Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
I don't know - if he crossed this magic 'sinful nature' threshold you seem to think exists out there somewhere, then perhaps he still is.

That's correct.  But the important word is "perhaps".  His resurrection is not a free ticket to everlasting life.  It's an opportunity to gain it.

Apparently that would prevent him from ever, ever getting rid of his sinful nature.  Or maybe Christ/Jehovah or Jehovah's god could remove it, irrespective of current state of sinful nature.

Yes he can, but he requires a willing participant.  You guys say "atheists can be moral".  Fine.  But what you don't consider is that perfection is the goal and you cannot achieve it without Jehovah.

He's going to remove it.  That's why he died.  What does one have to do with the other?  It makes no sense, Jstwebbrowsing.

Christ did not die only to allow for the forgiveness of sin but for the removal of it and it's effects.  We are not always going to exist in a fallen state.

If he's going to remove it, he'll remove it.  Why did he have to die a long time beforehand?  Oh, he had to pay the ransom wage?  Ransom to who or what?  God?  God can't just, like, forgive that debt through his infinite divine grace?  You connect these two things because your narrative dictates that they are connected, but that's about it.  There is nothing that actually connects 'death of Jesus' with 'elimination of sinful nature in people'.  None.  Nothing.

The sinful nature is hereditary.  The death and resurrection of Christ provides a second human ancestoral parent that does not pass on that inheritance.  This is one way of looking at it.

I dunno man.  There just seem to be so many rules that god has work with.  So many rules that appear to be imposed on god from some external source.

Yes, the ransom is legal in nature, but also effectual.  It is a cause and there is an effect.

[qoute]Who or what established these rules that god is subject to exactly?[/quote]

Who is to say they are not objective?

Perhaps you could hold off on inviting the new guy, who has all of 9 posts and has been pretty genial, to leave?

I wasn't serious. It doesn't matter, he was leaving anyway. He said so himself.


Quit deflecting.  I've not blamed you for his leaving.  I've just asked that you give the guy a little more time to get used to things before you (jokingly or not) invite him to leave.

I had a comment but a bee just tried to attack my head and I forgot it. Damn bee.

^never gonna happen. The "honesty" part.

No I'm not.  The scriptures do not teach that God creates every individual person.  Jehovah told them to multiply.  He didn't say he was going to create more of them.

So then god is not the potter and we are not his pots to be destroyed by his whim, or for making a point to the other pots.

Romans 9:6-24
But, that is a slippery slope, nam.

One one hand, you say it's OK for us to practice our religion.
but on the other hand, our religion has Jesus telling us to spread the faith to as much people as possible.
So on the 3rd hand, if you tell us we can't preach it to people, but tell us we can still practice our faith (which requires us to preach it to people), it becomes a slippery slope.

No one is doing that. That's just you telling the same lie as the author of the article. (You've spent way too much time in discussions here to reasonably attribute this to mere ignorance, so yes, I'm calling you a liar.)

You are quite free to preach your religion. In your church? Fine. On the public street corner? Fine. On a billboard? Fine. By buying airtime? Fine. By having any part or agent of government preach on your behalf or give your religion preferential access to government spaces or resources? NOT fine. Every one of these legal actions by atheist groups or individuals have addressed cases of government involvement in or favoritism of religion. Every single one. And I believe that you and many other Christians know this, but are simply refusing to be honest about it.

Every atheist that I personally know is a STRONG proponent of intellectual freedom, the freedom to think for one's self, which necessarily includes religious freedom. Every single one. I'm sure there are some atheists somewhere who would like to limit individual religious freedom. But those people are FREAKS. A miniscule lunatic fringe. Zero of these legal cases have made any effort to do anything like that, yet practically every article is followed by Christians claiming in the comments that this is the atheists' "real" goal, despite there being ZERO cases of that.

Skep, you may have noticed that atheists often seem to regard religious people as dishonest, as hypocrites who fail to exhibit even basic honor and integrity while proclaiming themselves the arbiters of morality. If you'd like to understand why that is, I suggest reading your own posts with some brutal self-honesty.
Perhaps you could hold off on inviting the new guy, who has all of 9 posts and has been pretty genial, to leave?

I wasn't serious. It doesn't matter, he was leaving anyway. He said so himself.


Quit deflecting.  I've not blamed you for his leaving.  I've just asked that you give the guy a little more time to get used to things before you (jokingly or not) invite him to leave.

Jst, you are now arguing with yourself, or with your bible. Did god create everybody and everything or not? If he did not created everything, then why does the bible say he did?

Okay, leave that for now.

You have said that Jehovah God created (at least) Adam and Eve, right? When god created them, there was no sin in the world, was there? Yet, through them sin came into the world, somehow, right? To get back to the topic, they apparently did not know that what they were doing was wrong, since they sinned in public! Like kids who touch themselves in the middle of the playground because they have not yet learned it makes other people freak out.

And then they told god exactly what they had done and why. At which point god acted like he had no idea that any of that could have happened, and went into the first of many retrofits of the universe.[1]

Were Adam and Eve perfect and without sin? If so, sin came from outside of Adam and Eve. If not, then god created them with sin inside them somewhere. If god created everything, then he also created sin.
 1. Maybe it was not even the first retrofit, if you count him getting rid of the rebellious angels as the first. Kicking A and E out of the garden would then be the second retrofit. Noah's Ark would be the third and Moses would be the fourth. Jesus would be fifth. Or maybe there are some I missed. :-\

Actually, I would love to hear from JST exactly how the couple in the garden sinned. Presumably eating the fruit gave them the knowledge of good and evil[2] and we may assume that before eating they did not have that knowledge.

In that case, although they had been told by Elohim not to eat of the fruit, they would not have known if eating it was good or evil - since they did not posses that knowledge. Why then is what they did a sin when it was Elohim who failed to provide them with the necessary knowledge?
 2. as we can tell as their first act after eating the fruit is to create clothes for the 'naughty' bits!

No they did not have a philosophy about good and evil.  They had knowedge of Jehovah's will and the ability to carry it out.
General Religious Discussion / Re: ground zero cross can stay
« Last post by screwtape on Today at 01:02:33 PM »
I am sure if they found a piece of rubble in the form of a crescent moon, the liberals would say "we must erect this without hesitation!"

They wouldn't even worry if it's offensive to anyone. Only Christianity can be offensive.

Seriously, skep, I'd like to know why this is such a conservative/ xian meme.  Why do you think liberals are blindly pro-islam?  What examples can you provide of such behavior that would justify your view? 

I am quite liberal and I would never do that.  Bill Mahar, who is very liberal, just got in trouble for being islamophobic.  Our president, who, I am told, is some kind of Kenyan Islamo-fascist socialist, has done nothing deferential for muslims that I can think of.

So kindly tell me, where are all these liberals who love offending xians but are whole heartedly deferential to muslims?  Because I just don't see it and to me, it sounds like the kind of thing a butt-hurt conservative who doesn't understand squat about the world because he lives in a Limbaugh-Hannity news bubble would say.  Or it is just some kind of polemic rant against someone you dislike because they are not of your tribe.


Both the OT and the NT support killing people for their sexuality, do you think the bible is wrong? Do you think the writers of the NT misunderstood Jesus?

That is not the topic.  The topic was Christian behavior and the instructions given to them.


Yes I am dodging your red herring.
The bible does not anywhere distinguish between severity of sins or forgivability of them.

"All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death." (1 John 5:17)
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10