Author Topic: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.  (Read 41742 times)

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #700 on: June 29, 2017, 07:11:32 PM »
Very well, I guess I can elaborate further. 

Caracarn is saying I am saying faith is a work.  I am saying HIS faith IS a work, because he has mixed work into what he believes.  If you believe 0.00001% of your salvation is contingent on your acts, then you ARE being justified by works.  No flesh is ever justified by works, period.  Even in the slightest degree.

Biblical faith is not a work as he points out in Romans 4:3-5 and I agree with that totally.  Biblical faith knows faith is the gift of God, it looks to the finished atoning work of Jesus for perfect righteousness, and based on that alone it justifies.  Jesus justified His people apart from their best religious efforts.  They are saved despite who they are, not because of what they do.

This seemingly minor side point is not minor at all, it cuts right to the core of the gospel.  Self-righteous religionists hate the doctrine since it cuts them down, and they will rail against it.  You have NO satisfactory work that can ever be pleasing to God, ever!  They can't see this because the Holy Spirit has never shown that to them.  They refuse to come as the ungodly, in fact they can't even see it at all.  Gospel repentance is refutation that your best works are dung and looks to Christ's righteousness alone and the foundation for justification. 

Works gospels are seemingly plausible to the unregenerate, but impossible to the regenerate.  Very insidious are the variations of the works schemes.

Jim, thanks for elaborating.
Let me see if I'm understanding the crux of what you're saying, and please correct me if I'm mistaken.

You seem to be saying that 'true' faith is not a work, but a gift from God.
If a person believes that any portion of their salvation relies on their works then their faith is not a 'true' faith.

(I'm using the term 'true' faith just to distinguish the difference - obviously that was my term for clarity, not yours).

Is that a fair summary?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 07:18:08 PM by MrDelane »

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #701 on: June 29, 2017, 07:19:23 PM »
Jim, thanks for elaborating.
Let me see if I'm understanding the crux of what you're saying, and please correct me if I'm mistaken.

You seem to be saying that 'true' faith is not a work, but a gift from God.
If a person believes that any portion of their salvation relies on their works then their faith is not a 'true' faith.

(I'm using the term 'true' faith just to distinguish the difference - obviously that was my term for clarity, not yours).

Is that a fair summary?
Yes.  The true faith knows personal works can't enter into the equation.

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #702 on: June 29, 2017, 07:22:16 PM »
Yes.  The true faith knows personal works can't enter into the equation.

I'm not familiar with the details of Calvinism.
In your worldview, are there any who are saved and do not know it?


jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #703 on: June 29, 2017, 07:26:56 PM »
Yes.  The true faith knows personal works can't enter into the equation.

I'm not familiar with the details of Calvinism.
In your worldview, are there any who are saved and do not know it?
No.  They may be yet unconverted but will eventually be converted and come to faith. 

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #704 on: June 29, 2017, 07:32:39 PM »
Yes.  The true faith knows personal works can't enter into the equation.

I'm not familiar with the details of Calvinism.
In your worldview, are there any who are saved and do not know it?
No.  They may be yet unconverted but will eventually be converted and come to faith.

I see.
So all who are saved will know at some point in their life (because they will be converted and then receive the 'true' faith as a gift from God).

In which case, it would seem that there are at least some who are saved and alive right now and simply do not know it yet because they have yet to be converted and receive the gift of faith.  Right?  Or am I not understanding?

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #705 on: June 29, 2017, 07:41:18 PM »
Yes.  The true faith knows personal works can't enter into the equation.

I'm not familiar with the details of Calvinism.
In your worldview, are there any who are saved and do not know it?
No.  They may be yet unconverted but will eventually be converted and come to faith.

I see.
So all who are saved will know at some point in their life (because they will be converted and then receive the 'true' faith as a gift from God).

In which case, it would seem that there are at least some who are saved and alive right now and simply do not know it yet because they have yet to be converted and receive the gift of faith.  Right?  Or am I not understanding?
In a one sense that is right.  But it all happens in time.  The unregenerate elect are in the world like everyone else but the blessings of salvation are given to them at some point in their life.

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #706 on: June 29, 2017, 07:53:22 PM »
I see.
So all who are saved will know at some point in their life (because they will be converted and then receive the 'true' faith as a gift from God).

In which case, it would seem that there are at least some who are saved and alive right now and simply do not know it yet because they have yet to be converted and receive the gift of faith.  Right?  Or am I not understanding?
In a one sense that is right.  But it all happens in time.  The unregenerate elect are in the world like everyone else but the blessings of salvation are given to them at some point in their life.

Alright, this is going to sound a bit silly - but I have to ask for clarification (please correct anything I've gotten wrong).

From what you've said in this thread, and from what I understand of Calvinism, God's salvation is only for the 'elect.'  It also seems clear that there is nothing any individual can do to be saved. You've made it clear that salvation is not based on works or actions in any way.  The elect have already been chosen and they will know they are saved when they receive the 'true' faith from God.

If that is all the case, then doesn't it seem strange that only Calvinists receive the 'true' faith?
If the elect have been chosen and there is nothing anyone can do about whether or not they are saved then doesn't it seem as if at some point throughout history at least one non Calvinist would have been saved? 

And if not, then doesn't it seem as if to be saved then you must at least be a Calvinist?
And if so, why doesn't that count as salvation based at least partially on works?


jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #707 on: June 29, 2017, 08:04:54 PM »
I see.
So all who are saved will know at some point in their life (because they will be converted and then receive the 'true' faith as a gift from God).

In which case, it would seem that there are at least some who are saved and alive right now and simply do not know it yet because they have yet to be converted and receive the gift of faith.  Right?  Or am I not understanding?
In a one sense that is right.  But it all happens in time.  The unregenerate elect are in the world like everyone else but the blessings of salvation are given to them at some point in their life.

Alright, this is going to sound a bit silly - but I have to ask for clarification (please correct anything I've gotten wrong).

From what you've said in this thread, and from what I understand of Calvinism, God's salvation is only for the 'elect.'  It also seems clear that there is nothing any individual can do to be saved. You've made it clear that salvation is not based on works or actions in any way.  The elect have already been chosen and they will know they are saved when they receive the 'true' faith from God.

If that is all the case, then doesn't it seem strange that only Calvinists receive the 'true' faith?
If the elect have been chosen and there is nothing anyone can do about whether or not they are saved then doesn't it seem as if at some point throughout history at least one non Calvinist would have been saved? 

And if not, then doesn't it seem as if to be saved then you must at least be a Calvinist?
And if so, why doesn't that count as salvation based at least partially on works?
I am not saying you must be a Calvinist since that term has a bunch of doctrine that goes with it.  For example the publican in scripture cried out "have mercy on me a sinner" and it says he was saved.  Now technically he wouldn't be classified as a Calvinist since he wouldn't even know what the doctrines of Calvinism are.  But he would know that his works didn't enter into his salvation and he looked to Christ's righteousness alone to justify him.  Same thing with the thief on the cross.  Both know their works have no part in their justification. 

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #708 on: June 29, 2017, 08:13:51 PM »
I am not saying you must be a Calvinist since that term has a bunch of doctrine that goes with it.  For example the publican in scripture cried out "have mercy on me a sinner" and it says he was saved.  Now technically he wouldn't be classified as a Calvinist since he wouldn't even know what the doctrines of Calvinism are.  But he would know that his works didn't enter into his salvation and he looked to Christ's righteousness alone to justify him.  Same thing with the thief on the cross.  Both know their works have no part in their justification.

Fair enough. 
So I guess one must at least look to "Christ's righteousness alone to justify him"?

Or are you saying the 'true' faith could suddenly come to someone apropos of nothing?

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #709 on: June 29, 2017, 08:24:58 PM »
I am not saying you must be a Calvinist since that term has a bunch of doctrine that goes with it.  For example the publican in scripture cried out "have mercy on me a sinner" and it says he was saved.  Now technically he wouldn't be classified as a Calvinist since he wouldn't even know what the doctrines of Calvinism are.  But he would know that his works didn't enter into his salvation and he looked to Christ's righteousness alone to justify him.  Same thing with the thief on the cross.  Both know their works have no part in their justification.

Fair enough. 
So I guess one must at least look to "Christ's righteousness alone to justify him"?

Or are you saying the 'true' faith could suddenly come to someone apropos of nothing?
The gospel must be heard and applied to the heart by the Holy Spirit. 
I see no example or scripture to indicate someone can just come to this out of the blue with no gospel.

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #710 on: June 29, 2017, 08:36:03 PM »
The gospel must be heard and applied to the heart by the Holy Spirit. 
I see no example or scripture to indicate someone can just come to this out of the blue with no gospel.

Well in that case, I guess there is at least one small thing people must do in order to be saved, right?
You at least need to seek out the gospel.  It's not sufficient, obviously, but it sounds as if it is necessary.

So how does that not count as 0.00001% of your salvation being contingent on your acts?

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #711 on: June 29, 2017, 08:41:22 PM »
The gospel must be heard and applied to the heart by the Holy Spirit. 
I see no example or scripture to indicate someone can just come to this out of the blue with no gospel.

Well in that case, I guess there is at least one small thing people must do in order to be saved, right?
You at least need to seek out the gospel.  It's not sufficient, obviously, but it sounds as if it is necessary.

So how does that not count as 0.00001% of your salvation being contingent on your acts?
Even that desire is part of the gift. 

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #712 on: June 29, 2017, 08:48:38 PM »
Even that desire is part of the gift.

Ah.  Okay, that actually makes sense.

So in that case, is there any reason those who do not yet have the 'true' faith should do anything at all in regards to how they live their lives?  Or, for that matter, those who already know they are saved?

What I mean is - if there is nothing to be done, then why should any of us spend any time thinking about religion at all?  Is there any reason for you to continue going to church (or any of us who do not go to start going?). 

If the decision of our salvation is already made and we will one day receive the gift or not... then why bother with any ritual and/or worship?  Why not just go on about our lives since we cannot do anything to change it?  In that case, why even worry about concepts of morality and making certain you are doing right?

If our salvation is already decided and unchangeable, and you consider that eternity is infinitely longer than our short lives here... then why bother with any of it in this life?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 08:53:09 PM by MrDelane »

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #713 on: June 29, 2017, 09:28:48 PM »
Even that desire is part of the gift.
Ah.  Okay, that actually makes sense.

So in that case, is there any reason those who do not yet have the 'true' faith should do anything at all in regards to how they live their lives?  Or, for that matter, those who already know they are saved?

What I mean is - if there is nothing to be done, then why should any of us spend any time thinking about religion at all?  Is there any reason for you to continue going to church (or any of us who do not go to start going?). 

If the decision of our salvation is already made and we will one day receive the gift or not... then why bother with any ritual and/or worship?  Why not just go on about our lives since we cannot do anything to change it?  In that case, why even worry about concepts of morality and making certain you are doing right?

If our salvation is already decided and unchangeable, and you consider that eternity is infinitely longer than our short lives here... then why bother with any of it in this life?
I think you are hinting at is fatalism.  It is a mystery how this all works out in time and how that involves Divine ordination of events.  But it does say to those who hear the gospel to repent and believe it.  It does say people are accountable and will have to answer for their actions. 

It says the saved are given a new heart and new life and their actions reflect this.  They may still be ungodly but if they are it will really bother them since they have changed on the inside.  You would think that since they know they are forever justified that this would be a license to sin, but it doesn't work that way.


MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #714 on: June 29, 2017, 09:39:06 PM »
I think you are hinting at is fatalism.  It is a mystery how this all works out in time and how that involves Divine ordination of events.  But it does say to those who hear the gospel to repent and believe it.  It does say people are accountable and will have to answer for their actions. 

It says the saved are given a new heart and new life and their actions reflect this.  They may still be ungodly but if they are it will really bother them since they have changed on the inside.  You would think that since they know they are forever justified that this would be a license to sin, but it doesn't work that way.

Fair enough - it makes sense that once you receive the gift and realize your own salvation your entire perspective and approach to life may change.  That makes sense.

But what about those who are not yet aware of their own salvation?
They are either damned or saved... but have no way of knowing which until that moment when they receive the gift.  There is nothing they can do to change their fate, if I'm understanding you correctly.

So why bother with any of it?  Why not just live their lives without care until the day they receive the gift... or die?



caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #715 on: June 29, 2017, 09:56:30 PM »
I made my points, further back and forth would not be productive.

I assume when you say 'not productive' you mean for yourself.
But I think you might discount the potential value this has for people reading it.

I don't think either you nor Caracarn expect to change each others minds, but there are many people reading along that may be interested in learning more about each of your viewpoints (myself among them).

But obviously you're under no obligation to explain your interpretations further if you'd rather not.
Very well, I guess I can elaborate further. 

Caracarn is saying I am saying faith is a work.  I am saying HIS faith IS a work, because he has mixed work into what he believes.  If

Can you point out where I have mixed work into what I believe?  I'm genuinely asking because at this point we agree on the concept and you are right, I was thinking you were saying that having faith is a work, not that you had connected something I specifically said as a work in my personal belief.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #716 on: June 30, 2017, 05:35:12 AM »
Can you point out where I have mixed work into what I believe?  I'm genuinely asking because at this point we agree on the concept and you are right, I was thinking you were saying that having faith is a work, not that you had connected something I specifically said as a work in my personal belief.
Since you believe that everyone has an equal chance to be saved then it follows that the difference between the saved and the lost are personal efforts at religion. 

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #717 on: June 30, 2017, 05:44:52 AM »
I think you are hinting at is fatalism.  It is a mystery how this all works out in time and how that involves Divine ordination of events.  But it does say to those who hear the gospel to repent and believe it.  It does say people are accountable and will have to answer for their actions. 

It says the saved are given a new heart and new life and their actions reflect this.  They may still be ungodly but if they are it will really bother them since they have changed on the inside.  You would think that since they know they are forever justified that this would be a license to sin, but it doesn't work that way.

Fair enough - it makes sense that once you receive the gift and realize your own salvation your entire perspective and approach to life may change.  That makes sense.

But what about those who are not yet aware of their own salvation?
They are either damned or saved... but have no way of knowing which until that moment when they receive the gift.  There is nothing they can do to change their fate, if I'm understanding you correctly.

So why bother with any of it?  Why not just live their lives without care until the day they receive the gift... or die?
I guess someone could do that and have a fatalistic attitude.  If it was me I don't think I would be so cavalier about a topic that is so important.   

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #718 on: June 30, 2017, 06:28:48 AM »
Can you point out where I have mixed work into what I believe?  I'm genuinely asking because at this point we agree on the concept and you are right, I was thinking you were saying that having faith is a work, not that you had connected something I specifically said as a work in my personal belief.
Since you believe that everyone has an equal chance to be saved then it follows that the difference between the saved and the lost are personal efforts at religion.
OK.  Thanks.  I thought it had something to do with the differences between atonement versus the faith of acceptance of the gift from your perspective, but just checking.

It's still unclear to me how the faith of the elect and ultimately their decision to give in at some point is any different, but you've certainly done a great job explaining your understanding of it.

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #719 on: June 30, 2017, 06:44:51 AM »
I think you are hinting at is fatalism.  It is a mystery how this all works out in time and how that involves Divine ordination of events.  But it does say to those who hear the gospel to repent and believe it.  It does say people are accountable and will have to answer for their actions. 

It says the saved are given a new heart and new life and their actions reflect this.  They may still be ungodly but if they are it will really bother them since they have changed on the inside.  You would think that since they know they are forever justified that this would be a license to sin, but it doesn't work that way.

Fair enough - it makes sense that once you receive the gift and realize your own salvation your entire perspective and approach to life may change.  That makes sense.

But what about those who are not yet aware of their own salvation?
They are either damned or saved... but have no way of knowing which until that moment when they receive the gift.  There is nothing they can do to change their fate, if I'm understanding you correctly.

So why bother with any of it?  Why not just live their lives without care until the day they receive the gift... or die?
I'm not sure anyone can answer that except on a personal basis.

Certainly I'd say the tendency of the fallen man is to live for themselves and the immediate pleasures it brings, at times at the expense of common decency and goodwill towards others. 

I'll frame my answer from the perspective that I believe you are asking, but want to spell it out here in case I misunderstood.  This person had in some way gotten to the point that they understand limited atonement and the futility of anything they do to change their fate.  God has either given them the golden ticket, or to hell with you.  I believe the fact that they expended some effort, no matter how small, to not only come to understand this belief, but also to internalize it enough to think about how it impacts their actions.  The fact that they cared about it at all, given that most people will not even get that far, they'll just live in the moment and say this is all there is, already shows a mind shift in the importance of this concept to them.  They are clearly feeling some level of "Is this all there is?" and trying to resolve that.  Now if that is the case, to me it stands to reason that one would then hope or long for being one of the elect and having viewed this strive to live an upstanding life.  I think with a stable mental state the leaning would be much more difficult to go to the fully negative route because I'm not sure that many sociopaths have taken any time to think, much less worry, about election.

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #720 on: June 30, 2017, 07:30:17 AM »
I guess someone could do that and have a fatalistic attitude.

You mention the 'fatalistic attitude' as if it is something the individual is bringing with them. But the fatalism seems baked into the worldview itself, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

We either have some control over our fate or we do not.  If there is anything we can do to affect our salvation then it seems that works are at least a tiny percentage of it.  But you've been very clear that our salvation is not works based in any way at all.

Within that context I fail to see what the proper attitude should be other than fatalistic.
There seems to be no other rational option.  Am I missing something?

Quote
If it was me I don't think I would be so cavalier about a topic that is so important.

Certainly it is an important topic, but you've made it crystal clear that nothing that we do matters in regards to our ultimate fate.  From what I've gathered, within your worldview, this short life we have is just a place to wipe our feet before going on to wherever we'll spent eternity and nothing we do here makes a shred of difference either way.  Unless there is something I'm just not grasping.

So I'm not sure that it's actually cavelier to not expend our energy and emotion on things we cannot change.
It sounds like the mentally healthy thing to do.

Spending even one second worrying about ones fate within a Calvinist worldview (if you have not yet received the gift of faith) seems akin to staying up at night worrying about the heat death of the universe.  Sure it's an important topic that ultimately affects all of humanity... but nothing we can do will change it.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 08:19:59 AM by MrDelane »

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #721 on: June 30, 2017, 07:37:05 AM »
I'll frame my answer from the perspective that I believe you are asking, but want to spell it out here in case I misunderstood.  This person had in some way gotten to the point that they understand limited atonement and the futility of anything they do to change their fate.  God has either given them the golden ticket, or to hell with you.  I believe the fact that they expended some effort, no matter how small, to not only come to understand this belief, but also to internalize it enough to think about how it impacts their actions.
That's an interesting point.
Though, if they truly understand, it seems as if they would know that their actions make no difference.

Quote
...to me it stands to reason that one would then hope or long for being one of the elect and having viewed this strive to live an upstanding life.
But living an upstanding life (by which I assume you mean through the Christian lens) has no affect whatsoever on their ultimate fate, and they understand this.

Quote
I think with a stable mental state the leaning would be much more difficult to go to the fully negative route because I'm not sure that many sociopaths have taken any time to think, much less worry, about election.

I'm not sure what you meant by 'the fully negative route.'
I simply meant why should anyone spend even a second of their very short life concerning themselves with this faith if their fate is already determined?  There seems to be no point in study, worship, or concern of anything religious if our fates are sealed.

I did not mean that anyone should suddenly lead the life of a sociopath (though now that you mention it, I suppose they could and it would make no difference in that worldview).  Interesting point.

« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 08:14:50 AM by MrDelane »

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #722 on: June 30, 2017, 08:58:41 AM »
I guess someone could do that and have a fatalistic attitude.

You mention the 'fatalistic attitude' as if it is something the individual is bringing with them. But the fatalism seems baked into the worldview itself, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

We either have some control over our fate or we do not.  If there is anything we can do to affect our salvation then it seems that works are at least a tiny percentage of it.  But you've been very clear that our salvation is not works based in any way at all.

Within that context I fail to see what the proper attitude should be other than fatalistic.
There seems to be no other rational option.  Am I missing something?
If anyone has interest I will contrast this with my understanding to offer some differentiation.

It really hinges on a simple change, that God really did mean this is open to all. 

That Jim's version does not have a different take of the Romans 4:3-5 was surprising to me.  Because in "my version of the gospel" (using Jim's wording here) we used this same set of verses to show the clear teaching that accepting Jesus is not a work, because salvation not being works oriented is 100% taught in my version as well.  The lynchpin this all revolves around is if the individual determines that atonement is limited or not.  My version says Jesus clearly taught it is not.  All are welcome and he desires to save everyone.  There is no additional trapping that if we could choose not to be saved that somehow that negates the grace God provides, salvation being open to all does nothing to diminish the gift.  It simply means through his granting of free will to mankind, some of us will go against him.  It is one of the biggest barriers I've had to seeing how limited atonement is even a possible doctrine to embrace, because if God wanted to exercise that much control, He would likely not have allowed sin to enter the world in the first place.  He certainly has the power to bind Satan and make the world perfectly sinless, just as we will in the end times, so why would he create a world where I need salvation, because he allowed sin to begin with when he could stop it, and then tell me I'm the last kid on the playground?  Trying to be as respectful to other interpretations as I can be, but this is where I sympathize with Kris and others who have pointed out that is this is true than God is really an @%@#%. 

How I get there is this.  Many on the forum have posited that it is already "cruel" enough that God would not save those who never had the chance to get the message, or who for some reason did not accept the gift that is offered, and for that they suffer eternal damnation, but in the version I believe the Bible clearly teaches, at least you can use your free will that God gave you to accept or not, and it's not a work to do so, and I am amazed every day with stories of how people who would seemingly have no way to hear the gospel message still do and are saved.  It is still the same faith that Jim speaks of, though he disagrees.  In this line God is still infinitely good.  It is open to all.  Once I place guardrails around it and suggest that God selects, all that goodness goes out the window.  While God is still unimaginably good in still offering a path to avoid the punishment we deserve, you now introduce a concept that no one could call good in that you either won the lottery or you did not and there is nothing you can do to change it.  And I'd agree with you and Kris and other who point to that drives a very negative understanding which could lead in your word, to fatalism.  As I speak with others who purport limited atonement they are never able to explain this part in anyway as good, they defend it as Jim has, "sorry you don't like it it just is" this bad way.  And that's the crux of the matter.  Limited atonement does not align with a perfectly good God and adding that to the fact in my version we feel there is no evidence of limits because all, everyone and other all inclusive phraseology is used everywhere when speaking of who can receive the gift of salvation, that's why we feel it is not limited. 

That said, as a Christian I would be in the same space as those of you who are not, if I embraced limited atonement.  Very sad in my relationship with God because He has possibly chosen to exclude me even though I have fully accepted him into my life.  I challenge anyone to explain that is a way that will leave all of us saying, "Oh yeah, I see how this is good."

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #723 on: June 30, 2017, 09:28:09 AM »
The gospel must be heard and applied to the heart by the Holy Spirit. 
I see no example or scripture to indicate someone can just come to this out of the blue with no gospel.

Well in that case, I guess there is at least one small thing people must do in order to be saved, right?
You at least need to seek out the gospel.  It's not sufficient, obviously, but it sounds as if it is necessary.

So how does that not count as 0.00001% of your salvation being contingent on your acts?
Even that desire is part of the gift.

If the desire to seek out the bible is part of the gift, why can't the desire to have faith be part of the gift, too?  If we're talking about implanted desires by god, seems odd to draw the line there.
Frugalite in training.

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #724 on: June 30, 2017, 09:29:51 AM »
I'll frame my answer from the perspective that I believe you are asking, but want to spell it out here in case I misunderstood.  This person had in some way gotten to the point that they understand limited atonement and the futility of anything they do to change their fate.  God has either given them the golden ticket, or to hell with you.  I believe the fact that they expended some effort, no matter how small, to not only come to understand this belief, but also to internalize it enough to think about how it impacts their actions.
That's an interesting point.
Though, if they truly understand, it seems as if they would know that their actions make no difference.
They would know their actions made no difference, I agree.  My point was that I still feel someone who cared enough to discover this would most likely still want to live as if they were elect because it shows that they cared enough to even seek God.  I think that in an of itself would mean that most people "getting this far" in their analysis were doing so with a bent towards what anyone would call good works.

Quote
Quote
...to me it stands to reason that one would then hope or long for being one of the elect and having viewed this strive to live an upstanding life.
But living an upstanding life (by which I assume you mean through the Christian lens) has no affect whatsoever on their ultimate fate, and they understand this.
No, I am not confining it to that box.  It can be upstanding by whatever measure you want to use.  The points others have made are totally valid, of just being a "good person".  I mean after all, this does not include pleasing God in anyway because of your thankfulness for the gift he gave you, because you could certainly still understand that he may not have given it to you after all.  You can live the "church on Sunday, raise hell on Monday" lifestyle with abandon if you wanted and still be called good.  I see it all the time.  Secular "goodness" tends to revolve around "they're not hurting anyone" when people do things like get fall over drunk and embarrass themselves and there are lots of people that their friends would consider upstanding who did that.  After all Billy just likes to unwind on a Friday night after a tough week and it's funny yo watch him make a fool of himself.  He's great to be around!  Billy is living an upstanding life as I describe it here, even though he would not pass the bar for God's desire for his behavior. 

So to your point, yes living an upstanding life does not matter and they do understand this which, is what leads me to agree with you.  The "what's the point? is so obvious that this system is virtually no better for mankind than there being no God at all.  And it is not the God I know.  God desires to have a personal relationship with every one of us, because God is relational (that's why he is one person in three beings.  In his own function he is not an individual but a set of relationships).  If Scripture showed me He wanted nothing to do with me, then I'd be on Jim's side and say it is what it is and it sucks for us, but Scripture tells us just the opposite that He is always reaching out to us wanting to connect.  Therefore this leads to limited atonement being contrary to God's nature as I said above.  That's where the doctrine falls apart for those who do not find any evidence for it, because it is just as absurd as telling me God likes to sin with Billy in his off hours.  Your path to get to your thoughts about this is totally in line with what I believe God would expect us to behave as if He placed us under a system contrary to his nature.

Quote
Quote
I think with a stable mental state the leaning would be much more difficult to go to the fully negative route because I'm not sure that many sociopaths have taken any time to think, much less worry, about election.

I'm not sure what you meant by 'the fully negative route.'
I simply meant why should anyone spend even a second of their very short life concerning themselves with this faith if their fate is already determined?  There seems to be no point in study, worship, or concern of anything religious if our fates are sealed.

I did not mean that anyone should suddenly lead the life of a sociopath (though now that you mention it, I suppose they could and it would make no difference in that worldview).  Interesting point.
I was painting to the total edge of the canvas, taking your "why should I care" attitude you are asking about to mean that someone would then choose to just go out murder, rape and pillage because in the end God will save me anyway since I am elect, so this is what I want to do.  Your point seems not to be that.  It is as you said, "why spend time of anything religious", and realigning with that, it's the same answer I gave.  I think the person who cared enough to seek has enough natural curiosity about the topic that they still want to learn about it.  Using the global warming example someone just gave, there are plenty of people who know they can do nothing about it but still find the topic interesting enough as a point of study to spend time learning about it, perhaps to enjoyment, mental stimulation of any of myriads of other reasons.  I guess they'd do it because it was a fun hobby.  But, I think there is a danger hidden here in what you imply would be the flip side to that.  I do these things because I enjoy them, and because I am grateful and amazed with my God and want to know what he can teach me to live within his creation.  After all who better to learn from than the person that designed the habitrail? I'm concerned that you may be implying that those of us who believe in salvation for all do those things out of obligation only or guilt as some have tried to suggest.  That's just not true for me and many fellow believers I am friends with.

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #725 on: June 30, 2017, 09:30:25 AM »
The gospel must be heard and applied to the heart by the Holy Spirit. 
I see no example or scripture to indicate someone can just come to this out of the blue with no gospel.

Well in that case, I guess there is at least one small thing people must do in order to be saved, right?
You at least need to seek out the gospel.  It's not sufficient, obviously, but it sounds as if it is necessary.

So how does that not count as 0.00001% of your salvation being contingent on your acts?
Even that desire is part of the gift.

If the desire to seek out the bible is part of the gift, why can't the desire to have faith be part of the gift, too?  If we're talking about implanted desires by god, seems odd to draw the line there.
+1

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #726 on: June 30, 2017, 09:37:10 AM »
...to avoid the punishment we deserve...

And this is where the real problem is, IMO.  We don't deserve it.  I happen to think human beings are pretty damn amazing and are basically good.  We are not morally rotten shitheads.  Seriously, in your heart of hearts, do you really believe your a compete asshole shithead?  Cause that's how your saying that god views us.  We're so bad that we deserve to get tortured for all eternity.  Really?  That is some messed up shit.
Frugalite in training.

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #727 on: June 30, 2017, 09:53:09 AM »
I'm concerned that you may be implying that those of us who believe in salvation for all do those things out of obligation only or guilt as some have tried to suggest.  That's just not true for me and many fellow believers I am friends with.

Not at all, my comments were strictly about the Calvinist viewpoint and I didn't intend to make any comment on your own worldview in that case.

Though I would probably be inclined to think that within your worldview many do live their lives in line with Christ out of both a genuine desire and obligation.  I'm not sure you can untangle the two.

For example, I am faithful to my spouse both out of my obligation due to my vows, as well as my genuine desire to respect and honor my spouse.
Yes, I do it willingly and happily... but that does not mean it is not an obligation.


caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #728 on: June 30, 2017, 10:11:44 AM »
...to avoid the punishment we deserve...

And this is where the real problem is, IMO.  We don't deserve it.  I happen to think human beings are pretty damn amazing and are basically good.  We are not morally rotten shitheads.  Seriously, in your heart of hearts, do you really believe your a compete asshole shithead?  Cause that's how your saying that god views us.  We're so bad that we deserve to get tortured for all eternity.  Really?  That is some messed up shit.
We keep rehashing the same things, but rather than point back, we'll do it again as quick as possible.

They are what God expects, not what we "think" or want to be true.  I think that my company should pay me triple what they do, because I am pretty damn amazing as you say.  But because I am not the creator of the company I do not get to make the rules, so I live within the system I am given.  Now I can leave the company I'm a part of, but I can't leave God's creation.  Even if I kill myself to leave Earth, I still have eternity to live by the rules he set up.  Sorry man, but it is what it is, just like your boss would tell you when you railed against the rules.  He who makes the world, makes the rules, we just get to live by them.  Sorry you feel that's messed up shit, but as I responded when you've introduced the world to tyortism, that's just how it is.  I get you feel you've got it figure out differently, and for your sake, I hope you're right.  How cool would that be for you.  I mean you and God could be hanging with all of us who all get to be there with you as you claim and laugh your ass off about how stupid we all were and how awesome God was to pull the ultimate punk on humankind and then say "Psych!  I was just kidding!  You all get to come to the party!  Come on in!"

I'm going to try to answer the rest of your post without being totally unserious, but it is hard because I need to try dig deep "my heart of hearts" as you say and try to imagine the unimaginable.  How would I behave in a system that the only guides, morals if you were, were limited by consequences I wanted to avoid, i.e. societal laws or the law of the tribe if we never got to civilization because we killed each other off due to our uncontrolled wanton desires. 

Based on that, yes, if I look into my heart of hearts I believe I would be a compete asshole shithead.  I believe we are morally rotten shitheads, because I've rarely met somehow who I got to spend time in some questionable circumstance who did not very clearly show me that when given the choice, men will pick the quick fix, the fast high, the fleshly pleasure and deal with the consequences, if there are any later.  I would most likely accept come pretty crappy consequences just to have a cheap thrill now and then.  This is the point God makes.  We are animals, and driven by those carnal desires more than we know.  We just like to tell ourselves we are better than that.  And each of us can control those impulses for so long but we progress to a lower and lower level each time. 

I need to ask you some questions because this next part requires me to make sure that what I would find a problem, you find a problem.

From the moral standpoint, do you feel the path we have taken on publicly acceptable speech, general decorum and respect for one's person is OK?  You can use our public discourse our our entertainment as the continuum for this.  Do you feel that the increased name calling, use of vulgar and offensive language that has occurred over the last 200 years is moving in the right direction to say that morals are improving or at least staying the same?  With regards to seeing others naked, having sex or conducting other acts that most would probably morally indicate should be private versus being "fun" is driving to a standard you would call morally better or the same?  Do you feel more and more graphic representations of things like murder, rape , incest, child abuse, hate attacks is in alignment with a mankind who is able to control themselves and are not rotten shitheads?

If Christian norms did not exist, and with my inborn morality, I would simply feel that we are a more morally corrupt world today than we were 50 years ago, than we were 100 years ago, then we were 1,000 years ago.  The steady progression is down, but I believe you suggest at some point we will reach a point where we stop going further and further into rotten behavior and arrive at a level that is still morally acceptable, so that's why I ask the questions.  Because I'd expect your answers to everything above to be that you love it all.  That you enjoy watching a snuff film every now and again with your friends.  That you kick back with your wife and watch a violent rape scene of another man's wife and say "honey we should try that some time. after all man is so moral". (or maybe only movie directors are immoral and use a brainwashing potion to get us to watch and pay money to do so). 

God does not "view" us that way.  God "knows" we are that way.  And the fact that he just does not leave us to our own desires to do vile things to each other at increasing levels is amazing.  We deserve to get tortured for all eternity simply because God cannot tolerate to be in the presence of anything less than holy perfection.  Again, you may not like it but you are not the creator so tough shit on the rules.  I guess you could be upset that God cannot tolerate us in his presence.  I could also entertain the thought that it would have been nice in that case that he just put us a nice island and let us keep going as we were and just stayed away from us and let us do our own thing (which is what man wants God to do anyway, just leave us alone and let us do our thing), but again we hit a piece of God's nature, that he is perfectly just, and sin must be punished.  So yes, you can walk down the domestic abuser track again, though it's not like that with God, but to rationalize it humans will go there, cause damn we want it to be our way, and we get nasty when it's not.  We name call, we get angry, we ask people how dare they tell us how to live, but yeah, there's nothing in that behavior to indicate that maybe we have a propensity to me morally rotten shitheads when given the choice. 


« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 10:16:22 AM by caracarn »

zoltani

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
  • Location: PNW
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #729 on: June 30, 2017, 10:37:50 AM »
Zoltani, as I said I listened on my lunch hour and yes, I'm not studying this as a scholar and hanging on every word.  A guy I do not know on the internet asked me spend and hour of time listening to something and wanted to know what I think then lectures me that I did not listen well enough for him.  Did I go into it with a bias because he was Catholic?  Certainly.  Before I respond more to that, here is the text (thanks for the link to the transcript, that would have been preferred as it is easier to follow than the recording which is hard to understand) "Because in this country in particular [the USA] there are an enormous number of people who seem to believe that the Bible descended from Heaven with an angel in the year sixteen-hundred and eleven, which was when the so-called King James – or more correctly Authorized – version of the Bible was translated into English."  I simply pointed out that this belief is so easily shown false that it is almost not worth mentioning.  I'm guilty as charged in attesting it to the Catholic church because of the tie later to Pope Damascus somehow being credited with the spread of the Bible.  Until the printing press occured no common man had the Bible so 382 was not the beginning of anything. 


I appreciate you taking your time to listen to something from an internet stranger.

Yes, I was pointing out your bias you had before you even gave it a listen. I think that is important to keep in context. He was not even catholic, he had training in the Episcopalian faith, studied scripture, theology, and church history. Ok, maybe episcopal is "catholic-light". Regardless, you heard "catholic" and formed your bias and made your judgment about the speaker.

You may not have seen that I was raised Catholic.  I came up in that horrendous system, and I feel it leads many a good Christian astray.  My parents struggle with the teachings all the time and I explain the actual Biblical text.  They have no connection to God because the Catholic church does not encourage that.  They encourage following rituals and sacraments.  The encourage confession to priests.

Again, your bias is shown here, as this has no bearing on the talk. 


I have no idea what you wanted me to give you in response, as you feel I did not listen objectively.  How do you come to that basis?  Because I disagree with the details of points he makes?  I would never be so dismissive of you had I asked you to listen as to insult you and say you dismissed the lecturer.  Do you honestly think I would have spent 51 minutes listening to a lecture I had dismissed.  How stupid do you think I am?  I think this lecture is bunk but I'm going to waste my time listening instead of doing something worthwhile.  I'm sorry I was not a meticulous listener, but yes I take offense to your condescending tone about how I did not care about the lecture because you tossed me a totally open question and now do not like my responses.  As I said, he makes several valid points, but his examples are tainted by the warped view of his Catholic teaching.  You can disagree with my opinions but it does not mean I was not listening to what was said.  And I did not have the luxury of checking what I was hearing with a nice transcript until later. 

So if you want to share what you were hoping I'd get from this I can try to respond to that, but I do not getr how not even knowing why you asked the question this is how you choose to respond.  I figured you'd look at where I disagreed and perhaps ask further questions and dialogue, not go through a hearing examination.

I think I have shown how you had bias before you listened to the talk. You framed this whole thing from a catholic perspective because you thought the speaker had catholic training. That cause you to project your own biases and problems with the catholic church onto him.

Having bias does not mean you are stupid, and I was not implying you are. You may be, I don't really know you well enough to make such a judgment.

I did not want you to respond in any certain way. When i saw your response I noticed that you were saying things that weren't even mentioned in the talk. I was interested to hear your thoughts because you believe that the bible is the word of god. This talk is about the bible in a historical context. His argument that jesus was a man that had a mystical experience, did not understand it except in the context of what he knew about religion, so declared that he was the son of god. The bible was written in a way to suggest that only he can have such an experience, and sets people up in a double bind situation. If you notice, he criticizes other religious texts, suggesting that some people mistakenly take the Buddhist sutras as coming from the Buddha himself, for example.

God revealed himself through Buddha and others?  I guess this was an attempt at the coexist bandwagon to indicate that less radicalism would help make religion more tolerable.  It would do that, but it is still a man made wish list item.  If only we could just ignore the passages in the Bible where God says he is a jealous God then it would all work.

This is another instance where you did not really get what was said:
But even very liberal Protestants still want to say, somehow – so as, I suppose to keep the mission effort going or to pay off the mortgage – “Yes, these other religions are very good. God has no doubt revealed himself through Buddha and Lao-Tsu. But…!”


Worshiping the Bible is idolatry.  Yes it is.  Any Christian knows that.  We worship Jesus, not the Bible.  I get the point he was trying to press here, but again, no.

So are you not idolizing jesus then?

I think I will bow out of this conversation and work on my own spirituality, as this is a distraction. Thanks again for taking your time to listen and reply, it was interesting.

Let's remember the wise words in Matthew 7:5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."

The crux of this is that you can never get the log out of your own eye.
“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #730 on: June 30, 2017, 10:52:41 AM »
Zoltani, as I said I listened on my lunch hour and yes, I'm not studying this as a scholar and hanging on every word.  A guy I do not know on the internet asked me spend and hour of time listening to something and wanted to know what I think then lectures me that I did not listen well enough for him.  Did I go into it with a bias because he was Catholic?  Certainly.  Before I respond more to that, here is the text (thanks for the link to the transcript, that would have been preferred as it is easier to follow than the recording which is hard to understand) "Because in this country in particular [the USA] there are an enormous number of people who seem to believe that the Bible descended from Heaven with an angel in the year sixteen-hundred and eleven, which was when the so-called King James – or more correctly Authorized – version of the Bible was translated into English."  I simply pointed out that this belief is so easily shown false that it is almost not worth mentioning.  I'm guilty as charged in attesting it to the Catholic church because of the tie later to Pope Damascus somehow being credited with the spread of the Bible.  Until the printing press occured no common man had the Bible so 382 was not the beginning of anything. 


I appreciate you taking your time to listen to something from an internet stranger.

Yes, I was pointing out your bias you had before you even gave it a listen. I think that is important to keep in context. He was not even catholic, he had training in the Episcopalian faith, studied scripture, theology, and church history. Ok, maybe episcopal is "catholic-light". Regardless, you heard "catholic" and formed your bias and made your judgment about the speaker.

You may not have seen that I was raised Catholic.  I came up in that horrendous system, and I feel it leads many a good Christian astray.  My parents struggle with the teachings all the time and I explain the actual Biblical text.  They have no connection to God because the Catholic church does not encourage that.  They encourage following rituals and sacraments.  The encourage confession to priests.

Again, your bias is shown here, as this has no bearing on the talk. 


I have no idea what you wanted me to give you in response, as you feel I did not listen objectively.  How do you come to that basis?  Because I disagree with the details of points he makes?  I would never be so dismissive of you had I asked you to listen as to insult you and say you dismissed the lecturer.  Do you honestly think I would have spent 51 minutes listening to a lecture I had dismissed.  How stupid do you think I am?  I think this lecture is bunk but I'm going to waste my time listening instead of doing something worthwhile.  I'm sorry I was not a meticulous listener, but yes I take offense to your condescending tone about how I did not care about the lecture because you tossed me a totally open question and now do not like my responses.  As I said, he makes several valid points, but his examples are tainted by the warped view of his Catholic teaching.  You can disagree with my opinions but it does not mean I was not listening to what was said.  And I did not have the luxury of checking what I was hearing with a nice transcript until later. 

So if you want to share what you were hoping I'd get from this I can try to respond to that, but I do not getr how not even knowing why you asked the question this is how you choose to respond.  I figured you'd look at where I disagreed and perhaps ask further questions and dialogue, not go through a hearing examination.

I think I have shown how you had bias before you listened to the talk. You framed this whole thing from a catholic perspective because you thought the speaker had catholic training. That cause you to project your own biases and problems with the catholic church onto him.

Having bias does not mean you are stupid, and I was not implying you are. You may be, I don't really know you well enough to make such a judgment.

I did not want you to respond in any certain way. When i saw your response I noticed that you were saying things that weren't even mentioned in the talk. I was interested to hear your thoughts because you believe that the bible is the word of god. This talk is about the bible in a historical context. His argument that jesus was a man that had a mystical experience, did not understand it except in the context of what he knew about religion, so declared that he was the son of god. The bible was written in a way to suggest that only he can have such an experience, and sets people up in a double bind situation. If you notice, he criticizes other religious texts, suggesting that some people mistakenly take the Buddhist sutras as coming from the Buddha himself, for example.

God revealed himself through Buddha and others?  I guess this was an attempt at the coexist bandwagon to indicate that less radicalism would help make religion more tolerable.  It would do that, but it is still a man made wish list item.  If only we could just ignore the passages in the Bible where God says he is a jealous God then it would all work.

This is another instance where you did not really get what was said:
But even very liberal Protestants still want to say, somehow – so as, I suppose to keep the mission effort going or to pay off the mortgage – “Yes, these other religions are very good. God has no doubt revealed himself through Buddha and Lao-Tsu. But…!”


Worshiping the Bible is idolatry.  Yes it is.  Any Christian knows that.  We worship Jesus, not the Bible.  I get the point he was trying to press here, but again, no.

So are you not idolizing jesus then?

I think I will bow out of this conversation and work on my own spirituality, as this is a distraction. Thanks again for taking your time to listen and reply, it was interesting.

Let's remember the wise words in Matthew 7:5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."

The crux of this is that you can never get the log out of your own eye.
Obviously as a Christian we worship Jesus.  It would not be idolizing, because he is to be worshiped.  He is God.

Thanks for explaining what you were trying to convey (where you begin "This talk is about the bible in a historical context. His argument that jesus was a man that had a mystical experience,).  For what he presented, yes, as I said, but I can certainly appreciate was lost in all my pontificating,  he presented a logical set of thoughts.  It was a well done analysis and I did take it for that.  Without having context to your desire, I immediately jumped to by analysis of why I still would not agree with his analysis.  A lot of it hinged on where I felt he was taking liberties and stretching the "historical" items to match what he wanted me to understand, but obviously a good presenter would do exactly what he did. 

Yeah, on the Buddha piece I missed his point.  I took it to mean he was suggesting the Rodney King "can't we all just get along" version of if Christians would just be open that God can reveal himself through Buddha it would help.  And it appears he says some Christians already say that.  My response was after this reframing, still appropriate in that God would never do that so saying he would is a bit crazy in my view.  It's like a friend I have who like to make fun of people with Coexist stickers, indicating how they obviously have not studied all the religions, because "don't they understand that everyone who believes in C wants to kill all the other letters?!"

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #731 on: June 30, 2017, 10:54:19 AM »
I'm concerned that you may be implying that those of us who believe in salvation for all do those things out of obligation only or guilt as some have tried to suggest.  That's just not true for me and many fellow believers I am friends with.

Not at all, my comments were strictly about the Calvinist viewpoint and I didn't intend to make any comment on your own worldview in that case.

Though I would probably be inclined to think that within your worldview many do live their lives in line with Christ out of both a genuine desire and obligation.  I'm not sure you can untangle the two.

For example, I am faithful to my spouse both out of my obligation due to my vows, as well as my genuine desire to respect and honor my spouse.
Yes, I do it willingly and happily... but that does not mean it is not an obligation.
Yes, no dispute on my end that many do that. 

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #732 on: June 30, 2017, 11:04:09 AM »
caracarn,

Can someone loose salvation? Can one sin it away?  Can someone be a believer and then later be an unbeliever?  Since your acts get you saved do you need acts to keep yourself justified?  How do you explain a person who makes a profession and later goes back into the world doing worldly deeds?

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #733 on: June 30, 2017, 11:14:33 AM »
Caracarn - I hope you can see how from the outside, to many of us who do not believe, your stance and defense appears very similiar to Jim's.

As I speak with others who purport limited atonement they are never able to explain this part in anyway as good, they defend it as Jim has, "sorry you don't like it it just is" this bad way.

Even if I kill myself to leave Earth, I still have eternity to live by the rules he set up.  Sorry man, but it is what it is...

Quote
Again, you may not like it but you are not the creator so tough shit on the rules.

Obviously the difference is you believe everyone has a chance at salvation and Jim does not.
But in regards to believing we are all broken and terrible people who deserve eternal torment, you both have the same response.

Quote
He who makes the world, makes the rules, we just get to live by them.

Fair enough.  But even if we granted the idea that our world was created by an intelligence who laid out these 'rules,' does that alone mean this 'rule maker' is deserving of worship?


Quote
yes, if I look into my heart of hearts I believe I would be a compete asshole shithead.

In which case, by all means please continue going to church.

Quote
From the moral standpoint, do you feel the path we have taken on publicly acceptable speech, general decorum and respect for one's person is OK?  You can use our public discourse our our entertainment as the continuum for this.  Do you feel that the increased name calling, use of vulgar and offensive language that has occurred over the last 200 years is moving in the right direction to say that morals are improving or at least staying the same?  With regards to seeing others naked, having sex or conducting other acts that most would probably morally indicate should be private versus being "fun" is driving to a standard you would call morally better or the same?

I would say that we are much better morally overall than we were.
Do we really want to rehash the slavery conversation?
We have a much lower tolerance today for racism, sexism and general human rights abuses.
Are we perfect?  Of course not, but I can't think of many people (except perhaps white men) who would prefer to live even 50 years ago, much less 500 years ago.

Quote
Do you feel more and more graphic representations of things like murder, rape , incest, child abuse, hate attacks is in alignment with a mankind who is able to control themselves and are not rotten shitheads?

I don't know.
I do know that when we see cases of child abuse, rape, murder and hate attacks we (as a society) generally attempt to intervene and stop them.

God could theoretically stop them all.  Instead he watches with indifference, and promises to punish the perpetrators later (unless of course they come to faith).


Quote
If Christian norms did not exist, and with my inborn morality, I would simply feel that we are a more morally corrupt world today than we were 50 years ago, than we were 100 years ago, then we were 1,000 years ago.

You honestly believe that people treated eachother better 1000 years ago than we do today?

Quote
So yes, you can walk down the domestic abuser track again, though it's not like that with God, but to rationalize it humans will go there, cause damn we want it to be our way, and we get nasty when it's not.

How exactly is it not like that with God?
Because we deserve it?

I promise Caracarn, I'm really not trying to be a smart ass here, but that is literally what an abusive partner would say.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 11:33:53 AM by MrDelane »

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #734 on: June 30, 2017, 11:44:49 AM »
...to avoid the punishment we deserve...

And this is where the real problem is, IMO.  We don't deserve it.  I happen to think human beings are pretty damn amazing and are basically good.  We are not morally rotten shitheads.  Seriously, in your heart of hearts, do you really believe your a compete asshole shithead?  Cause that's how your saying that god views us.  We're so bad that we deserve to get tortured for all eternity.  Really?  That is some messed up shit.
We keep rehashing the same things, but rather than point back, we'll do it again as quick as possible.
Oh boy, here we go :)  I'll try to reply to each idea point by point.  But in the end I think we won't come to consensus because we have fundamentally different views of human beings - you feel they are rotten and I think they are basically good.  I don't think we'll be able to bridge that large of a gap.  But we'll dig in and see what we discover.

They are what God expects, not what we "think" or want to be true.  I think that my company should pay me triple what they do, because I am pretty damn amazing as you say.  But because I am not the creator of the company I do not get to make the rules, so I live within the system I am given.  Now I can leave the company I'm a part of, but I can't leave God's creation.  Even if I kill myself to leave Earth, I still have eternity to live by the rules he set up.  Sorry man, but it is what it is, just like your boss would tell you when you railed against the rules.  He who makes the world, makes the rules, we just get to live by them.  Sorry you feel that's messed up shit, but as I responded when you've introduced the world to tyortism, that's just how it is.  I get you feel you've got it figure out differently, and for your sake, I hope you're right.  How cool would that be for you.  I mean you and God could be hanging with all of us who all get to be there with you as you claim and laugh your ass off about how stupid we all were and how awesome God was to pull the ultimate punk on humankind and then say "Psych!  I was just kidding!  You all get to come to the party!  Come on in!"
What I'm trying to do is to get you to think outside the box.  That maybe god has a different nature than what you have been lead to believe.  I actually study large (human based) systems at work so I understand at a deep level how the overarching system you find yourself in can influence thoughts, beliefs and behaviors.  As someone that was a hardcore atheist from when I was 17 till around 40 but then had some experiences that pushed me back toward a belief in god, I was in a rare situation of believing in god, but not attached to any particular belief system since it'd been so long since I'd been a part of one.  So I was left to evaluate each major religion, on it's own merits, without any "skin in the game".  So that's where I'm coming from, hopefully that helps provide some context.

To use your analogy, I view the different major religions as different companies that I might go work for.  They all say they will help me obtain my end objective (be closer to god, get into heaven).  But they all have different systems in place.  So in this sense, I do actually have some autonomy around which system I choose to live in.  I'll give you the shortened version - I found that none of them were compatible the revelation that happened to me personally, and thus (to continue the company metaphor) started my own company where I could set up the system so it was consistent with what I had experienced directly and personally.  Thus tyort1ism was born.

I'm going to try to answer the rest of your post without being totally unserious, but it is hard because I need to try dig deep "my heart of hearts" as you say and try to imagine the unimaginable.  How would I behave in a system that the only guides, morals if you were, were limited by consequences I wanted to avoid, i.e. societal laws or the law of the tribe if we never got to civilization because we killed each other off due to our uncontrolled wanton desires. 
This is simply not historically accurate.  The ancient Greeks and Romans both established the rule of law, along with democracy and a republican form of government.  Neither of these societies were christian at the time they did that.  So how can we have (not just individuals) entire civilizations making positive strides toward civility in the absence of christianity?  The other thing I'd point out is that since WW2, the number of deaths from war has been on a dramatic downturn.  Is this because the % of christians in the world has been on a dramatic uptick?  Again, that's just not the case.  If anything, christianity is struggling with attrition within their congregation.  In fact, if you really look at the data, as more and more people become less and less religiously affiliated (which is a clear modern trend), the less war and death we have.  Huh. 

Based on that, yes, if I look into my heart of hearts I believe I would be a compete asshole shithead.  I believe we are morally rotten shitheads, because I've rarely met somehow who I got to spend time in some questionable circumstance who did not very clearly show me that when given the choice, men will pick the quick fix, the fast high, the fleshly pleasure and deal with the consequences, if there are any later.  I would most likely accept come pretty crappy consequences just to have a cheap thrill now and then.  This is the point God makes.  We are animals, and driven by those carnal desires more than we know.  We just like to tell ourselves we are better than that.  And each of us can control those impulses for so long but we progress to a lower and lower level each time. 
Well then we have different hearts.  My case in point - when I was an atheist, I was still a good person, I didn't sleep around on my wife (or even contemplate it as a real possibility), I was a good father to my child, I had a successful career, I had strong friendships that I honored by treating them well and with respect, I paid my taxes, I didn't murder anyone, I didn't extort anyone or steal anything, etc... Now that I am a believer, I still don't do any of those things.  It IS possible to be a good person without the influence of christianity.

And I'd also point out how breathtakingly arrogant a claim like yours really is.  If people can only be moral through christ, then you cannot believe that any person of a different religion is moral.  I personally know a lot of muslims, jews and atheists.  They are ALL good people.  On their behalf I am giving you a big middle finger.  I'm kidding around a bit here, but you see the problem, no?

I need to ask you some questions because this next part requires me to make sure that what I would find a problem, you find a problem.

From the moral standpoint, do you feel the path we have taken on publicly acceptable speech, general decorum and respect for one's person is OK?  You can use our public discourse our our entertainment as the continuum for this.  Do you feel that the increased name calling, use of vulgar and offensive language that has occurred over the last 200 years is moving in the right direction to say that morals are improving or at least staying the same?  With regards to seeing others naked, having sex or conducting other acts that most would probably morally indicate should be private versus being "fun" is driving to a standard you would call morally better or the same?  Do you feel more and more graphic representations of things like murder, rape , incest, child abuse, hate attacks is in alignment with a mankind who is able to control themselves and are not rotten shitheads?
Some people act badly.  Most do not.  This is how it is and how it's always been.  Just because 5% (or 10% or whatever) of the population acts badly does not give you the right to paint all people with that same brush. 

Re: more and more graphic representation of things like rape etc.  I don't find that stuff appealing to watch.  But here's the irony - while the images of it are on the increase the actual incidents of violence is down, way down.  So I'd call that a definite improvement.  I can turn off the TV if someone character is being portrayed as being killed.  I cannot turn off someone murdering me in real life. 

If Christian norms did not exist, and with my inborn morality, I would simply feel that we are a more morally corrupt world today than we were 50 years ago, than we were 100 years ago, then we were 1,000 years ago.  The steady progression is down, but I believe you suggest at some point we will reach a point where we stop going further and further into rotten behavior and arrive at a level that is still morally acceptable, so that's why I ask the questions.  Because I'd expect your answers to everything above to be that you love it all.  That you enjoy watching a snuff film every now and again with your friends.  That you kick back with your wife and watch a violent rape scene of another man's wife and say "honey we should try that some time. after all man is so moral". (or maybe only movie directors are immoral and use a brainwashing potion to get us to watch and pay money to do so). 
Again, you are positing "if christian morality did not exist, there'd be no morality at all".  That is a breathtaking insult to every Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Hindu and atheist that actually does live a good life according to the moral codes in their belief system.  Again, that's a problem. 

God does not "view" us that way.  God "knows" we are that way.  And the fact that he just does not leave us to our own desires to do vile things to each other at increasing levels is amazing.  We deserve to get tortured for all eternity simply because God cannot tolerate to be in the presence of anything less than holy perfection.  Again, you may not like it but you are not the creator so tough shit on the rules.  I guess you could be upset that God cannot tolerate us in his presence.  I could also entertain the thought that it would have been nice in that case that he just put us a nice island and let us keep going as we were and just stayed away from us and let us do our own thing (which is what man wants God to do anyway, just leave us alone and let us do our thing), but again we hit a piece of God's nature, that he is perfectly just, and sin must be punished.  So yes, you can walk down the domestic abuser track again, though it's not like that with God, but to rationalize it humans will go there, cause damn we want it to be our way, and we get nasty when it's not.  We name call, we get angry, we ask people how dare they tell us how to live, but yeah, there's nothing in that behavior to indicate that maybe we have a propensity to me morally rotten shitheads when given the choice.
And here we have the major difference.  If we're not worth being in his presence, ITS HIS FAULT!  He created us.  We are like this BECAUSE OF HIS DESIGN.  If you feel you are shit, that's because that's how your god made you.  Maybe you are the type to grovel at the feet of a boss with shitty rules in hopes of a promotion.  Me, I'll find another boss.

Unless I'm wrong about you... maybe you personally WERE completely good and absolutely pure and holy and then you decided "well screw this, I'm gonna be a rotter".  Did you ever do that?  Cause if you did, well then maybe yeah you deserve to rot in hell.  So did you?
Frugalite in training.

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #735 on: June 30, 2017, 12:05:26 PM »
If Christian norms did not exist, and with my inborn morality, I would simply feel that we are a more morally corrupt world today than we were 50 years ago, than we were 100 years ago, then we were 1,000 years ago.  The steady progression is down....

By the way, if this were true then why is it that as the religiosity of most nations decreases the societal health generally increases?
Teen pregnancies, homicide, poverty, abortion, STD, child mortality and even suicide rates are all positively correlated with the religiosity of most populations.


EDITED TO ADD:
Here is just one study on the subject. There are others as well.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 12:12:19 PM by MrDelane »

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #736 on: June 30, 2017, 12:16:06 PM »
If Christian norms did not exist, and with my inborn morality, I would simply feel that we are a more morally corrupt world today than we were 50 years ago, than we were 100 years ago, then we were 1,000 years ago.  The steady progression is down....

By the way, if this were true then why is it that as the religiosity of most nations decreases the societal health generally increases?
Teen pregnancies, homicide, poverty, abortion, STD, child mortality and even suicide rates are all positively correlated with the religiosity of most populations.


EDITED TO ADD:
Here is just one study on the subject. There are others as well.

And here's another, going back 2 centuries.  http://www.businessinsider.com/the-world-is-better-than-ever-charts-2017-1

There's no doubt that the world is getting better.  And here's the kicker - the places where the most dramatic improvements are happening are NOT christian!  So how is that possible?  How is it that the non-christian societies are actually improving and not disintegrating into a morass of murder, adultery and chaos?  Cause if we are all rotters at heart as caracarn believes, then things like this should simply not be happening in those places.  But they are.
Frugalite in training.

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1909
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #737 on: June 30, 2017, 12:47:43 PM »
It would be interesting if individuals who are particularly hostile to Christianity substituted "Mustachianism" for "Christianity" in the arguments we have heard here. For example:

- "The members of the community don't even agree! How should we know whom to believe, or why should we believe any of them when they don't even agree about it?!"

- "I'm sick of the members always proselytizing about their beliefs! They think their way is the only right way. I like my big house and Ford F150. Quit trying to push these 'virtues' on me and make me Mustachian!"

- "I constantly see members who do not follow some of the most basic principles (like biking with groceries). They're such hypocrites! So which principles are the 'real' ones and which aren't?!"

- "Why should we believe in MMM vs., say, Financial Samurai or Rich Dad Poor Dad or Get Rich Slowly? Surely they all think they have the superior system."

- "Mustachianism is just a bunch of stories and blog articles written by an unemployed guy. There's nothing special about it."

- MMM is a fraud. This stuff doesn't work. He made it up and got rich off it."

- "Even if any of this stuff was true, it definitely isn't for me. What, I'm going to eat beans and ride a bike and reuse toilet paper forever? No thanks."

Yeah, I get it, MMM isn't a religion, per se, even though it's frequently held up as being cult-like. There are many very close parallels, however. And despite all the arguments as examples above, here we all are believing in the MMM message. How can this be? We must be a bunch of zealous, deluded people seeking fairy tales to make us feel better about our lives!

Doubledown,

Good points here, but I am trying to make sure I understand the analogy.

The overall goal of MMM, and each of us pursuing our own version of Mustachianism, is that we want to live a happy life through frugality to get to financial independence.  There are many ways to get there, and everyone has different levels of zealousness.

However, in Christianity, the overall goal is what?  To live a Christ-like life to get to Heaven?  So, you're saying there are many ways to get to Heaven, and different levels of Christ-like-ness to get there?

Thanks for your kind response.

I guess I'm simply trying to say that people can and do throw out all kinds of arguments against things they don't understand, don't want to understand, or have considered but choose not to believe or follow (for both good and bad reasons). There have been probably thousands (tens of thousands???) of people who have considered "Mustachianism" and found fault with it, and they lob all kinds of arguments against it like those I cited above. Most are probably very ill-informed and misrepresent the movement, just like many of the arguments against Christianity. But there are plenty of us who DO believe in it and like it, even if we don't agree 100% with each other on all the tenets (I don't bike to get groceries). It doesn't make the central message about frugality/financial independence, which you aptly summarized, any less true.

At the same time, I've looked into other religions such as Islam and Mormonism and Scientology and Hinduism, to name a few, and I do not believe in them. So, I can certainly understand people not having faith in Christianity. However, I think the evidence for those other religions is super flimsy, whereas the evidence for Christianity is not. There's no absolute, 100% proof of course. It's far less "provable" than MMM, who is alive today. You have to be pretty cynical, in my view, to disbelieve the MMM philosophy about frugality and financial independence. The math alone is just that -- Math, 100% believable. And yet many do disbelieve, including my own wife! She thinks MMM is a literal fraud.

As far as Christianity goes, my position (based on what the Bible says) is that salvation is 100% based on grace/faith, and that Christians should strive to be like Christ. So no, I'm not saying there are different ways to heaven or different levels based on how good you are. I was trying to say that there are a large number of people who are never going to believe no matter what evidence is staring them right in the face (which Jim555, for example, would say was preordained).

And the Bible does point this out -- that there will be many who will be ever hearing, but never understanding or believing (or to that effect, sorry if I got the exact quote wrong). So I'd never expect everyone to hear the message of Christianity and accept it. Many think they are intellectually superior to not believe in such "fairy tales" or "magic," or that science will eventually prove it all a bunch of nonsense, and so on. Those of us who have "seen and believed" feel those people are just turning away from something super-awesome, that is obvious and right there for the taking and free and will make their lives so much better -- just like the MMM message -- but infinitely and eternally more important.
"Not all quotes on the internet are accurate" -- Abraham Lincoln

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #738 on: June 30, 2017, 01:19:33 PM »
At the same time, I've looked into other religions such as Islam and Mormonism and Scientology and Hinduism, to name a few, and I do not believe in them. So, I can certainly understand people not having faith in Christianity. However, I think the evidence for those other religions is super flimsy, whereas the evidence for Christianity is not.

The truth is, the evidence for all religions is super flimsy.  You can't see that, because you're a Christian.  Muslims think the evidence for Christianity is super flimsy (otherwise they'd become Christians, haha!). 

It's like I was saying before - when you are brought up in a system of beliefs, it influences strongly what you consider compelling and what feels right to you.  I promise you, had you been brought up on a dominant Hindu country, you would not be a Christian.  In fact you'd think all those "blood drinking cannibal" Christians were downright silly. 
Frugalite in training.

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #739 on: June 30, 2017, 01:28:51 PM »
I was trying to say that there are a large number of people who are never going to believe no matter what evidence is staring them right in the face.
I am sincerely curious as to what evidence you're referring to that is staring us right in the face.
Or did you simply mean that IF there were such evidence there would still be many who would not believe?

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #740 on: June 30, 2017, 01:39:04 PM »
I was trying to say that there are a large number of people who are never going to believe no matter what evidence is staring them right in the face.
I am sincerely curious as to what evidence you're referring to that is staring us right in the face.
Or did you simply mean that IF there were such evidence there would still be many who would not believe?

I believe he's saying that the Bible ITSELF is the compelling evidence, and that anyone who reads it and doesn't find it compelling is refusing to believe the evidence staring them right in their face. 
Frugalite in training.

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #741 on: June 30, 2017, 02:25:45 PM »
caracarn,

Can someone loose salvation? Can one sin it away?  Can someone be a believer and then later be an unbeliever?  Since your acts get you saved do you need acts to keep yourself justified?  How do you explain a person who makes a profession and later goes back into the world doing worldly deeds?
Once saved always saved.  The belief, which I would assume would be similar to yours is that is they go back and become very worldly then they were most likely not saved in the first place.  Obviously only God knows if anyone is saved, so no way for me to tell.  And as I've said before, I do not believe my acts got me saved, that's your doctrine.  Accepting the gift of salvation is not an act in my version.

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1909
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #742 on: June 30, 2017, 02:48:14 PM »
I wasn't raised Christian, but yes I was raised in the USA which is predominantly Christian and agnostic, not Hindu or Buddhist. But I had no preconceived ideas about Christianity, as I was not indoctrinated into it. I was agnostic until my late teens. I've looked at lots of religions with a critical eye, and considered whether there is no God, and came to believe in only one -- Christianity.

I'm not saying the Bible, by itself, is the evidence for belief in Christianity. I recognize that would be circular reasoning. There's plenty of historical, archaeological, testamentary, and physical evidence for the truth behind it. Plus I see order in the universe that would not happen at random in my view. And I have my own personal experience and reasons for belief, such as having prayers miraculously answered, "feeling" God, and other supernatural phenomenon I could never prove. I'm a mathematician/engineer by training, well versed in the scientific method, and not prone to believe in hocus pocus, ghosts, Loch Ness monsters, or anything else without actual evidence. Christianity cannot be "proved," I recognize that. But yes, some will never come to accept the message no matter how much evidence there is, that much is clear.
"Not all quotes on the internet are accurate" -- Abraham Lincoln

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #743 on: June 30, 2017, 02:56:03 PM »
Caracarn - I hope you can see how from the outside, to many of us who do not believe, your stance and defense appears very similiar to Jim's.

As I speak with others who purport limited atonement they are never able to explain this part in anyway as good, they defend it as Jim has, "sorry you don't like it it just is" this bad way.

Even if I kill myself to leave Earth, I still have eternity to live by the rules he set up.  Sorry man, but it is what it is...

Quote
Again, you may not like it but you are not the creator so tough shit on the rules.

Obviously the difference is you believe everyone has a chance at salvation and Jim does not.
But in regards to believing we are all broken and terrible people who deserve eternal torment, you both have the same response.
That's because they are the same except for the difference you mentioned.  God is God and he makes the rules.  It's the centerpiece of the Bible.  Man only deserves hell.  The reason he does not get it is because God is merciful and provides an alternative.

Quote
Quote
He who makes the world, makes the rules, we just get to live by them.

Fair enough.  But even if we granted the idea that our world was created by an intelligence who laid out these 'rules,' does that alone mean this 'rule maker' is deserving of worship?
He deserves worship because he did not just make the rules he made everything.  We would not be here without Him.  And as part of the rules He tells us He expects worship.

Quote
Quote
yes, if I look into my heart of hearts I believe I would be a compete asshole shithead.

In which case, by all means please continue going to church.

Quote
Quote
From the moral standpoint, do you feel the path we have taken on publicly acceptable speech, general decorum and respect for one's person is OK?  You can use our public discourse our our entertainment as the continuum for this.  Do you feel that the increased name calling, use of vulgar and offensive language that has occurred over the last 200 years is moving in the right direction to say that morals are improving or at least staying the same?  With regards to seeing others naked, having sex or conducting other acts that most would probably morally indicate should be private versus being "fun" is driving to a standard you would call morally better or the same?

I would say that we are much better morally overall than we were.
Do we really want to rehash the slavery conversation?
We have a much lower tolerance today for racism, sexism and general human rights abuses.
Are we perfect?  Of course not, but I can't think of many people (except perhaps white men) who would prefer to live even 50 years ago, much less 500 years ago.
Slavery is not the only measure of morality.  When we speak of these things we are talking about morality at the individual level, and sorry, I see a lot of people faking it and see the standards dropping all the time.  When I was a kid we could play outside and not worry about danger because all adults watched any child as if they were their own.  Society helped each other.  You honestly think a show like "What Would You Do?" would even exist back in the 60s or 70s?  I don't.  Because everyone would do the same thing.  Tell the offensive person to behave properly and scoietal norms would made it very difficult for people to behave outside the pale.  You'd not be waiting to see on a TV show what Joe Q Public was going to do if individual morality was on the rise.  And then as societal norms drop, as they have, more and more things become acceptable in the name of not offending anyone. 

Quote
Quote
Do you feel more and more graphic representations of things like murder, rape , incest, child abuse, hate attacks is in alignment with a mankind who is able to control themselves and are not rotten shitheads?

I don't know.
I do know that when we see cases of child abuse, rape, murder and hate attacks we (as a society) generally attempt to intervene and stop them.

God could theoretically stop them all.  Instead he watches with indifference, and promises to punish the perpetrators later (unless of course they come to faith).
Missed my point.  We have added these horrible things into our entertainment.  I'm not talking about is these things are addressed in real life.  We have desensitized ourselves to them because they appear in every prime time TV show with literally no need to advance the story line.  Does something like GoT have to be so graphically violent and sexual?  Is that anal sex scene helping me understand why the kingdoms are at war, which is what the story is actually about.  I'd also encourage you to investigate your local child services effectiveness.  It's easy to say we stop them.  I've got personal experience with things that my step kids are exposed to regarding sex, unsafe conditions with weapons through their father that would fall into several of these categories yet the attempt to intervene is not working and the kids suffer as a result.


Quote
Quote
If Christian norms did not exist, and with my inborn morality, I would simply feel that we are a more morally corrupt world today than we were 50 years ago, than we were 100 years ago, then we were 1,000 years ago.

You honestly believe that people treated each other better 1000 years ago than we do today?
I'm not equating morals with human decency.  I believe morality is the same or declined, yes, it certainly had not improved.  We're just better at hiding our problems because their is safety in numbers.  When you lived in a small village or tribe, everyone knew everything.  Now all kinds of vile stuff can go on in the privacy of your own home.  What we see publically is worthless to determine the moral character of a society.

Quote
Quote
So yes, you can walk down the domestic abuser track again, though it's not like that with God, but to rationalize it humans will go there, cause damn we want it to be our way, and we get nasty when it's not.

How exactly is it not like that with God?
Because we deserve it?

I promise Caracarn, I'm really not trying to be a smart ass here, but that is literally what an abusive partner would say.
Because you are not viewing why God does it in anything but human terms, and therefore my point was, and you have shown it to be true with your response, that you therefore compare it in human terms.  God cannot tolerate sin.  It's not a matter of choice, it is his nature and unchangeable.  My point was because we want Him to be nice to us, when to do so would be to ignore justice, we get mad, like petulant humans do when we can't get our trophy.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #744 on: June 30, 2017, 03:05:39 PM »
God cannot tolerate sin.

If god can't tolerate sin, he shouldn't have created it, lol.
Frugalite in training.

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #745 on: June 30, 2017, 04:00:47 PM »

Quote
They are what God expects, not what we "think" or want to be true.  I think that my company should pay me triple what they do, because I am pretty damn amazing as you say.  But because I am not the creator of the company I do not get to make the rules, so I live within the system I am given.  Now I can leave the company I'm a part of, but I can't leave God's creation.  Even if I kill myself to leave Earth, I still have eternity to live by the rules he set up.  Sorry man, but it is what it is, just like your boss would tell you when you railed against the rules.  He who makes the world, makes the rules, we just get to live by them.  Sorry you feel that's messed up shit, but as I responded when you've introduced the world to tyortism, that's just how it is.  I get you feel you've got it figure out differently, and for your sake, I hope you're right.  How cool would that be for you.  I mean you and God could be hanging with all of us who all get to be there with you as you claim and laugh your ass off about how stupid we all were and how awesome God was to pull the ultimate punk on humankind and then say "Psych!  I was just kidding!  You all get to come to the party!  Come on in!"
What I'm trying to do is to get you to think outside the box.  That maybe god has a different nature than what you have been lead to believe.  I actually study large (human based) systems at work so I understand at a deep level how the overarching system you find yourself in can influence thoughts, beliefs and behaviors.  As someone that was a hardcore atheist from when I was 17 till around 40 but then had some experiences that pushed me back toward a belief in god, I was in a rare situation of believing in god, but not attached to any particular belief system since it'd been so long since I'd been a part of one.  So I was left to evaluate each major religion, on it's own merits, without any "skin in the game".  So that's where I'm coming from, hopefully that helps provide some context.

To use your analogy, I view the different major religions as different companies that I might go work for.  They all say they will help me obtain my end objective (be closer to god, get into heaven).  But they all have different systems in place.  So in this sense, I do actually have some autonomy around which system I choose to live in.  I'll give you the shortened version - I found that none of them were compatible the revelation that happened to me personally, and thus (to continue the company metaphor) started my own company where I could set up the system so it was consistent with what I had experienced directly and personally.  Thus tyort1ism was born.
Thanks for the background.

Quote
I'm going to try to answer the rest of your post without being totally unserious, but it is hard because I need to try dig deep "my heart of hearts" as you say and try to imagine the unimaginable.  How would I behave in a system that the only guides, morals if you were, were limited by consequences I wanted to avoid, i.e. societal laws or the law of the tribe if we never got to civilization because we killed each other off due to our uncontrolled wanton desires. 
This is simply not historically accurate.  The ancient Greeks and Romans both established the rule of law, along with democracy and a republican form of government.  Neither of these societies were christian at the time they did that.  So how can we have (not just individuals) entire civilizations making positive strides toward civility in the absence of christianity?  The other thing I'd point out is that since WW2, the number of deaths from war has been on a dramatic downturn.  Is this because the % of christians in the world has been on a dramatic uptick?  Again, that's just not the case.  If anything, christianity is struggling with attrition within their congregation.  In fact, if you really look at the data, as more and more people become less and less religiously affiliated (which is a clear modern trend), the less war and death we have.  Huh. 
As a blanket statement so I do not need to repeat it, I am not claiming that without Christianity that people cannot be good, or that morality would not exist, or that there would be no rules at all.  Your question was about if I believe people are degenerates at heart.  That is what I was answering. 

So to your response here and how it goes along with that.  Yes, those groups did form together in orderly societies that also contributed to some of the biggest moralistic excesses in history like sexual festival to honor Dionysus, gladiatorial games that celebrated killing and mutilating other innocent human beings.  This is what man view are a morally superior society.  I do think you missed my point entirely because I'm not arguing with your point here.  In the Greek and Roman societies they did establish laws and that provided enough consequences to keep people in line.  That was my point, that regardless of who provides the consequences, without consequences, man will degenerate to base behavior.  The only reason we do not is because people have to be punished.  I'm not saying that we would all just do bad things all the time if allowed, but we tend to do them more and more as we do them and have no consequences which to me is the view into the inner character I thought your questions were geared at.  Less death in war has nothing to do with any religion.  Never said it did.  I also did not create a equivalency that is not there that we are dying less because people are less religious.  So just because people are less religious and we have less war does not mean that one causes the other it just means both things happened at the same time.  There is no causality.  I get you know that, you're just being difficult, so let's not snipe about that.

Quote
Based on that, yes, if I look into my heart of hearts I believe I would be a compete asshole shithead.  I believe we are morally rotten shitheads, because I've rarely met somehow who I got to spend time in some questionable circumstance who did not very clearly show me that when given the choice, men will pick the quick fix, the fast high, the fleshly pleasure and deal with the consequences, if there are any later.  I would most likely accept come pretty crappy consequences just to have a cheap thrill now and then.  This is the point God makes.  We are animals, and driven by those carnal desires more than we know.  We just like to tell ourselves we are better than that.  And each of us can control those impulses for so long but we progress to a lower and lower level each time. 
Well then we have different hearts.  My case in point - when I was an atheist, I was still a good person, I didn't sleep around on my wife (or even contemplate it as a real possibility), I was a good father to my child, I had a successful career, I had strong friendships that I honored by treating them well and with respect, I paid my taxes, I didn't murder anyone, I didn't extort anyone or steal anything, etc... Now that I am a believer, I still don't do any of those things.  It IS possible to be a good person without the influence of christianity.

And I'd also point out how breathtakingly arrogant a claim like yours really is.  If people can only be moral through christ, then you cannot believe that any person of a different religion is moral.  I personally know a lot of muslims, jews and atheists.  They are ALL good people.  On their behalf I am giving you a big middle finger.  I'm kidding around a bit here, but you see the problem, no?
Claim is not arrogant because it's not a claim I made.  You read that into my response, but as I said none of my answer had anything to do with Christianity so I never said that you can only be moral through Christ.  I simply said God knows we are evil at heart, not that we can't be good without him.  Everyone had the capacity to be good.  I'm not going to repeat this for each of the responses below, just please remember you totally misread my whole context in the post. 

I was using your hyperbolic terms in the way I believe you placed them as well.  I believe you are offended by the concept that God does say that we are totally evil, but he has no choice because he can accept nothing less than perfection.  If we are not perfect, then we are totally unacceptable.  There are no degrees with God and with man.  Our entire justice system is based on degrees.  If I speed I pay a fine, but if I murder someone, I can be killed myself in a state that has the death penalty because we have human judges.  For God either of those sins deserves the same punishment, eternal torment.  So I think that's why you presented the question of do I consider myself a complete asshole shithead, and I said yes because I know that I would make some very poor choices at times.  I assessed your question in the tone I believed it was asked.  If I am hoping angry at some offense, something that was done to me by someone else, would I take the moral high ground every time?  I do not think I would, because sometimes it is just satisfying in the moment to do the wrong thing.  How many spouses have an affair because they are mad?  How many people are killed by someone they love because they trusted them and then that trust was abused?  I think I'm getting back in the weeds here.  I do certainly feel the majority of people will be good the majority of the time, but your question was related to how God thinks we are totally depraved and that our sin nature leads us to fail.

Quote
I need to ask you some questions because this next part requires me to make sure that what I would find a problem, you find a problem.

From the moral standpoint, do you feel the path we have taken on publicly acceptable speech, general decorum and respect for one's person is OK?  You can use our public discourse our our entertainment as the continuum for this.  Do you feel that the increased name calling, use of vulgar and offensive language that has occurred over the last 200 years is moving in the right direction to say that morals are improving or at least staying the same?  With regards to seeing others naked, having sex or conducting other acts that most would probably morally indicate should be private versus being "fun" is driving to a standard you would call morally better or the same?  Do you feel more and more graphic representations of things like murder, rape , incest, child abuse, hate attacks is in alignment with a mankind who is able to control themselves and are not rotten shitheads?
Some people act badly.  Most do not.  This is how it is and how it's always been.  Just because 5% (or 10% or whatever) of the population acts badly does not give you the right to paint all people with that same brush. 

Re: more and more graphic representation of things like rape etc.  I don't find that stuff appealing to watch.  But here's the irony - while the images of it are on the increase the actual incidents of violence is down, way down.  So I'd call that a definite improvement.  I can turn off the TV if someone character is being portrayed as being killed.  I cannot turn off someone murdering me in real life. 
I'm just not sure how you can disconnect added acceptance of more and more grossly deviant morality as even being acceptable to be on our screens as not indicating a lowering of morality in society.  Yes, violence is way down, but is that a result of improved morality or more severe and more likely to be effective (i.e you will get caught versus getting away with it) punishments due to increased technology like DNA fingerprinting etc.  This is what I mean about hiding in public what we contemplate in private.  I for certain know that my wife's ex would murder her is he would not be caught.  I know this because he's told me so himself, but the police will do nothing by monitor him because they can't do anything until he actually does something.  He's got a circle of friends that he cons and steals money from but still convinces them how sorry he is.  They may be gullible, but her certainly is not moral.  And I'm not naive enough to think there are not a lot of people like him out there.  Read the Sociopath Next Door for some frightening statistics about the amount of immoral people operating in plain daylight appearing to be good people.  As I've said, you keep showing me public facing morality, but my answers are pointing into the soul, and I'm just not seeing evidence of as many good people as you do when I take time to get to know them.  To not go off the deep end again, yes the vast majority are not problems, but it's bigger than many think.


Quote
If Christian norms did not exist, and with my inborn morality, I would simply feel that we are a more morally corrupt world today than we were 50 years ago, than we were 100 years ago, then we were 1,000 years ago.  The steady progression is down, but I believe you suggest at some point we will reach a point where we stop going further and further into rotten behavior and arrive at a level that is still morally acceptable, so that's why I ask the questions.  Because I'd expect your answers to everything above to be that you love it all.  That you enjoy watching a snuff film every now and again with your friends.  That you kick back with your wife and watch a violent rape scene of another man's wife and say "honey we should try that some time. after all man is so moral". (or maybe only movie directors are immoral and use a brainwashing potion to get us to watch and pay money to do so). 
Again, you are positing "if christian morality did not exist, there'd be no morality at all".  That is a breathtaking insult to every Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Hindu and atheist that actually does live a good life according to the moral codes in their belief system.  Again, that's a problem. 
I AM NOT positing there is no morality without Christ.  I very clearly said (just reread above to be sure) "with my inborn morality".  You added the Christian thing.  (As I type this I wonder if you are applying same bias to my post as zoltani said I did to than Alan West video.  Because you know I'm a strong Christian you have read Christ into this entire response, when I was not  responding or claiming that Christ or Christianty has anything to do with any of this).  We all come with a sense of right and wrong.  I do not need to discover Christ to have morality nor does anyone.  Therefore I'm not insulting anyone because I never said that.  Based on those inborn morals, I view a progression down into greater immorality around me.  That's all I said.  The reason I asked for the level setting questions, is because I am uncomfortable with those increases in it being OK to curse people out on the street and get cheered on YouTube for it, to get in the face of police and scream and yell instead of have civil discourse, of more lewd and disgusting behavior appearing all around me in stores and public parks and out and about, and I view that any many other indicators as how I say we are worse off than we were morally 200 years ago.  I felt if you did not view these deterioration as a problem then it would explain if you answered that you felt we are more moral.  My jaw dropped when a candidate can vulgarly speak about grabbing women's genatlia in any context and the public at large can so cavalierly dismiss it to the point of making him he leader of our country.  Tell me what would happen to Abraham Lincoln barely 150 years ago or George Washington if he said that.  In George Washington's day I believe he would have been challenged to a duel by whoever's wife or father that was and possibly killed for that violation.  But today we elect them President.  Please explain to me how morals have improved. 


Quote
God does not "view" us that way.  God "knows" we are that way.  And the fact that he just does not leave us to our own desires to do vile things to each other at increasing levels is amazing.  We deserve to get tortured for all eternity simply because God cannot tolerate to be in the presence of anything less than holy perfection.  Again, you may not like it but you are not the creator so tough shit on the rules.  I guess you could be upset that God cannot tolerate us in his presence.  I could also entertain the thought that it would have been nice in that case that he just put us a nice island and let us keep going as we were and just stayed away from us and let us do our own thing (which is what man wants God to do anyway, just leave us alone and let us do our thing), but again we hit a piece of God's nature, that he is perfectly just, and sin must be punished.  So yes, you can walk down the domestic abuser track again, though it's not like that with God, but to rationalize it humans will go there, cause damn we want it to be our way, and we get nasty when it's not.  We name call, we get angry, we ask people how dare they tell us how to live, but yeah, there's nothing in that behavior to indicate that maybe we have a propensity to me morally rotten shitheads when given the choice.
And here we have the major difference.  If we're not worth being in his presence, ITS HIS FAULT!  He created us.  We are like this BECAUSE OF HIS DESIGN.  If you feel you are shit, that's because that's how your god made you.  Maybe you are the type to grovel at the feet of a boss with shitty rules in hopes of a promotion.  Me, I'll find another boss.

Unless I'm wrong about you... maybe you personally WERE completely good and absolutely pure and holy and then you decided "well screw this, I'm gonna be a rotter".  Did you ever do that?  Cause if you did, well then maybe yeah you deserve to rot in hell.  So did you?
I'm honestly not sure what you even mean about the last paragraph so I'm not going to answer unless you can restate it in a way that makes sense.  I have a guess, but do not want to answer the wrong context.

On the first point, I concede it would be his fault, but I'm one to deal the hand that I'm dealt not piss in the wind about it.  I used the job analogy because of the whole point.  Yes, like you, I would, and I have changed jobs because of a toxic boss.  But I do not have a way to change what universe I live in.  I can change my interpretation and the story I tell myself like you do, but in the end the only arbiter that matters is the one in control and who's story it is.  I believe the story God told me in the Bible, that the only way I can stand in His presence and not the lake of fire is by accepting the gift of saving grace offered through the sacrifice of His Son on my behalf, to make up for what I can't do right in His eyes.  As I pointed out we name call and get angry when we don't like something don't we?  Just like you are now.  "IT'S HIS FAULT" you yell, and it is, but that does not change the fact that it is that way.  Again, I deal with the hand I'm dealt not scream into the wind "IT'S HIS FAULT".  I can't take my ball and go home.  He'll just put me in hell for that.  I am really sympathetic with the idea that this might be a raw and terrible deal.  If I want to be mad at someone, and at times I am, I get mad Adam. 

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #746 on: June 30, 2017, 04:06:36 PM »
God cannot tolerate sin.

If god can't tolerate sin, he shouldn't have created it, lol.
God did not create sin, lol.

Sin entered the cosmos due to an act of rebellion against God.

God created men and angels with a free will, and, if a being has a free will, there is at least the potential that he will choose badly. The potential for sin was a risk God took. He created human beings in His image, and, since He is free, humans were created free, too.   He gave the man a true choice (Genesis 2:16). Adam chose disobedience. God did not tempt, coerce, or lure Adam into disobedience.

God provided the opportunity to sin, but He did not create or instigate sin. Having the opportunity was good; without it, human beings would be little more than robots.

God commands, pleads, and encourages us to follow Him (Exodus 19:5; Deuteronomy 12:28; 1 Samuel 15:22). He promises blessings, fellowship, and protection when we obey (Jeremiah 7:23; Psalm 115:11; Luke 11:28). But He does not chain us. God did not put a fence around the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve had freedom to choose obedience or disobedience. When they chose sin, they also chose the consequences that went with it (Genesis 3:16–24).

God did not and does not create sin, nor does He delight in punishing those who choose to sin (Ezekiel 33:11).

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #747 on: June 30, 2017, 04:13:00 PM »
God cannot tolerate sin.

If god can't tolerate sin, he shouldn't have created it, lol.
God did not create sin, lol.

Sin entered the cosmos due to an act of rebellion against God.

God created men and angels with a free will, and, if a being has a free will, there is at least the potential that he will choose badly. The potential for sin was a risk God took. He created human beings in His image, and, since He is free, humans were created free, too.   He gave the man a true choice (Genesis 2:16). Adam chose disobedience. God did not tempt, coerce, or lure Adam into disobedience.

God provided the opportunity to sin, but He did not create or instigate sin. Having the opportunity was good; without it, human beings would be little more than robots.

God commands, pleads, and encourages us to follow Him (Exodus 19:5; Deuteronomy 12:28; 1 Samuel 15:22). He promises blessings, fellowship, and protection when we obey (Jeremiah 7:23; Psalm 115:11; Luke 11:28). But He does not chain us. God did not put a fence around the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve had freedom to choose obedience or disobedience. When they chose sin, they also chose the consequences that went with it (Genesis 3:16–24).

God did not and does not create sin, nor does He delight in punishing those who choose to sin (Ezekiel 33:11).

Of course god created sin.  As you mentioned above - God's universe, God's rules.  You might not like that he created sin, but he sure as hell did.  Laying it off on Adam is just blaming the victim.

If god is omnipotent and omniscient - he knew this all would happen BEFORE HE MADE ANYTHING.  And he could have made the universe ANY WAY HE WANTED.  But he created THIS universe, with full fore-knowledge.  So how the f' is Adam (or any of us) to blame? 
Frugalite in training.

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #748 on: June 30, 2017, 04:24:04 PM »
Christianity cannot be "proved," I recognize that.
Then how does it make sense to send anyone to eternal torment for not accepting a belief which cannot be proved?

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #749 on: June 30, 2017, 04:40:55 PM »
...as part of the rules He tells us He expects worship.
Alright, if it's baked into the rules then that makes sense (by which I mean, it at least seems consistent).

Quote
Slavery is not the only measure of morality.  When we speak of these things we are talking about morality at the individual level, and sorry, I see a lot of people faking it and see the standards dropping all the time.  When I was a kid we could play outside and not worry about danger because all adults watched any child as if they were their own.  Society helped each other.  You honestly think a show like "What Would You Do?" would even exist back in the 60s or 70s?  I don't.  Because everyone would do the same thing.  Tell the offensive person to behave properly and scoietal norms would made it very difficult for people to behave outside the pale.  You'd not be waiting to see on a TV show what Joe Q Public was going to do if individual morality was on the rise.  And then as societal norms drop, as they have, more and more things become acceptable in the name of not offending anyone.
We should really dig up some data on this (and I say that not being 100% certain what the data will show).
But my guess is that data will show that crimes against children, violent crime, etc are all down from where they were in the 60s and 70s.
But, maybe I'm wrong.

Point is, as the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data.


Quote
Missed my point.  We have added these horrible things into our entertainment.  I'm not talking about is these things are addressed in real life.  We have desensitized ourselves to them because they appear in every prime time TV show with literally no need to advance the story line.

You may have a point on the desensitization. 
But again, we should consult data on the subject.  I don't believe there is a correlation between increased violence in media and increased violence in that society - but I could be wrong.  If there is a connection then I would be tempted to agree with you, because I am much more concerned with what we actually do to each other as people than how we portray things in our art.

Quote
It's easy to say we stop them.  I've got personal experience with things that my step kids are exposed to regarding sex, unsafe conditions with weapons through their father that would fall into several of these categories yet the attempt to intervene is not working and the kids suffer as a result.

I'm sorry to hear that you have any experience in that regard and I hope that those things are in the past, and if not that they are cleared up quickly.
I mean that sincerely.

In regards to how we react to these things as a society, again, I would suggest that we look up data on the subject and compare it to the number of the 60s and 70s.

Quote
I'm not equating morals with human decency.  I believe morality is the same or declined, yes, it certainly had not improved.  We're just better at hiding our problems because their is safety in numbers.  When you lived in a small village or tribe, everyone knew everything.  Now all kinds of vile stuff can go on in the privacy of your own home.  What we see publically is worthless to determine the moral character of a society.

If you are saying that vile things that occur in private and are never known in public are on the rise, I'd be very curious to know how you determined that.  It sounds like an assumption that could not possibly be shown to be true even if it were true.

Quote
Because you are not viewing why God does it in anything but human terms, and therefore my point was, and you have shown it to be true with your response, that you therefore compare it in human terms.  God cannot tolerate sin.  It's not a matter of choice, it is his nature and unchangeable.  My point was because we want Him to be nice to us, when to do so would be to ignore justice, we get mad, like petulant humans do when we can't get our trophy.

I don't want God to be nice to me, I simply think that if someone were to live their life in accordance with the goal of causing the least amount of harm to other sentient creatures then perhaps they shouldn't be tortured for eternity.

But perhaps you're right and I'm simply thinking of things in human terms.
I have no idea how I would go about thinking in any other terms.


EDITED TO ADD:
I wrote this whole reply before reading your replies to Tyort1 above.
I see you addressed some of the same points already, please don't feel the need to repeat yourself.
Apologies, I should have read the entire thread before replying to your last post to me.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 04:46:15 PM by MrDelane »