What Does It Take For God To Save A Sinner?

[say what]

But what if hatred is expressed with actions, not just words? What do we do with people like these?

Hatred is often expressed with actions - burning crosses, lynching, assaults, rapes, etc.

What we do with people who brutalize others because of hate is dependent on the law.

 

[LucyJr]

well...you accused me of being a bigot earlier...soo.....I will defend myself against that.

I didn't accuse you of bigotry, as I don't believe the word bigotry has any real meaning to it, with the exception what people want to mean it.

I think SG does spread hateful speech. I believe I've said that at least a billion times in this thread.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

The point that i'm making is that SG is not hateful at all. Yes, maybe he is a bit over the edge with his sharpness, but that does not mean spreading hate or being hateful. Those are heavy words, to say about somebody that he is hateful.

 

[LucyJr]

I don't understand this.

Are you making a difference between people who hate, and people who teach hate?

And I don't believe it's our place to do anything to them. They can hate if they want too- I just don't agree with it.

You're trying really hard to see the trap in my questions, aren't you?

 

[LucyJr]

There are different kinds of hate. There is a good hate, toward everything that which is evil, and there is sinful and evil hate, the one most people know about it. The sinful hate is toward good, toward truth, toward other people when one's own interests are in danger. The sinful hate can also be love, love of evil, love of immorality, love of lying, love of self and so on.
Ambiguity of any kind in moral matters is hate, the kind of sinful one.

Yes, hate is a virtue, but we turned into sin, because we love evil.

The most telling thing in all this is how people make virtues, in the midst of all immorality. Love toward evil is a virtue, and hate toward another evil, because of love for the apparent opposite of that first evil, its called hate, which is supposedly a vice.
We retain some aspects of the whole virtues vs vice business, but only vague ideas, denigrated and turned in dust.

 

[VH]

Why would God create this whole universe just so we can be judged?

He didn't. He created this whole universe for us to grow and explore, to learn and to teach.

Religion judges. God loves. Religion was created by man. God existed before man ever conceived the idea of religion.

God gave us free will. It is up to us to use it to do as we will. If we choose to move toward God, then we have a checklist of things we can expect. If we choose to move away from God, we have a checklist of things we can expect. The choice is ours to do as we please because love does not attempt to control others. It hopes, forgives, is patient and kind. It does not keep score.

Religious people fail to apply internal logic to their own system by applying definitions to their explanations. They do this because they would rather condemn and judge than love and forgive. They love their own egos more than they love God, and have convinced themselves that their egos represent God.

Why send a soul to hell for all eternity?

This is a religious scare tactic, and isn't how the bible explains it. With our free will, we can choose to go entirely outside the scope of God's presence, which is a spiritual place without 'light'. No love, peace, kindness, forgiveness. The other spirits who have chosen to be there with their own free will are very unlikely to be anything but the opposite of those things. Some souls would prefer to be in such a state with kindred spirits, because they find God's presence toxic. It is their choice to move in that direction.

Wouldn't a creator show compassion toward humans and wait until everyone found their way back to him?

This is exactly what God is doing in each of our lives, as we grow. This physical universe is nothing more than a womb for our souls to develop until we are birthed into a higher existence. Just like a good parent who allows their children to take risks, make mistakes, and trusts them to learn from them, God lets us do the same. Just like a good parent who eventually accepts that their children must leave the nest and develop their own lives before coming back to visit, and truly appreciate what being a parent means, God isn't going to disown any of us for being the humans he created us to be as we go about growing into the beings we are to become.




As for this false prophet condemnation nonsense...

Real prophets aren't tied to the things God asks them to say, because they know that being a prophet is simply acting as a messenger. God's message will stand on its own in the heart of the intended, or not at all.

 

[the]

Who's to say that god must be good? Why can't he be cruel? Philosophically, sure. Realistically, it's just a maybe. Maybe god does want to make people suffer just to show what a bad ass he is to the ones who don't suffer -for no apparent reason- and the fear of The Lord is truly the fear of The Lord throwing you into the fire at any moment.

 

[VH]

Who's to say that god must be good? Why can't he be cruel? Philosophically, sure. Realistically, it's just a maybe. Maybe god does want to make people suffer just to show what a bad ass he is to the ones who don't suffer -for no apparent reason- and the fear of The Lord is truly the fear of The Lord throwing you into the fire at any moment.

Considering that the word "fear" (yare) in the passage "Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name." actually means 'awesome', 'powerful', 'reverence' and 'respect' (often associated with the sovereignty of a king), I doubt that any of the religious fire and brimstone interpretations of this passage are especially accurate. It's not saying "be afraid of the threat of". It is saying "respect the power and authority of" or literally "Awesome is your God. Give him your allegiance. Declare by his name that which you wish to be."

As contrasted by "fear" (deilias) in "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind" meaning "cowardice, timidity, reticence". If "fear thy Lord" meant what religious people assume, then this passage would not be valid as it contradicts what God is stated to have given us. A lack of "fear".

Religious people misinterpret scripture because they want you to fear them so you won't defy their egos.

 

[the]

Considering that the word "fear" (yare) in the passage "Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name." actually means 'awesome', 'powerful', 'reverence' and 'respect' (often associated with the sovereignty of a king), I doubt that any of the religious fire and brimstone interpretations of this passage are especially accurate. It's not saying "be afraid of the threat of". It is saying "respect the power and authority of" or literally "Awesome is your God. Give him your allegiance. Declare by his name that which you wish to be."

As contrasted by "fear" (deilias) in "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind" meaning "cowardice, timidity, reticence". If "fear thy Lord" meant what religious people assume, then this passage would not be valid as it contradicts what God is stated to have given us. A lack of "fear".

Religious people misinterpret scripture because they want you to fear them so you won't defy their egos.

Its always bothered me that the bible is open to saying things like "oh in the original language it says something totally different than the way the authors translated it." It's interesting that it can mean something more positive, but it was translated the way it was. So why should I believe that your translation is right and the scholars who translated it were incompetent?

 

[VH]

So why should I believe that your translation is right and the scholars who translated it were incompetent?

Coming from someone with a PhD in Theology... You shouldn't believe anyone's translation. Verify for yourself. The entire bible, it's original text, and each word is defined online. Look it up for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

However, the original authors didn't translate it. If you're going to look into the original texts, I'd highly suggest also looking into the people who did each translation. Many of them had varying levels of education, denominational bias, and political motivation. Many Christians are unaware of King James' motivations for translating the bible into English, and the choices that were made when doing so.

"In January 1604, King James VI and I convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans,[SUP][6][/SUP] a faction within the Church of England.[SUP][7][/SUP] James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[SUP][8][/SUP] The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.[SUP][9][/SUP]"

 

[Barnabas]

I will have my Oprah "Aha" moments if I won't too!!!

Lord almighty, look at that face. I'm not saying she's possessed by
demons but she ought to be.

 

[Barnabas]

Its always bothered me that the bible is open to saying things like "oh in the original language it says something totally different than the way the authors translated it." It's interesting that it can mean something more positive, but it was translated the way it was. So why should I believe that your translation is right and the scholars who translated it were incompetent?

On top of VH response, different translations work towards different goals, the NASB works towards being a more literal, scholarly translation which can make it a tad less understandable as t's intended audience is for people who will be using it in a research oriented manner.

The English standard version seeks a more common tongue approach where their goal is less to present a word for word accounting of the text and instead produce somethings that is easily read and understood while retaining as much of the of the authenticity of the original text as possible. It can be contrasted to the message which isn't a translation but instead an interpretation of the original texts that are then written out in common English while retaining a narrative format.

On top of all that most of the language simply flows differently in Greek and Hebrew and it's hard to catch all of the meanings of a words in english especially when those languages have four to five words for concepts that we only use one word for(the four Greek loves are a great example as well as the Hebrew words for spirit ). In those cases it's not the translators have done a bad job it's just that English is inefficient at relaying the meaning of the text(oh oh Crown that's another good one, the Greek has multiple words for different crowns that we tend to only use the one word for).

That's on top of the sectarian and denominational bias that people bring with them that VH mentioned.

So yeah, look at the Greek yourself, Strong's has an online concordance with all of the Greek and Hebrew words used along side of how often their used, where their used and different definitions that are available for the one word.


I'd also like to end this with the note, in most cases your Bible isn't so terribly flawed that you should never read it again or fear that you have to check a concordance every time you open it. They get all of the major points across and are still very much usefull in learning about God, Jesus and the Gospel. The people who are in charge of translating the texts are often of the mind to do so with as little of bias as possible some even come from a multitude of backgrounds so as to even out it any inherent bias from the group.

Edit: thought of another good example of the differences is Matt 3:9 the words Jesus spoke would have been in Hebrew, and he mentions God making son of Abraham out of stones. In Hebrew the word for son is Ben while the word for stones is Eben, Jesus was rhyming in that verse and it's something we would completely miss in the English. Even if it's not exactly important to the salvation of man it's still something to think about, Jesus chose words in particular fashion to convey his messages and to drive home his points, he was after all a preacher.

 

[say what]

Who's to say that god must be good? Why can't he be cruel? Philosophically, sure. Realistically, it's just a maybe. Maybe god does want to make people suffer just to show what a bad ass he is to the ones who don't suffer -for no apparent reason- and the fear of The Lord is truly the fear of The Lord throwing you into the fire at any moment.

This could be true. Depressing...but it could be true.

 

[say what]

Coming from someone with a PhD in Theology... You shouldn't believe anyone's translation. Verify for yourself. The entire bible, it's original text, and each word is defined online. Look it up for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

However, the original authors didn't translate it. If you're going to look into the original texts, I'd highly suggest also looking into the people who did each translation. Many of them had varying levels of education, denominational bias, and political motivation. Many Christians are unaware of King James' motivations for translating the bible into English, and the choices that were made when doing so.

I think this is so true.

Interpretations will vary based on your knowledge and understanding of the world around you. You could read a passage one day and receive a completely different message from it the next. I think this is where the value of the Bible is- that it's there to guide you and give you the inspiration and help when you need it.

 

[VH]

I think this is so true.

Interpretations will vary based on your knowledge and understanding of the world around you. You could read a passage one day and receive a completely different message from it the next. I think this is where the value of the Bible is- that it's there to guide you and give you the inspiration and help when you need it.

I like the air traffic control analogy.

If every plane in the sky had to follow the same directions, only one of them would end up on the runway. The rest would crash and burn. Air traffic control is responsible for getting each plane where it needs to be, and is respected as having that power and authority, but it is understood that air traffic control is going to have different instructions for each plane... and even different instructions as that plane navigates its way to the airport. What might be really bad instructions for one plane, might be the exact instructions another plane needs.

There isn't much point in bickering over not having matching instructions. Let air traffic control do its job, and we can all hang out after we pick up our luggage.

;-)

 

[the]

Coming from someone with a PhD in Theology... You shouldn't believe anyone's translation. Verify for yourself. The entire bible, it's original text, and each word is defined online. Look it up for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

However, the original authors didn't translate it. If you're going to look into the original texts, I'd highly suggest also looking into the people who did each translation. Many of them had varying levels of education, denominational bias, and political motivation. Many Christians are unaware of King James' motivations for translating the bible into English, and the choices that were made when doing so.

This does make sense although it is not practical, and to me removes the hokey notion of God's Love letter to humanity. However I do like it because it elevates Traditions role and the Churches to its rightful places as above the bible.

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

What Does It Take For God To Save A Sinner

The grace of God.

 

[j654dgj7]

The grace of God.

Sola Gratia, my friend! Exactly.

Here's what wikipedia defines the grace of God as being:

It means "only grace" and it excludes the merit done by a person to achieve salvation. Sola gratia is the teaching that salvation comes by divine grace or "unmerited favor" only, not as something merited by the sinner. This means that salvation is an unearned gift from God for Jesus' sake.

Source-arino

 

[Skarekrow]

Sola Gratia, my friend! Exactly.

Here's what wikipedia defines the grace of God as being:

It means "only grace" and it excludes the merit done by a person to achieve salvation. Sola gratia is the teaching that salvation comes by divine grace or "unmerited favor" only, not as something merited by the sinner. This means that salvation is an unearned gift from God for Jesus' sake.

Source-arino

Of course God could give you salvation or choose to not...I do however do not believe in "origional sin" or the "sins of the Father" or the "sins of Adam" somehow effecting your chance of going to heaven or Hell (which I don't believe in anyhow).
Why bother to give someone "free will" if it is already predetermined? Or course one could also argue that we have very limited "free will" and that it is in fact only illusory.
Yes, we are "free" to roam the pasture as sheep...but can we truly roam beyond the fence keeping us in? Can we superceed the "Shepherd"?
There are quite a few passaged in the Bible that could lead one to believe that we in fact do NOT have "free will", and that our every step and action is under the direction of God. Which in turn would make sending anyone to "Hell" highly unjust.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Getting back to the original question. I think the only way a sinner can be saved is to be burnt at a stake.

 

[Lark]

Getting back to the original question. I think the only way a sinner can be saved is to be burnt at a stake.

No dude, that's the satanists, and the vampires, not the sinners.