If God exists........

If God exists........

Spirituality

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

F

Unknown Territories

Joined
05 Dec 05
Moves
20408
21 Jun 06

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Why does there have to be one?
What's your point?

F

Unknown Territories

Joined
05 Dec 05
Moves
20408
21 Jun 06

Originally posted by Starrman
As an a-believer, it is nigh on impossible to accept such a view. Do not tell me, coming from a standpoint of accepted belief, that it is easy.

References for the notion that man is spiritually dead by default and must gain his spirituality by accepting god.
Do not tell me, coming from a standpoint of accepted belief, that it is easy.
The easy part doesn't refer to the decision so much as it does to the issue. Obviously the decision is fraught with many tumultuous mental and emotional struggles. However, in retrospect, one always wonders what the fuss was really about.

References for the notion that man is spiritually dead by default and must gain his spirituality by accepting god.
Common theme of the entire Scripture, really, beginning in Gen. 2:17 onward. Romans 3:23-26, among others in the NT.

F

Unknown Territories

Joined
05 Dec 05
Moves
20408
21 Jun 06

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Okay, so works (following the law) cannot save us because, for one thing, we in our current condition cannot follow the law. I wonder of somebody somehow managed to follow the law if he/she would be saved? I guess I doubt it.

So the only way we can be saved is by accepting God's grace. Isn't this just another "work"? We don't have to follow the law ...[text shortened]... st "accept" it or we don't get it. Not sure this passes the sniff test.

TheSkipper
I wonder of somebody somehow managed to follow the law if he/she would be saved? I guess I doubt it.
As all who have been born of the seed of man have necessarily been born spiritually dead, even if (exceedingly big if) they were able to follow the Law to the letter, they would still lack affinity with God.

Isn't this just another "work"?
Just the opposite, actually. Thus the distinction between faith and work.

Further, isn't one of the important componenets of grace that it is freely given? Yet in order to benefit from God's grace we must "accept" it or we don't get it. Not sure this passes the sniff test.
Freely given, in a round-about way, I suppose. There was a cost. As stated earlier, no one goes to hell for their sins. People who chose to go to hell are simply those who refuse His system, sticking with Satan's instead.
Not sure who is doing the sniffing!

w

Joined
02 Jan 06
Moves
12857
21 Jun 06

Originally posted by damage79
Yes, but that is exactly it, God took that justice out on Jesus instead of us (the basic definition of grace)

Jesus takes our place of deserved judgement, even though He did not deserve it. Acknowledging that fact of our own free will is accepting God's grace
You are right in that Christ took the sin and the blame. Then death took him but had no right to him. Now death, hell, and the grave owe Christ for wrongly taking him. Only through Christ with this power can we escape death, hell, and the grave. Grace is the actual gift of salvation from sin in that we did nothing to deserve it. Christ did all the work. We merely receive it through faith.

w

Joined
02 Jan 06
Moves
12857
21 Jun 06

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
If i am a good person (define good as you wish), it should not matter if i serve God or not.
That is the problem, you must define good. This concept of "good" is only important in regards to the Almighty and not to us. After all, he holds all the cards and tells us how it is so to speak. He is holy which means without sin. It says in scripture that if we commit so much as one sin, no matter how minor, we then become a sinner. The problem lies in that we must see this through the eyes of a sinner and therefore our perspective is skewed. Since we are sinners, sin does not seem like that big of a deal. However, if you had never sinned, I don't think you would view it the same. Take one sin that you have never commited. Perhaps you have never murdered someone. If so, it probably would be a big deal to you if you commited this sin. However, if you were a hired gun who did this for a living, it would probably be no big deal and only business from your perspective. Unfortunatly, your perspective has no bearing on the reality of sin.

w

Joined
02 Jan 06
Moves
12857
21 Jun 06

Originally posted by Conrau K
Free will does not exist!
Tell me this then. Why is it that we as humans get all bent out of shape when our perceived free will, that we don't really have to begin with, is being violated.

w

Joined
02 Jan 06
Moves
12857
21 Jun 06

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Why does there have to be one?
Oh, I think even atheists would say that life requires meaning.

Devout Agnostic.

DZ-015

Joined
12 Oct 05
Moves
42584
21 Jun 06

Originally posted by whodey
That is the problem, you must define good. This concept of "good" is only important in regards to the Almighty and not to us. After all, he holds all the cards and tells us how it is so to speak. He is holy which means without sin. It says in scripture that if we commit so much as one sin, no matter how minor, we then become a sinner. The problem lies in ...[text shortened]... from your perspective. Unfortunatly, your perspective has no bearing on the reality of sin.
The greatest sin is to judge others before God has had the chance.

w

Joined
02 Jan 06
Moves
12857
21 Jun 06

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
The greatest sin is to judge others before God has had the chance.
The Bible says that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. I am not pointing to any particular sin and judging you or any one else. I am only restating what God has said in his word. If you dispute this claim that is your business.

Cape Town

Joined
14 Apr 05
Moves
52945
21 Jun 06
1 edit

Originally posted by whodey
Oh, I think even atheists would say that life requires meaning.
No, life does not 'require' meaning. It may have one but there is no reason to think that it requires one.

w

Joined
02 Jan 06
Moves
12857
21 Jun 06

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, life does not 'require' meaning. It may have one but there is no reason to think that it requires one.
Let me rephrase. As human being we need to have meaning or a reason to get up in the morning. Granted, we may not think we do in which case you will more than likely not want to get up in the morning. Depression and such would then set in and you would probably contemplate suicide. At this point the longer this goes on, the more likely your bodily physiology would then begin to be effected and probably start a cycle that would open yourself up to sickness and disease and what not. To sum up, we need purpose and something to look foreward to in order to promote a fertile environment for life.

H
I stink, ergo I am

On the rebound

Joined
14 Jul 05
Moves
4464
21 Jun 06

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, life does not 'require' meaning. It may have one but there is no reason to think that it requires one.
Why don't you kill yourself then?

H
I stink, ergo I am

On the rebound

Joined
14 Jul 05
Moves
4464
21 Jun 06

Originally posted by Conrau K
Free will does not exist!
Your philosophical premises (which according to you, you can't help having) dictate such a conclusion. I have different premises (which according to you, I can't help having), ergo I have a different conclusion.

Your stance is self defeating in allowing for any discussion whatsoever, since our beliefs (and subsequent actions) are already predetermined. You may be happy with the idea of waltzing through life like a puppet on the strings of physical forces and stimuli, but I choose to believe that I can choose.

If free will does not exist, then what is the point of law and justice? Aren't we discriminating against people of different chemical compositions, leading to alternative dispositions (like Hitler, Manson and Clinton)? Why should one action (which a person can't help doing according to your stance) be called "good" and another (which a person can't help doing either) be called "evil"?

I was tempted to vitriolically lambaste you and then excuse myself as having no control over it, but I chose not to go against my better judgment and choice. Hmmm... talk about the abortion debate -- freedom of choice an oxymoron?

s
Doh!!! Or--Are--I

Springfield, USA

Joined
22 Jun 06
Moves
5936
22 Jun 06

Originally posted by Starrman
First I'd want to know several things:

1) A complete account of the bible from his view, so as to clear up whether the humans that scribed it got it right or not.
2) A long and involved debate as to whether he is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
3) A number of other questions about the actions he has performed and whether or not they can be just ...[text shortened]... Despite being forced to admit his existence, I am under no obligation to follow his commands.
Wow! If I could prove that I was the father of these children. they would be under no obligation to serve me. Only if they loved me. Other than that I would allow them to continue to live in their illusion!

Cape Town

Joined
14 Apr 05
Moves
52945
23 Jun 06

Originally posted by Halitose
Why don't you kill yourself then?
My desire to live is not related to life having a meaning.