Ac:15:29: That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

This is a strange verse: We can see why Paul would say that anything to do with idols should be avoided[1]. We can see the reasoning behind fornication[2]. "Things strangled" would imply "Not kosher" and "blood" was a question of hygiene: blood was used to make various dishes but only fresh blood should be used and it should be well-cooked, otherwise the chances of food poisoning was very high.

However, the interesting words are, "ye shall do well". Surely, this has nothing to do with going to heaven, or "doing good"? Rather it is the equivalent of "You would do well not to go out without an umbrella." It is a personal opinion.

And yet there is the "dirty hands verse":
M't:15:11: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. (Attrib. Jesus)
and
Ac:10:9 -23.

So, who do we believe? Paul, or God and Jesus?




 1. It is also interesting in that it shows that other gods were around at the time
 2. God had always frowned on it but sometimes turned a blind eye to it
« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 07:52:17 AM by Graybeard »
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #162 on: January 05, 2014, 11:50:09 AM »

So, who do we believe? Paul, or God and Jesus?

Simple for Christians - both of course. Blend them together for better effect!
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #163 on: January 05, 2014, 12:00:56 PM »
Simple for Christians - both of course. Blend them together for better effect!

Will it blend? THAT is the question.

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #164 on: January 05, 2014, 12:04:39 PM »
Bother - I should have linked it to the video shouldn't I?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #165 on: January 05, 2014, 12:15:43 PM »
Bother - I should have linked it to the video shouldn't I?

Ehh, not really, I just post stupid things...
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 79
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #166 on: January 05, 2014, 08:36:21 PM »
Here is something else for you to read regarding Acts 15:29
https://bible.org/seriespage/great-debates-acts-151-41
Ac:15:29: That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

This is a strange verse: We can see why Paul would say that anything to do with idols should be avoided[1]. We can see the reasoning behind fornication[2]. "Things strangled" would imply "Not kosher" and "blood" was a question of hygiene: blood was used to make various dishes but only fresh blood should be used and it should be well-cooked, otherwise the chances of food poisoning was very high.

However, the interesting words are, "ye shall do well". Surely, this has nothing to do with going to heaven, or "doing good"? Rather it is the equivalent of "You would do well not to go out without an umbrella." It is a personal opinion.

And yet there is the "dirty hands verse":
M't:15:11: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. (Attrib. Jesus)
and
Ac:10:9 -23.

So, who do we believe? Paul, or God and Jesus?
 1. It is also interesting in that it shows that other gods were around at the time
 2. God had always frowned on it but sometimes turned a blind eye to it
Matt 15 -  Like most seeming contradictions, it is a matter of reading the context.  Jesus is making the point that the Pharisees were focused on the law, and their hearts were not converted.  So that sets up His point that what proceeds out of the mouth is an indication of what is in the heart. 
"This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."

Acts 15 -   Fornication is obvious, eating things sacrificed to idols and eating blood, probably had more spiritual implications than even the physical.  Although, as you stated there is the physical aspect as well. 


Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #167 on: January 05, 2014, 11:38:47 PM »

By sayin "not the ONLY exception" are you not implying that I meant ONLY exception when I said "AN exception"? Is that not the ONLY way I can be "wrong again?"

Harbinger, I have no idea what you are saying here.  I looked over your previous posts and I don't see where you said "AN exception".  I don't even know if that would matter.  I really have no idea what you are saying here.  I read this ten times and I can't understand what you are saying.  I bet this is how a trinitarian feels when they read 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 ten times trying to understand how Jesus and his Father are "one being".

1Cr 15:24-28

Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
   
For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
   
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
   
For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
   
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.


Does a spelling error really mean that someone can't hold any view? What if I suffer from mental handicap, ADD or Dislexiaand for example and have trouble with spelling? can I then hold no views?

The sentence should say, "What if I suffer from A "mental handicap.....". 

Harbinger, if you suffer from a mental handicap then I would say that you can hold views but don't expect those views to be seen as credible.


How can one truly understand Hyper-calvinism  without first understanding plain ol' calvinism
One is a product of the other.

I understand hyper-calvinism and calvinism.  My first understanding of both of these theologies is that they are somewhat biblical but extremely HORRIFIC!

For example:

Biblical truth: All things were created by Jesus and for Jesus  (Col. 1:16)

Biblical truth: God knows all things - is omniscient (1 Jo. 3:20)

Biblical truth:  Hell is eternal punishment (Matt. 25:46)

CLAIM:  Your God knows that he is going to create individuals for eternal punishment.  I call this God a jerk....Why not kill the individuals as infants who are going to reject the gospel so they don't have to experience eternal hell???  Is it because He likes to show-off His wrath???  You call this God a God worthy of worship because.......????   



However, I don't think you understand hyper-calvinism.  Here is your challenge: 

I gave you three links explaining why hyper-calvinism is a theology that teaches that repentance is NOT necessary for salvation.

Give me a link that says, "Hyper-calvinism is a Christian theology that teaches that repentance is necessary for salvation".

I will seriously change my view on hyper-calvinism if you can send me a link that specifically says that hyper-calvinism is a theology that says a person has a responsibility to repent and repentance is definitely necessary for salvation. 


Could it be that you don't understand fully the doctrine of election? Do you even know that's what your quote refers to?

I'm confused???  What quote???   What is my quote referring to???   

CAN YOU PLEASE QUIT WASTING TIME!  PLEASE LEARN HOW TO "QUOTE".     


calvinism states that repentance is a gift. It's not necessary in the sense that you can't be saved until you repent. That's a whole different and much more common theology. Rather repenting is brought on by God's act of regenerating thus the man who is dead in his sin is now acutely aware of his sinful nature and then will repent. There is no what if I don't repent. When the Holy spirit regenerates a man that man WILL repent. The holy spirit won't regenerate the non-elect. Until then, much like yourself, there is no desire to repent nor can there be. repentance is necessary, you just have the order backwards that's all.

Weren't you just whining about being hated on this forum (Post #141).  Look at your hypocrisy.  You say that I have "no desire to repent nor can there be".  Are you saying that I can't repent???  Do you believe in eternal hell???  Do you see that you are the hater???  Telling me that I can't repent and are going to spend eternal life in hell is not very "loving"!

By the way, my only mention of "Calvinism" was that you had no idea how to spell "Calvinism".  I am talking about "hyper-calvinism".




without looking it up... what can you tell me about total depravity?

That's easy.  I can tell you that total depravity is a ridiculous doctrine that is taught in the bible.  I am astonished that you, or anybody else, can believe in the doctrine of original sin. I actually think it is a disgusting and ridiculous doctrine and cannot believe you think sin is carried all the way to you from Adam.  In my opinion, if you teach this doctrine to your kids it is a mild form of child abuse.  I was taught this doctrine throughout my childhood and I lived in guilt throughout my entire childhood even into my college years. 

By the way, I just want to let you know that many people are enslaved by "sin" and find many outreach programs that are helpful and non-religious.  You can even learn how to quit a bad habit on the internet.  The fact that people are finding a way to quit a bad habit without the help of your God makes your God really really really really small - or non-existent. 



Why do you insist that "I want" must mean "I will"
Is it possible that "I did it" is an answer? That on a later occasion I thought the question was answered and now see no reason to expound upon the answer?

I have no idea what you are referring to here.  I think you are talking to yourself.  You really need to learn how to quote on this forum.  There is a tutorial on the home page.  If you would have put my quote that's specific to your above sentences then I might have an idea what you are talking about here.   



On what standard do you measure me as a Christian?

I already told you.  On the standard of this revealed word of your God that you call the Bible. 

Don't worry, I'm going to hell too.  I look forward to meeting you along with all the other Christians who thought they had the right gospel. 

Thanks again Harbinger!  Once again, you are really exposing yourself and are truly a valuable asset to this forum as a "Look what Christianity has done to this guy" example.  Keep up the good work. 
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #168 on: January 07, 2014, 01:00:23 AM »

Sounds like the age old question "can God make a rock that is too big for Himself to lift?"
I don't know the answer.  It's not only a contradiction to a logical human being.  It's a contradiction to all human beings. 
There are things about God that are really impossible to understand.  But in many places in the bible, it doesn't shy away from this fact.  Ecclesiastes, Job, Isaiah, all attest to this.  Yet there is still belief in God. 

I'm confused.  Why would you mention Ecclesiastes, Job, and Isaiah.  You are getting off topic.  All these writers believed in God but not a trinitarian God.  What is contradictory about the nature of God that is written in these books?

I'm glad you at least admitted to the fact that Jesus being ignorant of the timing of his second coming is a contradiction to the belief that Jesus is "one being" with the Father.  I have a question for you.  Do you think it's fair for God to require humans to believe in a contradiction in order to be saved?  If I have to believe that Jesus is the one true God ("I am") to avoid dying in my sins (John 8:24) then, with all due respect, your God is a monster for requiring me to believe in a contradiction for salvation. 


Well the bible seems to say it by implication in several verses.  By eternal I mean to say that from my perspective Jesus is eternal.  What happened before the creation of our universe is something that I look forward to learning about when it's revealed. 
I have been working on BeDuhn's take on John 1:1 and have read some about him as well. 
Here is a debate that I've been reading.  Maybe you would like to read it too. 
http://www.forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/JB-RH.Jn1_1.Index.htm

Thanks for the link.  I'll read the whole thing when I have more time. 

The bible implies that Jesus is eternal???  Are you surprised that I can find verses that imply that Jesus was created.  I'm not.  THE SCRIPTURES ARE NOT CLEAR!  I can think of two verses off the top of my head: 

Col. 1:15 - "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature"

Rev. 3:14 - "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God"

In addition, I am also not surprised that another verse that claims Jesus is God (John 1:1) is under investigation.  I would think the all-powerful God could write/inspire unambiguously about his true nature.  The reason why there is so much debate over the doctrine of the Trinity is because you have different authors with different theologies writing about what they think Jesus' nature truly is.  And they write so ambiguously that different interpretations are bound to happen. 

How hard is it for your all-powerful God to inspire a text to say, "the Godhead is one being that consists of three persons - the father, son and holy spirit and all three persons are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial".  There wouldn't be too much confusion if we found a verse in the bible that said that right?  There would be confusion as to understanding this but at least there wouldn't be any disagreement as to the definition/formula of the Godhead.

To avoid all the confusion, I'm going to make a guess and say that you would much rather have this specific formula/definition of the Godhead revealed in your bible then saaaaay a contradictory genealogy of Jesus.  Do you know why this formula had to be created centuries after the life of Jesus?  Because your God was not specific enough in his word concerning the true nature of Jesus.  The debate over the trinity has lasted for century, after century, after century all because the holy spirit is a horrible communicator and couldn't specifically and clearly reveal the nature of Jesus.  Some say Jesus is the one true God and they will rattle off many verses; and some say Jesus is not the one true God and they have their verses for support.

Conclusion: Your bible is either not divinely inspired or your God is a horrible communicator!               


I don't remember the time the connection was made, but it may have been made for me.  I accepted it because it made sense though. That the Jewish leaders were going to stone Him for saying it, makes it even more evident.

It doesn't make it more evident to me especially after reading BeDuhn's argument.  I'm still waiting for that rebuttal.  The circumstantial evidence that the Jews picked up stones to stone him BECAUSE he claimed the divine title is not enough.  Is this your only rebuttal?  You have in the same chapter Jesus saying, "But as it is, you are SEEKING TO KILL ME, a MAN who has told you the truth, which I heard FROM God..." (John 8:40).  Even by Jesus saying that he heard something FROM God is excluding him from being God.  In addition, why were the Jews seeking to kill Jesus (verse 40)?  It wasn't for claiming to be God was it?  But then you say that in 19 verses later the Jews are picking up stones because Jesus is claiming to be God.  I'm not buying it.  BeDuhn's argument that the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus for claiming to be superior to Abraham and to have "superhuman longevity" is much more plausible. 

I'm also not buying that the "I am" connection "MAY" have been made for you.  Sorry, I wish I could believe you that you possibly made this connection yourself but I just don't believe you.  Additionally, I believe you would have remembered making this amazing connection on your own.


I don't emphasize that it's an absolute pre-requisite for salvation.  I hope that I've conveyed that clearly enough.  But I understand what you are talking about.  I know that many do emphasize it.


You don't emphasize that believing that Jesus is God is an absolute pre-requisite for salvation???  You hope that you have conveyed that clearly enough???  Quite the opposite Patrick Henry.  You have not conveyed that clearly enough.  In post #115 you state:

"I think that it's very important to understand that Jesus is the Son of God (Deity).  That He was sinless, that He was present in the creation with God, that they are One.  All these things are crucial to understanding salvation."

I believe I have spotted a contradiction.  Truth is to falsehood like Patrick Henry's view of salvation is to contradiction.

By the way, why wouldn't you think that it is a pre-requisite for salvation to believe that Jesus is the one true God?  John 8:24 says that you will "die in your sins" if you don't believe that Jesus is "I am".  If you think that Jesus is the "I am" of John 8:58 then you have to believe he is mentioning the divine title in John 8:24 as well. 

I can't believe you can look at a verse like John 8:24 with your view of the "I am" and then say it is NOT a pre-requisite to believe that Jesus is the one true God ("I am").  Explain yourself please.

Jesus says that unless one believes that Jesus is "I am" they will die in their sins.
Patrick Henry says, "I don't emphasize that it's an absolute pre-requisite for salvation".

Huh???


I understand your point, but I disagree with your conclusion that God likes to see His children.......kill one another......over contradictory doctrine.   This sounds no different than the arguments that God must not be real or He wouldn't allow evil and human suffering. 
Surely you knew that wars have been fought over doctrinal differences and power struggles over the centuries.  What Calvin was a part of probably seemed justified to him.  I don't understand how, but living in that time of religious authority, I can imagine it.  It's no excuse though, he should have been convicted by God but really a Christian is capable of committing sin against another person as we both know.
I don't fault God for that.  You may disagree, but the scriptures are clear enough, that believers should know better than to kill over such things.   At least from the new testament.  I don't get that, and I don't think it's in there.

Remember Patrick that I take issue with people saying "clear" and "scripture" in the same sentence.  It is God's fault!  Like I said earlier, if your God is all-powerful it would not be hard for him to clearly write/inspire a text to give his followers the correct understanding of his nature. 

Believers should know better than to kill over such things???  Christians are to be Christ-like!  If you think Jesus is the same person as the Holy Spirit then we have Jesus murdering two individuals for being hypocrites and not giving to the church all they promised (Acts 5).  John Calvin is just following the leadership of Jesus.  John Calvin is a murderer just like Jesus is a murderer.  You can find justification for almost anything in the bible and that is because THE SCRIPTURES ARE NOT CLEAR! 


If God doesn't reveal all things to us directly, but through a combination of the bible and the Holy Spirit, and we know that is taught, wouldn't it make sense that human beings, even Christians, will evolve in their faith and understanding of Him?

You might come to this conclusion but this makes no sense to me.  One of the reasons I "evolved" out of my faith is because the bible says the Holy Spirit will guide individuals into "all truth" (John 16:13).  This sounds great but then I realized there are over 40,000 different Christian denominations and all these denominations believe different things about the bible because of different interpretations over different doctrines.  Which denomination has the correct view on all doctrines?  Is there even one individual in this world who has the correct view on all the doctrines?  Which denomination has the Holy Spirit guiding then into all truth?  They can't all be right. 

My conclusion:  The Holy Spirit has been falsified and, therefore, does not exist.  Either that or Jesus is a liar when he said the Holy Spirit will guide people into "all truth".       

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6188
  • Darwins +778/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #169 on: January 07, 2014, 10:37:12 AM »
Whoa, wait a minute. Is harbinger now arguing in favor of snake handling? Because the people get bitten a lot, but mostly don't die? WTF is he smoking?  Doesn't it seem that if they are blessed by god or protected by god or something, they should never get bitten at all? And these are snakes that are used to the people, right?

Try a little snake handling with an African black mamba straight from the wild, or the snake the local people called the "you die in four hours" snake. On second thought, don't. :P
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online xyzzy

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Darwins +48/-0
  • "Nothing happens"
    • xyzzy
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #170 on: January 07, 2014, 10:59:12 AM »
Whoa, wait a minute. Is harbinger now arguing in favor of snake handling? Because the people get bitten a lot, but mostly don't die? WTF is he smoking?  Doesn't it seem that if they are blessed by god or protected by god or something, they should never get bitten at all? And these are snakes that are used to the people, right?

Correct. The fact that a father and son (Wolfords) both died from a snake bite[1] is somehow proof of something because they didn't die earlier. Or something like that. The point has been made consistently, though, that death from snake-bite in America is a rare event, in and of itself.

Harbinger, if you explained this when I asked about it earlier, then I missed it, maybe you didn't get to it with all the other things we asked about, but I don't recall you answering my point about the fact that they ever experienced envenomation, or that any snake-handler died as a result of that?
 1. the newspaper reports say that these were pets - but the takeaway is that they are used to being handled
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool -- Richard Feynman
You are in a maze of twisty little religions, all alike -- xyzzy

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11679
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #171 on: January 07, 2014, 12:20:13 PM »
Whoa, wait a minute. Is harbinger now arguing in favor of snake handling? Because the people get bitten a lot, but mostly don't die? WTF is he smoking?  Doesn't it seem that if they are blessed by god or protected by god or something, they should never get bitten at all? And these are snakes that are used to the people, right?

Try a little snake handling with an African black mamba straight from the wild, or the snake the local people called the "you die in four hours" snake. On second thought, don't. :P

Better yet an anaconda. ;)

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6188
  • Darwins +778/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #172 on: January 07, 2014, 04:32:03 PM »
Hell, just jump into a tank of piranahs. If god wants you to survive it, you will.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #173 on: January 07, 2014, 05:01:14 PM »
You laugh, but you may be interested, if only for comic relief, to see that some follow your scripture reference right down to drinking poison. Guess what... death from untreated snake bite or poisoning is rare among these people.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cwBVcsWYJd8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DcwBVcsWYJd8

30,000+ get bitten by poisonous snakes every year in the US, and at most, 10 or 12 die. There was a kid fascinated by cottonmouths that I lived near in Illinois, and he'd been bitten three times but never told his mom or had the bites treated because he was afraid she wouldn't let him play with snakes any more. She found out when he was 16 and got interviewed by a newspaper reporter. That's when he confessed. He showed the reporter the places he'd been bitten to confirm his story.

25% of poison snake bites are "dry", which means the snakes don't get any poison into the victim.

So while you're impressed, I'm thinking those folks are luckier than crap that they don't live in Australia, where the snakes are frickin' wicked and you don't walk away too often.

And the drinking of poison? Who is the control. Who also drinks it but doesn't believe and dies? We science types need stuff like that or we won't blindly accept the results.

Snake handlers to die. But of course that means they didn't believe. So no biggie.

Impressed? I didn't express a view. I only presented it's out there.

I think the pastor controls the poison and of course drinks it as well.

why have you asked me to support my claims through science while you make unsubstantiated claims of your own?

Well, thank goodness for the Google Search!

1. Rational Wiki explains that the snakes are often keep in overcrowded conditions and without food and water so they are rather passive and the bites don't have much venom. Even so, the page lists people killed by handling snakes in church.

2. Reality Show details snake handling in the present day (Oct 2013 article) but still manages to find a death caused by snakes.

3. Even the Christian Post isn't impressed with the practice and records a death.

We could go on but the point is that people have and do die from this practice that only started in the beginning of the 20th century. Again, oddly, people reading the text in Mark prior to that never noticed that it was there or that it might mean anything to them. There is also some explanation of the reason there are not more deaths though, frankly, it is cruelty to the snakes and there are prosecutions of the church who do this.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)