Where did life begin? (Merged)

[PKT_VOL]

Truly believers are spiritual Jews, Jesus lived as a Jew, followed Jewish customs, practices, and kept their traditions. That's the plain truth.

True believers in who? Jesus or Paul?

 

[Orangeslice13]

True believers in who? Yeshua or Paul?

Fyp

 

[PKT_VOL]

I guess it depends on what you consider to be random chance. If you want to call a process that occurs without supernatural intervention random chance then I think it's shifting the burden of proof to require evidence for it not being caused by a such an agent.

You can say "I don't know what caused it" (which is my position on most things like this), but the burden of proof falls on someone who claims that a god or gods are responsible.

Random chance would be random chance.

The world clearly has structure. The appearance of random chance coincides with our ignorance.

 

[PKT_VOL]

No reasonable person would believe that a person who committed those kinds of acts would be a practicing Christian. While it might be technically possible to do such a terrible thing, have a change of heart, and dedicate the rest of your life in service to Christ, but I can't think of an example. So taking that ultra rare exception and holding it up as though rapists and serial murderers are better than unbelievers in the eyes of Christians is dubious and a gross mischaraterization of the faith.

Gross mischaracterization of the faith? There are Christian ministries in most every prison and death row in the country.

This is the problem with sola fide. It divorces any sort of justness from deeds or character and places it squarely on the metaphysical beliefs one happens to hold earnestly.

 

[PKT_VOL]

To profess that any one sin is worse than any other is a misrepresentation of the faith. On the other hand, for pkt to do so is a bit counterintuitive if he is still professing relativistic morality.

From a Christian perspective tho, if Hitler placed true faith in Christ in that bunker, he will be waiting for is in heaven.

That's ok tho pkt, Paul predicted that would be a stumbling block to the intellectual atheists among us.

Well, it's Paul, so that's not saying much.

It would seemingly be a stumbling block for every Christian I know. I haven't met a single Christian who conducts themselves in a similar manner.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Well, it's Paul, so that's not saying much.

It would seemingly be a stumbling block for every Christian I know. I haven't met a single Christian who conducts themselves in a similar manner.

You're honestly saying that every Christian you know would stumble at the thought that Hitler could be saved by grace through faith in Jesus?

Interesting.

 

[BigO95]

I’ve got a question.

How many people think Heaven is the final destination of the righteous as opposed to earth?

New Jerusalem for the church

 

[PKT_VOL]

(1) God created the universe for the purpose He has for the Universe, so He had the right to create it as He saw fit.

Might makes right argument.

(2) The accusers in the room are very liberal in telling us what's "right" and "wrong" for God to do. They're the first to stand up and tell us when God is acting unethical and immoral.... But this is only after informing the world that morality is relative and there is no objective standard to it.

No side has established objective morality; God included.

So, all they are actually saying when they accuse God is that He didn't do things according to their preference. Well, duh.

(3) We will take PKT's example since it's a recent example. PKT just said (yesterday?) in this very thread that the great stumbling block for most people per Christian theology is that a child rapist could repent and be forgiven, yet Gandhi would be in Hell right now.

That's an appeal to justice. PKT and Septic would be standing on their view of justice there. They want justice, not grace.

Scripture tells us that every person who ever goes to Hell is judged based on God's justice, and it is just for them to be there. Further, scripture tells us that every person who is saved is saved by grace.

The problem(s) would be (1) the eternal nature of Hell and (2) the concept of justice that would send them there given their finite nature.

So, the argument seems to be switched now, instead of wanting justice, they all want everyone to get grace. You see? Grace is a stumbling block when it's convenient to stumble on it. And justice is a stumbling block when it's convenient to stumble on it.

So, the unpopular answer, yet the answer I believe to be true? I don't understand exactly how it all works. As part of my faith, I trust God's judgment. Anyone who goes to hell is there because of what they've done. Anyone who is saved is saved despite themselves, based solely on God's grace. Theologically, it's a bit ridiculous to say that God is forced to issue His grace to whom, and in ways that, He chooses not to.

I'm not sure there is anyone who makes that argument. The appeal is for justice; not grace.

The accuser's belief in a relative morality makes the entire conversation a non-starter if they choose to be honest about their beliefs and actually live those beliefs out to their logical conclusions. (If morality is relative and mere preferences, then they have no platform to say their "preference" is more valid than God's "preference".)

No platform? You mean no might?

If such a deity exists, sure. However, you would be conflating "right" with "pragmatic". Would it be pragmatic to follow might? Sure. Does that make it right, though?

 

[BigO95]

Gross mischaracterization of the faith? There are Christian ministries in most every prison and death row in the country.

This is the problem with sola fide. It divorces any sort of justness from deeds or character and places it squarely on the metaphysical beliefs one happens to hold earnestly.

God is just in forgiving the sin seeing the payment was made at the cross of Calvary therefore the sin was paid for.
Read Romans chapter 3

 

[PKT_VOL]

Since this post seems to be the source of so much confusion and illogical rabbit trails, I will offer some thoughts on it.

Did Jesus say that all other sins are considered less heinous? More acceptable? Or did he say that all of those sins could be forgiven?

The context dictates a difference in forgiveness. Not moral acceptance.

PKT, in all due respect. You've attributed what isn't there.

Jesus struck me as a guy who thought deeds mattered.

 

[BigO95]

The problem is that all sin is not forgiven. Blasphemy is considered an unforgivable sin.

Again that would be blasphemy against the holy spirit of God, not just blasphemy.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Might makes right argument.



No side has established objective morality; God included.



The problem(s) would be (1) the eternal nature of Hell and (2) the concept of justice that would send them there given their finite nature.



I'm not sure there is anyone who makes that argument. The appeal is for justice; not grace.



No platform? You mean no might?

If such a deity exists, sure. However, you would be conflating "right" with "pragmatic". Would it be pragmatic to follow might? Sure. Does that make it right, though?

No. I knew exactly what I was saying. You're reduced to arguments per preferences. At least be internally consistent and frame it as such as opposed to a moral argument. Live out your beliefs.

 

[Orange_Crush]

:blink:

Jesus struck me as a guy who thought deeds mattered.

You would be correct. That's why He died for them.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I take it you've never looked at the case for secular objective morality? There's practically a whole area of philosophy dedicated to it...

Where has anyone advocated for moral relativism ITT?

Also, how is your system objective? God says "thou shall not kill," but then commands people to kill, or kills himself. So, is killing wrong? Or is it okay when God says to? If so, how is that objective morality?

Feel free to state your case.

 

[PKT_VOL]

A little more specific actually.
Blasphemy against the spirit of G-d.

Do you think it is possible to blaspheme against one but not the other two?

 

[PKT_VOL]

You're honestly saying that every Christian you know would stumble at the thought that Hitler could be saved by grace through faith in Jesus?

Interesting.

I'm saying that I have never met a Christian that treats all sin as the same.

 

[PKT_VOL]

God is just in forgiving the sin seeing the payment was made at the cross of Calvary therefore the sin was paid for.
Read Romans chapter 3

Would you be OK punishing one for another's crime/transgression or rewarding another for deeds not of their own merit?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Again that would be blasphemy against the holy spirit of God, not just blasphemy.

How does that change my post?

The problem is that all sin is not forgiven. Blasphemy is considered an unforgivable sin.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'm saying that I have never met a Christian that treats all sin as the same.

OK. My post wasn't about how the Christians you know act. I'm sorry if I didn't clarify.

 

[PKT_VOL]

No. I knew exactly what I was saying. You're reduced to arguments per preferences. At least be internally consistent and frame it as such as opposed to a moral argument. Live out your beliefs.

The problem with that criticism is that it cuts both ways. When one fails to establish objective morality, which both sides do, the criticism is applicable and equitable for both sides.

The difference is that you are adding a might makes right argument to try an justify your system. While quite pragmatic if true, it doesn't actually solve the morality conundrum to begin with.

 

[PKT_VOL]

OK. My post wasn't about how the Christians you know act. I'm sorry if I didn't clarify.

What was it about then? I must missed intent.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The problem with that criticism is that it cuts both ways. When one fails to establish objective morality, which both sides do, the criticism is applicable and equitable for both sides.

The difference is that you are adding a might makes right argument to try an justify your system. While quite pragmatic if true, it doesn't actually solve the morality conundrum to begin with.

Actually, I wasn't making a might makes right. I was making a "He's the owner and has the right" argument. I could make an argument that my daughter owns her apartment so has the right to decorate it any way she sees fit. Although I have the physical strength and firepower to overpower her (might), she still has the (right) to do whatever she wants.

It's a "right" makes right argument. I'm not sure how you missed that.

As to your "cuts both ways" criticism, I understand it. However, I wasn't acting as though I have convinced you of objective morality. Quite the opposite, actually.

I was, however, speaking to internal consistencies. The fact that I at least believe in an objective morality makes my argument at least consistent and not hypocritical.

You, on the other hand, are still speaking against God as though you think His plans and decisions are immoral/unethical, yet you're admitting you believe them to be mere preferences.

While we can all understand that you prefer your preferences (by definition, actually), it carries no more weight in your worldview than ice cream preferences. I'm just saying that you should be a bit more careful toward intellectual honesty. ANd once your conversation is shown in its internal consistency, your accusations evaporate.

If moral == preferences for you, just cut out the middle platform of grandstanding and go straight to preferences.

 

[Orange_Crush]

What was it about then? I must missed intent.

I was stating theology.

 

[Orange_Crush]

For instance:

This is the problem with sola fide. It divorces any sort of justness from deeds or character and places it squarely on the metaphysical beliefs one happens to hold earnestly.

What "problem"? What "justice"? In your worldview, and by your own assertions, there is no "problem" outside of your own, personal moral preferences, correct? In your own worldview, you are relegated to a socially defined definition of "justice"? Some human activities and beliefs that evolved for our own self preservation?

What "problem" exactly? Please be specific and honest from your worldview.

And this:

The problem(s) would be (1) the eternal nature of Hell and (2) the concept of justice that would send them there given their finite nature.

You've made this argument before. So, again, with the concepts of morality that you have at your disposal--self-protective human evolved traits?--how will you hang those on God and make Him "immoral" or "unjust" in His plans and activities?

Again. Please be honest from your worldview and tell me *exactly* how your preferences are a "problem" for God. How will you make Him "unjust"?

Or should you just cut the grandstanding and be honest. You don't like it.

 

[BigO95]

Would you be OK punishing one for another's crime/transgression or rewarding another for deeds not of their own merit?

This is the way that God can be just and merciful.the reasoning for this is simply because God loves you!