The Progressive Faith in the Christian Life - Page 5

On September 11 2013 05:26 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, that's how christianity got co-opted by the counterrevolution. 'don't worry if things are unfair in this life, because in heaven everything is fine'.

C.f. Also 'jesus was good so that means I don't have to be, because nobody is perfect like jesus.' bunch of bullcrap

On September 11 2013 07:26 Birdie wrote:

What do you mean by unfair? Fairness would be every single human being going to hell; only by God's grace does anyone go to heaven. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9.

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." - 2 Corinthians 5:21
While we don't "have" to be perfect, because of Christ's work on the cross, that doesn't exempt us from being righteous followers of Christ. However, our works, our righteousness, has no effect on our salvation. As in Ephesians 2:8-9 (above), our works do not save us. Even our faith is a gift of God, and is not of ourselves. We have no boast that it is our works that caused our salvation, as it is exclusively the work of God.
"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" - Romans 6:1-2 (and all of Romans 6 really). The Bible is clear that our salvation through Christ does not give us license to sin; however, our motivations to be righteous and do good works no longer stem from an attempt to meet the impossible requirements of the law, but rather our works stem from a desire to follow our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and express our gratitude to Him for all He's done for us.

On September 11 2013 05:26 Birdie wrote:
What do you mean by unfair? Fairness would be every single human being going to hell; only by God's grace does anyone go to heaven. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9.

On September 11 2013 07:41 sam!zdat wrote:
bah, faith and not works is a bunch of lutheran nonsense. Reduces the whole thing to a bunch of empty piety. Any religion that doesn't make you do something real is a religion not worth having.

by unfair I mean economic and social injustice. Don't worry that you're poor and oppressed little christian, in the afterlife you and the tyrant will hold hands and sing kumbaya. Bollocks. 'the messiah comes not only as the redeemer, but also as victor over the antichrist.' as wally b puts it. ( He's just some commie jew though what does he know, right )

On September 11 2013 07:43 shinosai wrote:

No, that would just be more immoral nonsense that doesn't live up to even the standards of prisons in third world countries. In the moral world, we don't punish people when they haven't done anything wrong. Unless you subscribe to divine command theory, a strange little ideology that says that things that we know are immoral are actually moral because God did them.

On September 11 2013 04:44 Janaan wrote:


Here's the thing. You're right in saying that God does not ask every rich person to sell everything and give it all away. You're riight in saying that wealth is a gift from God. But it's no perversion to say that if God himself came down and told you to give it all away and you refusing is in fact loving money more that God. Allow me to explain. Idolatry is, at it's core, taking a good gift from God and putting more worth on it that it really deserves. It's a matter of priorities, and wealth does not and cannot come before God. Therefore, Jesus's command to this man, as God himself, should supercede everything else. The only non-sinful thing to do in that situation is say "Yes, Lord, I will" and do it. Now, the passage doesn't actually say what the Rich Young Ruler did after speaking with Jesus. All we know is that he was saddened. Instead of joyfully doing what God had commanded, he wanted to hold his wealth back from God and say "This is mine, not yours". And THAT is why Jesus asked him to do this. Because he wanted to show the man that even if he had kept the Law at it's face value, he was not prepared to give everything to God and trust God to take care of him. He was holding something back, and that is a sin against God.

Also, wealth being a sign of salvation is false. Yes, God will in time give great gifts to his children, but NOWHERE in the bible is that promise part of this life. In God's eyes, a wealthy man is no different from the poorest of the poor. All are sinners and bring nothing to the table. God can just as easily save a rich man as a poor man and there is no guarantee that the poor man's situation will change at all because he knows God.

On September 11 2013 02:46 KazeHydra wrote:

What does that mean? It means he loves money more than God.
What is love of money? Placing the quantity of your wealth as a priority of your life.
Why would Jesus ask this to prove he could? The point is that Jesus already knew what his answer was be. He asked to show that this man, who although had kept the commandments, still did not love God first.
"Just to prove we would," and "throwing away God's gift" no, but sometimes he does. Consider Abraham and Isaac. It's written quite plainly how God tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his son, the son God had promised to give him from whom nations would rise. The fact of the matter is, God deals with individuals differently. You say he's "singling this man out" but he does that to everyone, just in different ways, in ways that need to be addressed. He understands our hearts and what the biggest obstacles are in our life, obstacles that may not be understood by outsiders. For this man, it was his love of wealth. For others who are rich, it may be something completely different. Just because it came from God doesn't mean you get to hold onto it forever even if God tells you to give it away. It sounds a bit childish to me if you say "well it was a gift from you so I'm not giving it back even if you tell me to." How does this not seem like you are loving the gift more than the giver?

So you are of the opinion that most/all people in this world have never done anything wrong, and therefore don't deserve punishment? I won't copy paste the whole thing here, but have a look at Romans 3: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans 3:9-31&version=NIV
The Bible is very clear that all have sinned (with the exception of God of course), and that those who sin and don't have their name written in the Book of Life (that is, those who are not saved through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, which paid for our sins by bearing God's wrath against our sins), will go to hell.

Also, I don't believe that's Divine Command Theory. Divine Command Theory is the theory that morality is determined by God. So if God says that working on Sunday is a sin, then that becomes an immoral act, no matter how many humans say there is nothing wrong with it.

On September 11 2013 08:12 shinosai wrote:


Strawman argument. Which won't work against someone that's rather well schooled in logical fallacies. You imply that I said that "all people in this world have never done anything wrong" when I didn't, and then followed with my conclusion. It seems to be a rather weak attempt at reductio ad absurdem.

Yes, the Bible is very clear that all have sinned, but I contest that (A) The punishment doesn't fit the crime. Eternal sentences for finite crime makes no sense, and would of course never pass thru a legal system even if we did have eternal life. and (B) It's not clear that all 6 billion people on the planet have committed a crime worthy of being punished for. Unless that crime is "adam and eve were my ancestors" in which case, we don't punish people for the crimes of their ancestors. That's barbaric.

So the Bible fails on both counts of morality unless you have some sort of strange divine command theory. But then if you don't believe in divine command theory, which means that you must grant that there is a rule even higher than God's rule. If morality is determined outside of God, you're contradicting the properties that are granted to God by traditional theology.

On September 11 2013 07:53 Fumanchu wrote:
I really hope that this thread continues for a while. As of four months ago, I'm no longer a Christian. I believe that there is a God, but I'm unsure of what His role actually is, now that the world itself is formed. But as a non-believer I now find the Bible way more interesting and easier to discuss. However, I'm still not that well versed in it, so I won't be able to contribute for a time.

On September 11 2013 08:23 sam!zdat wrote:
birdie you can make the book say whatever you want. It is large and contains multitudes. Some of the passages you cite are pseudo-paul and part of the counterrevolution as the subversive influence of christianity was reabsorbed into the roman familias. Of course they say that. Remember the devil also comes quoting scripture (i should know I am such a devil). The devil wrote some of the scripture, too. How you like dem apples?

I wasn't straw-manning you, I was asking a question because I was unsure if you were suggesting that all people in this world have never done anything wrong. It seemed like you MAY think that, so I asked "So you are of the opinion that most/all people in this world have never done anything wrong, and therefore don't deserve punishment?" Instead you have clarified that you don't think that all people of this world have done anything wrong worthy of being punished for eternally, which is still fairly well dealt with by what I said. However, to clarify, God considers the tiniest of sins in man's eyes to be a huge black mark against that person who committed that tiniest of sins. Even the slightest sin is immediately worthy of punishment in hell. You see, the minimum requirements for us to reach heaven is perfection. Anything, even the tiniest of sins, which means we are less than that minimum requirement, immediately puts us into debt. And the debtor's prison of sin is hell.

All 7* billion people on the planet have sinned, so they all have committed a crime worthy of being punished for.

On September 11 2013 08:52 KazeHydra wrote:
shinosai, just curious, what do you mean by "you *owe* God for Jesus' sacrifice"? Jesus' sacrifice is a gift from God, free of charge. You only have to accept it. If you mean there are "strings attached" and now you must obey all his rules, then, while I would disagree as it is more of a 2-way relationship and not some debt we must pay back, at least I understand what you mean (I'm just unclear atm).

On September 11 2013 08:54 shinosai wrote:


What I mean is that it is clear that you haven't escaped the debt. The payment is in the form of 'acceptance.' (And obviously you kind of owe God one for giving you this sweet deal, he sacrificed his son for you, so you *have* to love him) Now obviously if you're Christian this seems totally reasonable, because yay Jesus, but from my perspective, this is just more stuff tacked on to a deal that has no consent from the second party (humanity).

edited for clarity.

On September 11 2013 09:12 IgnE wrote:
I'm not ignoring your arguments. I'm saying your arguments can't be right, because according to you either A) Jesus is a capricious and unjust God or B) Jesus says that all men must give up their wealth and dedicate their whole lives to spreading the word. Both seem clearly wrong here, but those are the only two possibilities that you leave open for yourself.

On September 11 2013 08:28 KazeHydra wrote:
IgnE, if you're just going to nitpick at one part that can be interpreted differently than intended (I admit, it was worded poorly; I should've said "placing the quantity of your wealth as the priority of your life" but maybe you'll twist that wording to something I didn't intend again) and ignore the rest of my and others' arguments and points while rehashing your stance, then this discussion is not going to go anywhere.

Although I'd really like to know what "because he knows the man is inherently sinful" is supposed to do for your argument, given that everyone is inherently sinful and is reflective of pretty much nothing in this context.

On September 11 2013 09:11 KazeHydra wrote:

Seriously? All you did was interpret my arguments in some inconceivable way and say I'm wrong. You have not addressed them at all in any way. I really feel like you are a troll at this point and if you aren't, I find it pathetic I can enjoy a religious discussion on the internet, of all places, with an atheist better than with you.

On September 11 2013 09:12 IgnE wrote:


I'm not ignoring your arguments. I'm saying your arguments can't be right, because according to you either A) Jesus is a capricious and unjust God or B) Jesus says that all men must give up their wealth and dedicate their whole lives to spreading the word. Both seem clearly wrong here, but those are the only two possibilities that you leave open for yourself.

I am arguing that the man is not a godly rich person who built his wealth in righteous ways. Jesus knows the man is inherently sinful, in that he does not deserve the riches he has like other wealthy Christians do. This allows us a third possibility: C) Jesus is asking him to give up his riches to atone for the sin of his misbegotten wealth. We have to read between the lines a bit, but it jives with the rest of the Bible and makes sense, because God wants us to be good stewards of the wealth that he rewards us with when we live godly lives.