What Does It Take For God To Save A Sinner?

just me said:
I, too, mean NO offense. It baffles me when we try to correct someone. It intrigues me when we try to help them see what seems offensive.

The Bible says what it says. All of us, including myself, would do better to not jump on people that speak the way they learned. It is enlightening when someone understands instead of digging in. I was the first to question SG with his bread he brought to the table. I would have liked seeing a different conversation after that. A different response from all of us to edify would have been optimal.

quote "Some of us have been studying for years just for somebody to come along and tell us all that studying has been for nothing. How do you think that feels?

I'd rather be made fun of, frankly." It is not what happens to us, but how we handle it. Maybe we all could have handled this better?
Click to expand...

Quite right, quite right.

I think [MENTION=11142]SovereignGrace[/MENTION] has a deep seated fear of hell that he insists on projecting onto others by displaying how his fear of hell has been assuaged/relieved through his faith.

That is good for him, but it isn't necessary to attempt to invoke fear into others to gain confidence in one's faith. It is a weak-willed faith if that is necessary.

I hope, for his sake and others, that he learn how to better share his faith with others.
 
Matt3737 said:
Quite right, quite right.

I think @SovereignGrace has a deep seated fear of hell that he insists on projecting onto others by displaying how his fear of hell has been assuaged/relieved through his faith.

That is good for him, but it isn't necessary to attempt to invoke fear into others to gain confidence in one's faith. It is a weak-willed faith if that is necessary.

I hope, for his sake and others, that he learn how to better share his faith with others.
Click to expand...

If you perceive him to be someone in pain (fear of hell) then can that understanding make it easier for you to accept him and to forgive him for his perceived transgressions?
 
muir said:
If you perceive him to be someone in pain (fear of hell) then can that understanding make it easier for you to accept him and to forgive him for his perceived transgressions?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

I'm not sure why you're asking, but let me try to be clear. Forgiveness isn't applicable to those unrepentant or unremorseful. I do not require an apology though, so long as the transgressions cease, then all is forgiven in my eyes.

Edit: I was posting again before I saw your reply above. I agree though, that love, in the form of forgiveness, is necessary even at the heights of anger, argument, disapproval, disgust, etc.
 
Last edited:
Matt3737 said:
@muir

I'm not sure why you're asking, but let me try to be clear. Forgiveness isn't applicable to those unrepentant or remorseful. I do not require an apology though, so long as the transgressions cease, then all is forgiven in my eyes.
Click to expand...

I think we all see things and other people differently and the way we see things and others also sometimes changes

When we are able to see things in such a way that we no longer carry a burden of anger, hate, negativity that leads to a cycle of karma (cause and effect) then we end the cycle of karma (for example a feud).

Where there was ignorance there is instead understanding

There is a chasm of ignorance between us all that constantly creates all the tension...we all get caught up in it and end up in negative and destructive cycles of cause and effect

There are chasms of ignorance between religions, between countries, between cultures, between 'races' etc that create conflict and tensions

But i think this is what jesus meant when he said of his oppressors 'forgive them father for they know not what they do' when he was on the cross. He understood that they behaved the way they did through a lack of understanding.....through their ignorance. if they really understood what they were doing (if they empathised instead of feared) they wouldn't be creating that negative cycle of karma

So he forgave them for their state of ignorance and that also freed him from hate and anger. To do so under such circumstances shows exceptional heart

Ignorance is the enemy and we all fall foul of it
 
muir said:
I think we all see things and other people differently and the way we see things and others also sometimes changes

When we are able to see things in such a way that we no longer carry a burden of anger, hate, negativity that leads to a cycle of karma (cause and effect) then we end the cycle of karma (for example a feud).

Where there was ignorance there is instead understanding

There is a chasm of ignorance between us all that constantly creates all the tension...we all get caught up in it and end up in negative and destructive cycles of cause and effect

There are chasms of ignorance between religions, between countries, between cultures, between 'races' etc that create conflict and tensions

But i think this is what jesus meant when he said of his oppressors 'forgive them father for they know not what they do' when he was on the cross. He understood that they behaved the way they did through a lack of understanding.....through their ignorance. if they really understood what they were doing (if they empathised instead of feared) they wouldn't be creating that negative cycle of karma

So he forgave them for their state of ignorance and that also freed him from hate and anger. To do so under such circumstances shows exceptional heart

Ignorance is the enemy and we all fall foul of it
Click to expand...

Very true. We seem to be typing at about the same time, so I want to tell you I added an edit above.

I think we also make a distinction, whether consciously or not, between acceptable words and deeds. I think we give greater leniency towards words, because of their incorporeal nature. How does one distinguish between one being hurt by or one being dismissive towards their words? It is a difficult matter to decide an appropriate course of action if one cannot perceive the results of their actions.
 
Matt3737 said:
[MENTION=680]just me[/MENTION]

I'm sorry that you feel offended. I don't think you should feel that way at all. My offense comes at what is completely unnecessary. Sometimes in an argument it is necessary to backtrack along a line of reasoning to get to where one diverged to see how their conclusion is different than your own if both parties hold the same premises to be true.

[MENTION=11142]SovereignGrace[/MENTION] can teach without insults, accusations, belittling, and condescension. His views are not at fault, but how he conveys them is without a doubt offensive. Backtracking along his lines of reasoning is the only way to show that his views do not need to be conveyed in the manner that he does.

If that cannot be met, then I cannot accept.

If anything I said gets to you personally, we can discuss it if you like and hopefully come to an understanding.
Click to expand...

Whats the nice way to tell someone that unless they follow a very strict criteria that they will be burned alive forever?

His view, right or wrong, is contrary to peoples expectation of the afterlife, the nature of god, and the way people live thier lives. He is very direct and clear about how you can avoid wrath and no one wants to hear it for a variety of reasons. It is his views that are offensive as well as the presentation. One is a product of the other.
 
Matt3737 said:
Very true. We seem to be typing at about the same time, so I want to tell you I added an edit above.

I think we also make a distinction, whether consciously or not, between acceptable words and deeds. I think we give greater leniency towards words, because of their incorporeal nature. How does one distinguish between one being hurt by or one being dismissive towards their words? It is a difficult matter to decide an appropriate course of action if one cannot perceive the results of their actions.
Click to expand...

Yeah

I really have no emotional reaction to sovereigns posts because i don't believe i will burn in hell...it's water off a ducks back

However if some people started forcing me to go to church and to pray to save my immortal soul i would obviously feel oppressed by that

So there are merits to people discussing things online with people all over the world, thrashing out our differences and hopefully finding some common ground

he will not do his cause any favours by being aggressive and those trying to show that it is possible to be a loving and good person without living with the fear of hell will also not do their cause any favours by being aggressive
 
the said:
Whats the nice way to tell someone that unless they follow a very strict criteria that they will be burned alive forever?
Click to expand...

You can be of the opinion that I am a fool and an idiot and I would be fine with that. It's your right and you're entitled to it.

When you begin to tell me that I, also, am obligated to believe it, then you have crossed the line.

There's a difference between persuading and declaring while communicating.
 
Matt3737 said:
You can be of the opinion that I am a fool and an idiot and I would be fine with that. It's your right and you're entitled to it.

When you begin to tell me that I, also, am obligated to believe it, then you have crossed the line.

There's a difference between persuading and declaring while communicating.
Click to expand...

How would you tell me tht I am I danger of eternal wrath, that the several times I've read the bible I didn't actually read, and that there really isn't anything I can do to help myself except to accept everything you are telling me blindly? How do you communicate those truths to an internet audience?
 
the said:
How would you tell me tht I am I danger of eternal wrath, that the several times I've read the bible I didn't actually read, and that there really isn't anything I can do to help myself except to accept everything you are telling me blindly? How do you communicate those truths to an internet audience?
Click to expand...

I would preface much of what is said with "I believe...," and "The Bible states....," and any other commentary that places the burden of proof on the speaker rather than the listener. It's referred to as a burden and to place it on someone else unwillingly is unfair.

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Click to expand...

You also have to accept when people are not ready to accept what you preach. If it is God's will, then it shall be done at His appointed time and not yours.
 
Matt3737 said:
I would preface much of what is said with "I believe...," and "The Bible states....," and any other commentary that places the burden of proof on the speaker rather than the listener. It's referred to as a burden and to place it on someone else unwillingly is unfair.



You also have to accept when people are not ready to accept what you preach. If it is God's will, then it shall be done at His appointed time and not yours.
Click to expand...

Even Christ said "It is written" a lot.
 
Someone mentioned me and then deleted what they wrote.

I don't know why you're all so busy making friendly with Sovey. I have always told him that I not only was sure that he was going to Heaven, but that he deserved to go there. For saying that, he responded that I would go to Hell. He spreads hatred, fear and uncertainty. His interpretation of the Bible discriminates the rights of those who interpret it differently.

Look, I'm a European. I don't believe in tolerating intolerance. I know how stupid it is, and what it leads to. I know that I'm not going to turn him into an open minded individual, but I am not going to let him get away with condemning 90% of the boards Christians to Hell either. Remember, by "not going to let him get away" I don't mean "I'm going to physically fight him", I mean "I'm going to let my dissenting Christian voice be heard". That's all.
 
I deleted a thread. Go figure. I wrote something regarding your answer on the other page. To be quite frank with you, I deleted it when I saw everyone else's responses on this page. I felt it was no longer needed. I forgot what you said and have no need to look it back up.
 
just me said:
I deleted a thread. Go figure. I wrote something regarding your answer on the other page. To be quite frank with you, I deleted it when I saw everyone else's responses on this page. I felt it was no longer needed. I forgot what you said and have no need to look it back up.
Click to expand...

You tease!
 
There is a great talk by Alan Watts about jesus and religion which i posted recently (see below) in which he looks at how subversive Jesus's message was. he looks at how a mistranslation of the bible has made many people think that jesus said 'i am THE son of god' when in fact he said 'i am A son of god'

The message being that we are all part of God

So why is that subversive?

The religious order of the day was one inherited from the monarchist regimes of egypt and babylon which believed that the divine order was that the universe was ruled by a father figure deity...a king and that the earthly order should reflect that. They used their religions to keep people in a certain social order with the king (pharoah) at the top of the societal pyramid

Jesus came along and said...to paraphrase...''we are all part of God and therefore the cosmos is not a monarchy it is a democracy'', so they killed him

Well i'm of the same pursuasion as jesus and alan watts. I too believe that we are all part of the cosmos and that the monarchical structure is an abomination which leads to oppression and degredation

Families like the rockefellers however are part of a network that supports monarchies around the world and especially in Europe and in the middle east and brunai etc

That's what this is all really about....how we should structure our society. It's the same struggle that was going on 2000 years ago in Jesus's time

The rockefellers and their ilk want to rule us and they claim a 'divine' right to do so (ie they claim lineage from non human sources) and they most definately DO use drugs and other means to control people

We as a society DO have a responsibility though. We decide which of these two currents we want to feed and allow to grow. We can support the rockefellers and rothschilds and the royal families and their centralisation of wealth and power and suffer as a result of that (by giving away all our wealth and power to them) or we can support decentralisation of power and wealth and empower each other and ourselves to create a fairer more balanced and healthy society

[video=youtube;ocfSHE0N3a4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocfSHE0N3a4[/video]

Here is a great talk by alan watts which i posted elsewhere recently which looks at how our reality is defined by contrasts. We as a species (individual expressions of one cosmic consciousness) are evolving and to do so we have to experience many things even terrible things and by experiencing the bad we learn what we are not.

So the rockefellers and the rothcshilds are the foil....they are the blackness, the shadow...they put us through hell so that we learn that we do not want that kind of world and then we reject it and we co-create a different reality; that's why we are seeing all the protests around the world because we are undergoing a consciousness shift as we begin to collectively reject the darkness

[video=youtube;2y6A3MaoaIs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y6A3MaoaIs[/video]

This is all about us. We are the ones calling this forward.
We are the ones who have asked for this. We are the ones who are
making this change ourselves, within ourselves. Nobody else is responsible
for this, but us. Whether consciously or not, all of us have decided on some
level that this is as far as it goes. Life, the way we have lived
thus far, is going to be changing.
- Alex Collier
 
vandyke said:
You tease!
Click to expand...

Your answer was quite different than that of the others. I'm not a tease. Look at it and even you can see the differences. The others comforted me with humility and love for others.

Fact remains, though, I am not looking for self-edification.
 
Matt3737 said:
I'm not sure why you're asking, but let me try to be clear. Forgiveness isn't applicable to those unrepentant or unremorseful. I do not require an apology though, so long as the transgressions cease, then all is forgiven in my eyes.

Edit: I was posting again before I saw your reply above. I agree though, that love, in the form of forgiveness, is necessary even at the heights of anger, argument, disapproval, disgust, etc.
Click to expand...
This got me thinking... Maybe forgiveness is applicable, but trust isn't?
 
Faith, the Sacrament of Confession, attending the Mass regularly, unconditional obedience to God and penance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top