salvation christian style - Page 2 | Realm of Thought | PinoyExchange

X

Page 2 of 4 First 1 2 3 ... Last
Results 21 to 40 of 71
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by gakutokamui
    back to the topic, the original house analogy doesn't work because it assumes that the punishment for not believing is something not administered by "the rich man". not only is the whole analogy cheeky, its totally inaccurate. if we go by what christians believe the rich man will not only have had the non-believers excluded from his posh village, he would have rounded each and everyone of them up to be flogged or tortured as well, or some other unsavory fate which he has thought of in advance. i mean, its not like god will leave unbelievers alone to suffer an unknown fate beyond his control, he already has a set (and very painful) punishment already designed for them. remember, christians believe that there are only two options. in the house analogy, there are more than two since the unbelieving squatters can always leave town and go somewhere else beyond the control and influence of your "rich man".

    so again, how different is that from robber who already decided that he's going to shaft you if you don't give him what he wants?
    hello gakutokamui. i agree that pascal's wager starts to have flaws when we argue that there are possibilties besides the existence or non-existence of god. but for the house analogy given by jaypogi, the choices were distilled to merely "accept" or "not accept" without bringing in what christians believe as far as what the consequences are in not accepting.

    so, if someone offered to give you a million dollars and merely asked you to accept or not, what would you say?

  2. #22
    try looking on the following with regards to fundamental christianity
    that pretty much sums up what a lot of evangelical churches and protestant denominations belive regarding salvation unto eternal life
    sola scriptura - all authority in theological matters lies in Scripture alone (the Bible)
    solus Cristus - salvation unto eternal life is in Christ Jesus alone
    sola graci - salvation is wholly given by the grace of God alone
    sola fide - salvation can be recieved by man by faith in Jesus Christ alone

  3. #23

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by gakutokamui
    i've just been wondering...

    how different is the christian concept of salvation and redemption from being held up by a robber with a knife? i mean, in both cases you only have two choices, and if you choose the one that either god or the robber doesn't like, you get shafted.
    i apologize for not having read the original query of the thread. thank you for the opportunity to answer this.

    the basic difference is this: in christian salvation and redemption, what god takes (saves and redeems) originally belongs to him. in the robber-with-the-knife scenario, the robber takes what is not his.

    please let me know if this is responsive to your question, gakutokamui. thanks.

  4. #24
    Great Scott!
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    green grin

    hmm...perhaps it would help if you explain this line from a poem by a Christian writer...

    Religion is about what man can do for God ....Salvation is about what God can do for you.


  5. #25
    hi wackymathay. great to hear from you again.

    i agree with that statement. religion is man-made; it is man's attempt to appease deity. a less poetic writer wrote that religion is man reaching to god while christianity is god reaching to man.

    but this might not be pertinent for the issue here since the threadstarter specifically asked for the difference between god and a robber.

    god bless, my friend.

  6. #26
    I think green grin and I discussed Pascal's Wager a while back. my criticism was that it was based on certain assumptions that arise from a specific Christian pov, so how then can it be proposed as

    184. A letter to incite to the search after God.

    And then to make people seek Him among the philosophers, sceptics, and dogmatists, who disquiet him who inquires of them.

    SECTION III: OF THE NECESSITY OF THE WAGER, The Pensees, B. Pascal
    ...for everyone and all?

    don't remember gg's reply, though.

    oh, and "God loves us", that is also an assumption.

  7. #27

    salvation christian style

    The very concept of sin comes from the bible. Christianity offers to solve a problem of its own making! Would you be thankful to a person who cut you with a knife in order to sell you a bandage?
    - Dan Barker

    sums it up really.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by green grin
    i apologize for not having read the original query of the thread. thank you for the opportunity to answer this.

    the basic difference is this: in christian salvation and redemption, what god takes (saves and redeems) originally belongs to him. in the robber-with-the-knife scenario, the robber takes what is not his.
    hello green grin

    if somebody GAVE something to you, doesn't that mean that its now YOUR'S? whats the point in "giving" if the receiver doesn't really get to own it and do with it as he pleases? when you give a gift to someone, do you intend to reclaim such a gift if the person pisses you off in the future? in this sense, god GAVE you something, but he can take it back any time at his discretion? is that just?

    also, if we use this idea, why dont we modify the analogy a little, this time we include that "love" thingy:

    assume that the robber was a father. he gives his beloved son money for allowance, but he doesn't like what his son spends his money on. so he disguises himself, sticks up his son in a dark alley with nowhere to run and asks for the kid's money (assume the father intends to put it to better use like some insurance or something). given the assumptions in christian salvation, the ones who DONT follow the orders WILL be dealt eternal hell. in this case, the robber (good father that he is) WILL shaft his son if he doesn't decide to suit his father's will.

    in both cases, the father knows whats best to do with what he GAVE his son, he's taking back something he GAVE and he WILL brutally punish the son IF he doesn't get what he wants. i know that sounds crazy, but how different is that from the idea of christian salvation?

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by gekokujo
    I think green grin and I discussed Pascal's Wager a while back. my criticism was that it was based on certain assumptions that arise from a specific Christian pov, so how then can it be proposed as

    ...for everyone and all?

    don't remember gg's reply, though.

    oh, and "God loves us", that is also an assumption.
    hello gekokujo. i'm glad you're well and still active in the realm. i don't believe we ever discussed pascal's wager (i could be wrong). but i remember discussing the lack of fossil evidence to support evolution with you.

    if you read my reply to the nice people above, i already answered their criticisms to Pascal's wager with regards to THIS thread, and for your sake i will restate the same:

    in the house analogy given by jaypogi, the choices were distilled to merely "accept" or "not accept" without bringing in what christians believe as far as what the consequences are in not accepting. in the ananlogy there can be no "what if there was another rich man offering", or "what if there really wasn't an offer."

    simply: accept or not accept?


  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by gekokujo
    The very concept of sin comes from the bible. Christianity offers to solve a problem of its own making! Would you be thankful to a person who cut you with a knife in order to sell you a bandage?
    - Dan Barker

    sums it up really.
    while sin indeed comes from the bible, the belief in the fallen nature of man predated christianity and finds adherence outside the judeo-christian pov. the ancient greeks struggled against an almighty zeus angry at mankind and the modern day hindus strive to eventually reincarnate out of the flesh, just to cite a few examples. man believed their problems were a result of either their collective transgression as a people against the deities or their own inherent flaws.

    the term "sin" implies disobedience to a personal god, as in judaism, christianity, and islam, and is not used so often in systems such as buddhism where there is no personal divinity. hence where there is no personal god to offend, there can never be sin. and in what belief system can one find a personal god?

    to say that the bible "invented" the concept of sin is untrue.


  11. #31
    hello gakutokamui. thank you for reply.

    Quote Originally Posted by gakutokamui
    if somebody GAVE something to you, doesn't that mean that its now YOUR'S? whats the point in "giving" if the receiver doesn't really get to own it and do with it as he pleases? when you give a gift to someone, do you intend to reclaim such a gift if the person pisses you off in the future? in this sense, god GAVE you something, but he can take it back any time at his discretion? is that just?
    essex and i have an on-going discussion about this exact same issue in another thread where he has me earning my keep. LOL.

    if you don't mind, in order to keep us from going back and forth, may i ask you a series of questions, answerable by yes or no, before i reply? i promise you it is not a trap, but merely to lay down mutually accepted premises so that we can keep clarifications to a minimum. essex will vouch for me that i do not seek to convert or convince anyone but only to make my replies crystal clear.

    here are the questions:

    do you agree that a creator has the right to determine the function of his creation? say, someone can turn a heap of metal into an automobile to use as a means of transportation.

    do you agree that a creator can dispose of his creation if it does not function the way it was created? in the above example, the automobile does not run so the owner can throw it away.

    also, if we use this idea, why dont we modify the analogy a little, this time we include that "love" thingy:

    assume that the robber was a father. he gives his beloved son money for allowance, but he doesn't like what his son spends his money on. so he disguises himself, sticks up his son in a dark alley with nowhere to run and asks for the kid's money (assume the father intends to put it to better use like some insurance or something). given the assumptions in christian salvation, the ones who DONT follow the orders WILL be dealt eternal hell. in this case, the robber (good father that he is) WILL shaft his son if he doesn't decide to suit his father's will.

    in both cases, the father knows whats best to do with what he GAVE his son, he's taking back something he GAVE and he WILL brutally punish the son IF he doesn't get what he wants. i know that sounds crazy, but how different is that from the idea of christian salvation?
    i haven't quite read this part yet as i'm suddenly overtaken by work. i will get back to this soonest, i promise.

    thank you for your patience and god bless.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by green grin
    here are the questions:

    do you agree that a creator has the right to determine the function of his creation? say, someone can turn a heap of metal into an automobile to use as a means of transportation.
    yes.

    do you agree that a creator can dispose of his creation if it does not function the way it was created? in the above example, the automobile does not run so the owner can throw it away.
    yes.

    however, if you are going to use these two analogies in the context of the salvation relationship between god and man i'm gathering that you're equating people as no more than just that... creations that are no more special than rocks or cars. no valuation at all for free will, and this "love" that christians are so fond of. people are then nothing but "malfunctioning" creations, meant to follow a design (therefore no real free will, thus making the whole thing about "love" a farce) but for some unknown reason deviates from it.

    if you're going to use my answers to those two questions in that way, i just hope that you will remain consistent.

  13. #33
    hello gakutokamui. i only have time to answer that one which i promised to get back to soonest. thank you for your follow up which i will read, digest, and reply to in another post.

    Quote Originally Posted by gakutokamui
    hello green grin
    assume that the robber was a father. he gives his beloved son money for allowance, but he doesn't like what his son spends his money on. so he disguises himself, sticks up his son in a dark alley with nowhere to run and asks for the kid's money (assume the father intends to put it to better use like some insurance or something). given the assumptions in christian salvation, the ones who DONT follow the orders WILL be dealt eternal hell. in this case, the robber (good father that he is) WILL shaft his son if he doesn't decide to suit his father's will.

    in both cases, the father knows whats best to do with what he GAVE his son, he's taking back something he GAVE and he WILL brutally punish the son IF he doesn't get what he wants. i know that sounds crazy, but how different is that from the idea of christian salvation?
    You’re right, the scenario above sounds crazy. And you know why, right? Because no father (real or imagined) robs from his son money he has given him. The idea is absurd. If the father is not happy with the way his son spends his money, he simply stops giving him money. So this example of the robber-father is so off-kilter i'm afraid it cannot be used as an analogy.

    When i speak of “taking back”, what i mean is either taking back his son, or restoring him as an heir. The devil is a thief because he takes the lives of god’s people. We are likewise heirs to God’s kingdom but because we have walked away from him, we have lost our inheritance. God wants us to restore us to our rightful place, and all we have to do is walk back to him. That is why Jesus in the Bible told the story of the prodigal son when his followers asked him, "What is the Father like?"

    I'll be back to answer your last post. Thank you again for your patience.


  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by green grin
    You’re right, the scenario above sounds crazy. And you know why, right? Because no father (real or imagined) robs from his son money he has given him. The idea is absurd. If the father is not happy with the way his son spends his money, he simply stops giving him money.
    you haven't answered the question. how different is THAT crazy situation from christian salvation? thats the whole point of the thread. point out the distinct and significant differences (if any)

    So this example of the robber-father is so off-kilter i'm afraid it cannot be used as an analogy.
    no cop outs please. you didn't even give a reason why that analogy is "oft-kilter". because "The idea is absurd"? well, many can say the same thing about the actual doctrines of christian salvation and its "absurd" assumptions, which is precisely why this analogy was made in the first place.

    When i speak of “taking back”, what i mean is either taking back his son, or restoring him as an heir.
    why? did he ever lose his inheritance? i mean, you did say "restore".

    when you say "taking back", was his son ever away or "taken" by someone else?

    The devil is a thief because he takes the lives of god’s people.
    so it was the devil's responsibility. so why hold people similarly culpable with a similarly hellish punishment then?

    We are likewise heirs to God’s kingdom but because we have walked away from him, we have lost our inheritance.
    again, how different is this from my analogy? sure we are "heirs", but why do you have to suffer ETERNAL TORTURE in hell if you choose to not believe in christianity?

    God wants us to restore us to our rightful place, and all we have to do is walk back to him.
    and again, like in the analogy IF you dont walk back to him you WILL get royally shafted. you still haven't touched on that part of the thread.

    you still haven't answered the question. you talk about inheritances, and glittering rewards... but you haven't addressed the critical assumption that you only have TWO choices and that if you choose the one that displeases then you suffer eternally in hell. if you have failed to notice, THAT is the crux of the analogy.

    so again, how different is that from being held up by a robber?

  15. #35
    really’d love to refresh green grin’s memory, I just don't have time to dig up those old threads, but for this thread...

    "robber-with-the-knife scenario"

    Quote Originally Posted by green grin
    the basic difference is this: in christian salvation and redemption, what god takes (saves and redeems) originally belongs to him. in the robber-with-the-knife scenario, the robber takes what is not his.
    "house analogy"

    Quote Originally Posted by green grin
    in the house analogy given by jaypogi, the choices were distilled to merely "accept" or "not accept" without bringing in what christians believe as far as what the consequences are in not accepting. in the ananlogy there can be no "what if there was another rich man offering", or "what if there really wasn't an offer."

    simply: accept or not accept?

    ...so why does green grin exclude Christian beliefs from consideration in one scenario while insisting that they constitute a key difference in another? kinda selective if not inconsistent, ain't? or just plain dishonest? (and is "jaypogi" easter's alternick?)

    while sin indeed comes from the bible, the belief in the fallen nature of man predated christianity and finds adherence outside the judeo-christian pov. the ancient greeks struggled against an almighty zeus angry at mankind and the modern day hindus strive to eventually reincarnate out of the flesh, just to cite a few examples. man believed their problems were a result of either their collective transgression as a people against the deities or their own inherent flaws.

    the term "sin" implies disobedience to a personal god, as in judaism, christianity, and islam, and is not used so often in systems such as buddhism where there is no personal divinity. hence where there is no personal god to offend, there can never be sin. and in what belief system can one find a personal god?

    to say that the bible "invented" the concept of sin is untrue.
    the greek gods were depicted as angry at individuals, not mankind in general. as for Hinduism: "result of either their collective transgression as a people against the deities or their own inherent flaws" - uhm, say again?

    Christian Response to Hinduism

    The differences between Hinduism and Christianity are vast.

    Hinduism

    SIN – Sin is committed against oneself, not against God.

    SIN’S PENALTY - Since “sin” is committed only against oneself, the penalties are accrued only against the self. The penalty is the repeated cycle of rebirths, until you can escape to Nirvana.

    SALVATION - Salvation is the release from the wheel of life, the cycle of rebirths, through which we must work to better ourselves, and realize our oneness with Brahman. It must be worked out by each individual through successive lives.

    http://www.contenderministries.org/h...anresponse.php
    err…

    buddhism, as you said, no personal god, no god to offend, ergo no sin.

    so the bible invented not only the concept sin, but the concept of collective transgression and inherent flaws. for some but apparently not all Christians, fear sells.

  16. #36
    Piggy Neroody
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Piggy Penny
    Quote Originally Posted by gakutokamui
    i've just been wondering...

    how different is the christian concept of salvation and redemption from being held up by a robber with a knife? i mean, in both cases you only have two choices, and if you choose the one that either god or the robber doesn't like, you get shafted.
    The difference lies in who the knife is being pointed at.

    Further, you have to detail what the 2 choices are per scenario.

  17. #37
    chicken go "cluck-cluck," cow go "moo," piggy piggy "oink oink" how are you?
    "With great looks comes great responsibility"

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by green grin
    rickym said that assuming it was correct (pascal's wager), then it would be best to adhere to the religion that believes in the worst hell. to which i asked him what his religious beliefs were. did his religion believe in a hell that is far worse than christianity's or islam's? and i am still awaiting his answer.
    Why is rickym's answer to this question important? If his religion does not believe in a hell that is far worse than Christianity's, so what? His example simply illustrates that Pascal's Wager, taken to its extreme, devolves into choosing the religion with the worst hell (a rather silly criteria) . Also, he can make up one that has a hell so much horrible. What's your point?

    Also, if you are aware of the flaws of Pascal's Wager, why bring it up?

  19. #39
    actually i don't have a religion i am probably agnostic or deist. i didn't answer because my answer is irrelevant.

    to give an example to what Olorin stated. what if i came up with a religion which stated.
    1. only those who believe in my religion will be saved.
    2. those who will believe in any other religion will go to hell.
    3. those who even entertain the thought of converting to another religion will go to hell.
    4. those who convert 5 people will most likely go to heaven
    5. those who convert more than 100 people will definitely go to heaven.

    if that were the case and if pascal's wager were correct then it would be most reasonable to choose my religion because you would lose nothing and yet gain so much. see how ridiculous it could be.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by st.anger
    yes, but it's done with LOVE.
    that makes God sound like a stalker.

Page 2 of 4 First 1 2 3 ... Last

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •