salvation christian style - Page 4 | Realm of Thought | PinoyExchange

Page 4 of 4 First ... 3 4
Results 61 to 71 of 71
  1. #61
    Piggy Neroody
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Piggy Penny
    so you're saying analogies should ALWAYS take into consideration every considerable possibility (the robber could slip on a banana peel, he could suddenly have a heart attack, the "robee" is actually a super martial artist etc etc)?
    Nope didn't say that.

    please ask a priest one time that when jesus used his parables, why didn't he consider the prodigal son getting killed or any other "possibilities" to make the analogy more "realistic". im sure he'll agree with me that when using analogies the only important thing is to illustrate the point in a way that it can be understood.
    Actually, the story does allow for that possibility, if the son didnt go back to the father, then he wouldnt have repented, etc. etc. The analogy allows for other possibilities and what the consequences are. While your scenario is too limiting

    im assuming you knew full well what you were debating against... but then again maybe not. as you said (and to my sincere agreement) you are a little dull.
    ...

  2. #62

  3. #63
    hello gakutokamui. thank you for your reply which i have long left unanswered. to make up for this, i'll try to answer briefly and to the point:

    Quote Originally Posted by gakutokamui
    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)
    that's a fair assessment, i did not answer your question. i will try to do so now (i hope i'm not rehashing any of piggy's arguments above, which i haven't read):

    in the christian belief, god wants you to have eternal life with him. when a man refuses to accept the offer of eternal life, God simply allows him to do as he pleases and allows the logical consequences of his choice. and what is the logical consequence of rejecting eternal life? death.

    in the robber scenario, regardless of whether you live or die the robber has only one purpose in mind: to take the man's money. you can give your money and he may still blow your head off.

    why? did he ever lose his inheritance? i mean, you did say "restore".
    thank you for asking about this.

    the bible tells us that when God created man (adam, and later his wife eve), his plan for him was to have dominion over the earth and all the living creatures. there was no need for him to till the soil for food or build shelter for protection - God was his provider and protector. he and his seed were to live forever in a world free of disease, turmoil and death.

    he was given just one commandment - not to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. the devil as a serpent lied to them and said that they would be like God if they ate the fruit. adam and eve chose to disobey that one commandment. when God later asked why he had done that, adam replied, "i ate the fruit because the woman YOU put here with me gave me the fruit." double whammy. disobedience and defiance.

    yet God did not forsake adam and adam still called on God. but there could be no conciliation because of adam's sin. one can argue that if God is all-powerful, why couldn't he have just eradicated adam's sin and restored him to his former position? God's eternal law states that the wages of sin is death. God is not only good, but he is also just. and Satan, the "accuser of the brethren" pointed to adam's sin and demanded that adam pay with his life for his sins.

    but God's original plan was not to be thwarted. he willed that man will have dominion in the world he created and he wants it still to happen. but what of man's sins? blood must be shed to pay for the sins.

    God made a way. he sent jesus to this world to take the form of man to be the unblemished and sinless sacrificial lamb who was to die for the sins of ALL mankind. and whomever accepts his sacrifice on the cross and wants to have fellowship with the Father will have his sins forgiven and have eternal life with the Father.

    and whomever does this, is "restored" to his inheritance of dominion.

    so it was the devil's responsibility. so why hold people similarly culpable with a similarly hellish punishment then?
    i think i addressed this before when i said that hell is a "garbage disposal" for the devil and his demons. the bible tells us that hell was not created for humans. however, it will similarly become a place for those who knowingly reject eternal life with the heavenly Father. is it a place of punishment? i believe the torment is not one administered by God, but by the inhabitants therein.

    imagine, if you will, one big prison cell where you are with murderers, thieves, rapists, and all sorts of criminals. the torment is not from the prison guards coming in to beat you, but from your fellow inmates.

    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?
    just to set the record straight, it is not the belief or disbelief in christianity that will save you. Satan believes in God and christianity but chooses to reject God. remember he wanted to set his throne higher than God's.

    when we die, there are only two places: heaven with the father, hell without the father. i do not know, gakutokamui, why God didn't create another venue for those who, having led a generally good life, rejected the offer of God.

    ------------

    i can only hope that the rest of your queries are answered somewhere above. if not, please let me know and i will try to address it as best (and as soon) as i can.

    thank you for your patience, my friend.

  4. #64
    hello gekokujo. you know i respect you as a person and your points of view. i also know that we have crossed swords in the past which might have been unpleasant at times, but please believe me that there was never a time that i had intentionally insulted or disparaged you. i have had many a pleasant discussions with people who share your belief and walked away as friends.

    i say the above because i noticed you don't like speaking directly to me and "referring" only to what i have written. if i have hurt your feelings in the past, i would like to apologize right now. i will try to be more courteous and respectful in my replies.

    now if you don't mind, i would like to respond to your last post:

    Quote Originally Posted by gekokujo
    ...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?)
    not dishonest in any way, that's for sure. please explain what you didn't understand about my explanation above.

    (and i don't know if easter is jaypogi's alternick. and even if it is, what is it to you? i ask that in a most respectful way).

    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?
    oh yes, my friend, according to greek mythology Zeus was against mankind from day one because prometheus (who created man) gave man the gift of fire, which was suppose to be the god's solely. you of course know the story of pandora's box. that is why the greeks try to placate all their gods because of their "collective transgressions".

    on inherent flaws: why does a hindu strive to evolve into a higher being than he already is? isn't that a tacit admission that he, as a human being, is not perfect? hindus believe that to be ultimate, Brahman must transcend (exist above and beyond) all limiting attributes, such as name, gender, form, and features. and what are those limiting attributes? answer: inherent flaws.

    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.
    pasensiya ka na at mahina ang ulo ko, but i didn't understand your point here. please enlighten me.

    thank you and take care, gekokujo.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by gekokujo
    (and is "jaypogi" easter's alternick?)
    Hmmm... I never saw this part of the comments until now. With all due respect to jaypogi, I would just like to say that I am a different person. So jaypogi isn't an alternick of mine and I don't have any other names here at PEX.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by green grin
    hello gekokujo. you know i respect you as a person and your points of view. i also know that we have crossed swords in the past which might have been unpleasant at times, but please believe me that there was never a time that i had intentionally insulted or disparaged you. i have had many a pleasant discussions with people who share your belief and walked away as friends.

    i say the above because i noticed you don't like speaking directly to me and "referring" only to what i have written. if i have hurt your feelings in the past, i would like to apologize right now. i will try to be more courteous and respectful in my replies.
    cut the chit-chat, gg, I know your hide is just as resilient as mine; more to the point, I know an attempt to distract when I see one. newbies, watch and learn:

    Quote Originally Posted by gekokujo
    ...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?)
    not dishonest in any way, that's for sure. please explain what you didn't understand about my explanation above.
    gg here limited his response to the tail-end of yours truly’s post, letting the relevant question (“so why does…”) slide unacknowledged. grabbing at what he over-optimistically anticipates to be a less-than-immediately-obvious bait-and-switch, he then attempts to sucker yours truly into abandoning the embarked line of questioning. please, gg, isn’t the rationale for the question self-evident from your own inconsistency?

    Quote Originally Posted by gekokujo
    "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?)
    RoT veterans who overlooked gg’s futile attempt at evasion: I suggest you get a refund on that lobotomy, it unfortunately left you and, worse, the rest of humanity with a lingering awareness of your existence.

    (and i don't know if easter is jaypogi's alternick. and even if it is, what is it to you? i ask that in a most respectful way).
    I don’t know if it hurts to read, gg:

    Quote Originally Posted by green grin
    in the house analogy given by jaypogi, the choices were distilled to merely "accept" or "not accept"…
    the “house analogy” was given by easter, not jaypogi as you stated; next time you find yourself suspecting undue hostility rather than mere congenial sarcasm , I respectfully suggest reading through the other party’s reply a second or third time before-I mean, instead of jumping to conclusions.

    oh yes, my friend, according to greek mythology Zeus was against mankind from day one because prometheus (who created man) gave man the gift of fire, which was suppose to be the god's solely. you of course know the story of pandora's box. that is why the greeks try to placate all their gods because of their "collective transgressions".
    in case you boycotted high school mythology due to your religious convictions, gg: Zeus was p-o’d at the titan Prometheus, not the latter’s creation Mankind, and the trigger was not Promy’s act of “stealing” fire, that was much later in the story because Zeus himself had been the one to originally bestow the gift of fire on the First Men (Promy had created only males), but later withdrew it in retaliation for the humanitarian Promy’s tampering with the First Sacrifice – in short, Prometheus’ love for his creations was the root of Zeus’ hate, gg, rather than any conscious violation against Zeus on Mankind’s part. on the other hand, the fact that Pandora’s Box was the receptacle that contained “all the evils in the world” definitively shows that the Greeks did not view themselves as similar vessels of evil, rather it was almighty God to whom was ascribed the act of creating the First Woman, Pandora, his instrument through which evil could walk the Earth (a sexist metaphor, obviously, implying that the female is less human than the male) - therefore, to the Greeks Mankind was a victim of almighty God’s jealousy, instead of the other way around.

    on inherent flaws: why does a hindu strive to evolve into a higher being than he already is? isn't that a tacit admission that he, as a human being, is not perfect? hindus believe that to be ultimate, Brahman must transcend (exist above and beyond) all limiting attributes, such as name, gender, form, and features. and what are those limiting attributes? answer: inherent flaws.
    the Hindu does not “evolve”, my non-Hindu friend, rather he strives to realize if not remember the fact that he IS a “higher" being than the illusions called “flesh” and “space-time” would have the unenlightened believe – in fact, he is not just a higher being, he is a perfect being on account of his

    Quote Originally Posted by gekokujo
    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.
    (can one divide perfection, gg?) – thus, in Hindu, err, “soteriology”, Man’s perfection is inherent, rather than his illusory "flaws".

    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.
    pasensiya ka na at mahina ang ulo ko, but i didn't understand your point here. please enlighten me.
    I have to admit to some surprise at your (unwarranted) humility here, gg, since that was your point, not mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by green grin
    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?
    (I guess you know what’s coming…)

    “err…”

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by green grin
    when we die, there are only two places: heaven with the father, hell without the father. i do not know, gakutokamui, why God didn't create another venue for those who, having led a generally good life, rejected the offer of God.
    of course you dont know, simply because you think in christian thought. in christian thought there is NO THIRD choice. there is only ONE way to save your soul regardless of anything else. there is only ONE choice between TWO alternatives in a situation under the full control of another's will. quite simple: do what he wants or you get royally screwed.

    just like when you're being robbed.

  8. #68
    I love you so much as to give you a choice between life and death... but hey, if I really loved you, why did I include death??!??

  9. #69
    I loved your money so much that I am in fact robbing you, but I respect life so I'll give you choice to give it or die... but nonetheless money will prevail so if you resist, you die! wooot!

  10. #70
    Banned by Admin
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    4th dimension
    Quote Originally Posted by green grin
    now, let's adopt your version of the story and say that the offer was bogus. what did those who accepted the offer lose? the answer: nothing.
    Well actually those who did not accept the bogus offer went on and actually built their own houses... so now they are living in their own houses, while those who signed the fake offer, they're still waiting for nothing....

    The robed guy making the false offers got jailed for false marketing and product misrepresentation.
    Last edited by Frank_Mackey; Nov 15, 2005 at 09:12 PM.

  11. #71
    If my only choice is to give up my money or die, I better take heed of them sages who once said, "there are only two religions in this world: the false and the more false".

Page 4 of 4 First ... 3 4

Posting Permissions

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