Political Crossfire Forums

[Darth Tiberius]

LetsGetReal wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Eynon81 wrote: It should be in high-schools because it's the single most important book in Western civilization.

It should be taught as literature along side the works of Homer and Shakespeare........

At the university I worked at in China the bible classes were packed, they even got me to teach a bible class at one of their High-schools. They viewed it as a key to understanding Western civ, and so do I.

If they have us reading crap like "Catcher in the Rye" and calling that lit then why not the bible?

at least that's a book that can produce interesting discussions.......

It should be taught only in designated religious studies lessons. Along with the Koran and the rest of the holy books.

Not any time else or that school is guilty of promoting religion or forcing the Bible on others. And people should be allowed to critisize the Bible in those times.

Unfortunately most schools don't do this and are biased towards Christianity. Especially in America. Do you reside in America or England because I would say that opinion is an outside one?

Most of my life in America. But currently in England.

[eynon]

Darth Tiberius wrote: Eynon81 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Eynon81 wrote: It should be in high-schools because it's the single most important book in Western civilization.

It should be taught as literature along side the works of Homer and Shakespeare........

At the university I worked at in China the bible classes were packed, they even got me to teach a bible class at one of their High-schools. They viewed it as a key to understanding Western civ, and so do I.

If they have us reading crap like "Catcher in the Rye" and calling that lit then why not the bible?

at least that's a book that can produce interesting discussions.......

It should be taught only in designated religious studies lessons. Along with the Koran and the rest of the holy books.

Not any time else or that school is guilty of promoting religion or forcing the Bible on others. And people should be allowed to critisize the Bible in those times.

Unfortunately most schools don't do this and are biased towards Christianity. Especially in America.

nah, make it part of the English curriculum, along with Homer and Shakespeare.......Bible as Literature......

Possibly. As long as it can be debated and refused.

in America, no ideal should go unchalleneged....

[Darth Tiberius]

Eynon81 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Eynon81 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Eynon81 wrote: It should be in high-schools because it's the single most important book in Western civilization.

It should be taught as literature along side the works of Homer and Shakespeare........

At the university I worked at in China the bible classes were packed, they even got me to teach a bible class at one of their High-schools. They viewed it as a key to understanding Western civ, and so do I.

If they have us reading crap like "Catcher in the Rye" and calling that lit then why not the bible?

at least that's a book that can produce interesting discussions.......

It should be taught only in designated religious studies lessons. Along with the Koran and the rest of the holy books.

Not any time else or that school is guilty of promoting religion or forcing the Bible on others. And people should be allowed to critisize the Bible in those times.

Unfortunately most schools don't do this and are biased towards Christianity. Especially in America.

nah, make it part of the English curriculum, along with Homer and Shakespeare.......Bible as Literature......

Possibly. As long as it can be debated and refused.

in America, no ideal should go unchalleneged....

The key word is "should"

[eynon]

Darth Tiberius wrote: Eynon81 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Eynon81 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Eynon81 wrote: It should be in high-schools because it's the single most important book in Western civilization.

It should be taught as literature along side the works of Homer and Shakespeare........

At the university I worked at in China the bible classes were packed, they even got me to teach a bible class at one of their High-schools. They viewed it as a key to understanding Western civ, and so do I.

If they have us reading crap like "Catcher in the Rye" and calling that lit then why not the bible?

at least that's a book that can produce interesting discussions.......

It should be taught only in designated religious studies lessons. Along with the Koran and the rest of the holy books.

Not any time else or that school is guilty of promoting religion or forcing the Bible on others. And people should be allowed to critisize the Bible in those times.

Unfortunately most schools don't do this and are biased towards Christianity. Especially in America.

nah, make it part of the English curriculum, along with Homer and Shakespeare.......Bible as Literature......

Possibly. As long as it can be debated and refused.

in America, no ideal should go unchalleneged....

The key word is "should"

hey I'm doing my part :lol:

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote:
IF a Christian is motivated to change behavior or "ask for forgiveness" based upon his/her GUILT and not out of actual love for God then he has sinned again, that is my point and an irrefutable one at that.

Again, another opinion that is taken as such and respected, but not agreed with fully.

As a none Christian you are free to disagree, but as a Christian you could not. For a Christian to seek forgiveness based upon guilt is simply not acceptable and a sin in an of itself, again from a Christian perspective this is not debateable.

I am a Christian. And I believe guilt to be a tool used by God to bring people to God. After that point (you ask for forgiveness because you feel guilty for not doing God's works while you were in your 'sinful life, etc), you grow to love God (or at least you should).
By the logic I gathered from this statement: "IF a Christian is motivated to change behavior or "ask for forgiveness" based upon his/her GUILT and not out of actual love for God then he has sinned again..." is seems more than distasteful, especially when one thinks of the converts of people who have never heard of God. But that is my opinion that is probably not shared by certain people who consider themselves Christian. To each his own I suppose.
Quote: For a Christian to seek forgiveness based upon guilt is simply not acceptable and a sin in an of itself, again from a Christian perspective this is not debateable. It would appear you know what is acceptable to God and what isn't. Or did you mean not acceptable to you?

Again, note how the word 'sin' is thrown around. It almost appears as though in modern western society, the word 'sin' can be substituted for the words "I don't think 'X' is right", or the words 'I don't understand it'.
Let's try it:
1a) I don't think drinking is right
1b) I think drinking is a sin
2a) I don't understand how a person can look at a picture of a naked person as art and not consider it porn.
2b) I can't look at a naked picture, art or not, without lusting so it must be a sin
Seems to work.

[toddytodd]

Todd D. wrote: I think what he is saying is that it's not enough to simply feel guilty about what you've done and say "I apologize because I feel guilty", you have to make an honest and sincere resolution to not do that action again because you are sorry.

Feeling gult and being sorry are two very different things.

And they can be one in the same. Let's not forget that.
Of course only saying 'sorry' is only good enough for that instant and most likely help a fledgling Christian grow - there needs to be the desire to 'sin no more'. But that can be part of the feeling of guilt as well.
Guilt is an emotion that, if generalized about, makes no sense to the common person or is seen as a very 'simple' feeling, which it is not.

[LetsGetReal]

toddytodd wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: toddytodd wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: And I'll ask again do you not believe in pre-suppositions?
Explain it and how it works into this issue and I will be happy to answer your question. Earlier in this thread you discussed how no one should follow anything blindly but that is a lie because everyone follows lots of things blindly. Pre-suppositions when talking in terms of philosophy or real life scenarios are beliefs that aren't stated or thought but are engrained into us. Take for example the laws of gravity. Do you ever think that your computer is going to fly off into outer space? No, because not only have the laws of gravity told us it won't but its never happened before. So inconsequently you have blind faith in the fact that something will inevitably always happen. Things will not float into outer space, when you try to breath air will be there, and when you step on a rug there is no hole underneath it. And if I were to take your statement as a blanket answer for all things in life should I start chaining my stuff down incase gravity ceases to exist one day?

Theories and/or laws of nature and/or physics, while not being 100% provable across the board, can be demonstrated to be true. I don't see believing in gravity (again, your example) is following anything blindly as there is evidence to support the claim. I believe in gravity because my computer doesn't fly out the window and because there is evidence and scientific experimentation to help support that claim. They have been subjectively shown to be true. No if someone told me I need to believe in the theory of "Hugaos" (the ability for spherical objects to rotate around a cube) 'because they say so', is absolutely crazy. However, if they shown the theory of "Hugaos" to be true, then I would believe it.
Following something because someone said so (which is what I consider blind faith) with nothing to support the claim is nothing more than a charismatic person preying on the hopes and dreams of others (David Koresh and Jim Brown both come to mind).
So to compare something (gravity) which has basis in provable fact to faith (which isn't provable as far as I have seen) isn't a good comparison in my eyes. Proof in science is subjective and ever changing. Don't forget we once thought the world was flat. It is proven to a point where it is seen as truthful.... And I wasn't connecting it to faith, but your statement saying you shouldn't follow anything blindly. Do you check under every rug for a hole? Also I would like to point out that when I state my computer will not float because of gravity. The presupposition is that gravity will still continue to be there when I put it there, not that it exists. Just like the statement that when I breath air will be there. The presupposition is the fact that air has to be there, not that air exists. A presupposition is an underlying belief that is made subconsciously without you being aware of it at all, it just comes naturally.

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote:
IF a Christian is motivated to change behavior or "ask for forgiveness" based upon his/her GUILT and not out of actual love for God then he has sinned again, that is my point and an irrefutable one at that.

Again, another opinion that is taken as such and respected, but not agreed with fully.

As a none Christian you are free to disagree, but as a Christian you could not. For a Christian to seek forgiveness based upon guilt is simply not acceptable and a sin in an of itself, again from a Christian perspective this is not debateable.

I am a Christian. And I believe guilt to be a tool used by God to bring people to God. After that point (you ask for forgiveness because you feel guilty for not doing God's works while you were in your 'sinful life, etc), you grow to love God (or at least you should).
By the logic I gathered from this statement: "IF a Christian is motivated to change behavior or "ask for forgiveness" based upon his/her GUILT and not out of actual love for God then he has sinned again..." is seems more than distasteful, especially when one thinks of the converts of people who have never heard of God. But that is my opinion that is probably not shared by certain people who consider themselves Christian. To each his own I suppose.
Quote: For a Christian to seek forgiveness based upon guilt is simply not acceptable and a sin in an of itself, again from a Christian perspective this is not debateable. It would appear you know what is acceptable to God and what isn't. Or did you mean not acceptable to you?

Again, note how the word 'sin' is thrown around. It almost appears as though in modern western society, the word 'sin' can be substituted for the words "I don't think 'X' is right", or the words 'I don't understand it'.
Let's try it:
1a) I don't think drinking is right
1b) I think drinking is a sin
2a) I don't understand how a person can look at a picture of a naked person as art and not consider it porn.
2b) I can't look at a naked picture, art or not, without lusting so it must be a sin
Seems to work.

You are perfectly free to believe what ever you wish, it simply does NOT square with Christian theology.

As pure good God is incapable of USING guilt, guilt is a SELF generated emotion of the individual will pure and apparently NOT so simple.

It is not I who assumes to KNOW the tools that God uses to force compliance to His will as you do by saying He must use guilt. I am saying that such a claim suggests a lack of knowledge of basic beliefs of the Christian God altogether, by simply saying that God would USE guilt, you simply have no actual sense of the basic beliefs of Christianity. It does not mean you can't believe it, it just means it conflicts with basic Christian theology of God the source for all that is good.

I simply stated two obvious Christian positions. A Christian motivated by guilt is NOT repentant and selfishness is a sin. How ANY Christian can argue either of those points is simply beyond me.

I do not throw the word sin around I am quite specific about it, and if you assume that when I say that self indulgence is a sin that I somehow exclude myself from being self indulgent you could not be more wrong. And you will notice that I NEVER single out "things I don't like" as sins. Sin is universal and the issue is not drinking or sex the issue is almost always self aggrandizement and pride very general things that we all must be careful of. I do not know who's selfishness qualifies as sin, I know my own does, that is between God and that person, but I do know that we are all sinners.

[toddytodd]

LetsGetReal wrote: toddytodd wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: toddytodd wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: And I'll ask again do you not believe in pre-suppositions?
Explain it and how it works into this issue and I will be happy to answer your question. Earlier in this thread you discussed how no one should follow anything blindly but that is a lie because everyone follows lots of things blindly. Pre-suppositions when talking in terms of philosophy or real life scenarios are beliefs that aren't stated or thought but are engrained into us. Take for example the laws of gravity. Do you ever think that your computer is going to fly off into outer space? No, because not only have the laws of gravity told us it won't but its never happened before. So inconsequently you have blind faith in the fact that something will inevitably always happen. Things will not float into outer space, when you try to breath air will be there, and when you step on a rug there is no hole underneath it. And if I were to take your statement as a blanket answer for all things in life should I start chaining my stuff down incase gravity ceases to exist one day?

Theories and/or laws of nature and/or physics, while not being 100% provable across the board, can be demonstrated to be true. I don't see believing in gravity (again, your example) is following anything blindly as there is evidence to support the claim. I believe in gravity because my computer doesn't fly out the window and because there is evidence and scientific experimentation to help support that claim. They have been subjectively shown to be true. No if someone told me I need to believe in the theory of "Hugaos" (the ability for spherical objects to rotate around a cube) 'because they say so', is absolutely crazy. However, if they shown the theory of "Hugaos" to be true, then I would believe it.
Following something because someone said so (which is what I consider blind faith) with nothing to support the claim is nothing more than a charismatic person preying on the hopes and dreams of others (David Koresh and Jim Brown both come to mind).
So to compare something (gravity) which has basis in provable fact to faith (which isn't provable as far as I have seen) isn't a good comparison in my eyes. Proof in science is subjective and ever changing. Don't forget we once thought the world was flat. It is proven to a point where it is seen as truthful.... And I wasn't connecting it to faith, but your statement saying you shouldn't follow anything blindly. Do you check under every rug for a hole? Also I would like to point out that when I state my computer will not float because of gravity. The presupposition is that gravity will still continue to be there when I put it there, not that it exists. Just like the statement that when I breath air will be there. The presupposition is the fact that air has to be there, not that air exists. A presupposition is an underlying belief that is made subconsciously without you being aware of it at all, it just comes naturally.

Quote: Don't forget we once thought the world was flat. Yes and once science shows something once thought to be true isn't, then my belief would change, but only after it has been proven, not because someone says I need to believe - big difference. Would you believe the earth was cube shaped if someone told you it was without any proof? I hope not......
Quote: And I wasn't connecting it to faith, but your statement saying you shouldn't follow anything blindly. And I still stand by that. Everything I believe has been proven to me to my satisfaction.
Quote: Do you check under every rug for a hole? Not every time, as I have no reason to. I don't believe the real world works like a Scooby Doo Mystery where there are trap floors or holes under the rug....However, if I enter a house that is in less then adequate standing I do watch where I walk and what I touch. I don't blindly believe there is or isn't a hole in the floor. I would hope everyone would do the same.
Quote: Also I would like to point out that when I state my computer will not float because of gravity. The presupposition is that gravity will still continue to be there when I put it there, not that it exists. Just like the statement that when I breath air will be there. It wouldn't really matter if gravity or the air suddenly stopped functioning or existing - nothing we can do about that. I wouldn't even consider that an assumed risk. Is there any reason, in your experience, that gravity or the breathable air should suddenly disappear? Your 'computer/gravity' scenario is basic, gradual understanding about our world. When born, no one has this understanding of how or why things work.
Quote: A presupposition is an underlying belief that is made subconsciously without you being aware of it at all, it just comes naturally. And as a child, we all did that because our minds weren't developed enough to understand things. However, as we grow into adults and become responsible (or should become), our minds grow and we ask questions (which is part of our nature).
There is a big difference in believing in something because a book says so or someone tells you that you should (which there is little to no facts to support), and believing in something that has facts to support it. If someone doesn't understand that difference, I feel very very sorry for them

To compare religious beliefs with nature, and ask 'how can one blindly follow natural laws/occurrences but not a religious book' is a very poor comparison indeed - grasping at straws if you will.

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote:
IF a Christian is motivated to change behavior or "ask for forgiveness" based upon his/her GUILT and not out of actual love for God then he has sinned again, that is my point and an irrefutable one at that.

Again, another opinion that is taken as such and respected, but not agreed with fully.

As a none Christian you are free to disagree, but as a Christian you could not. For a Christian to seek forgiveness based upon guilt is simply not acceptable and a sin in an of itself, again from a Christian perspective this is not debateable.

I am a Christian. And I believe guilt to be a tool used by God to bring people to God. After that point (you ask for forgiveness because you feel guilty for not doing God's works while you were in your 'sinful life, etc), you grow to love God (or at least you should).
By the logic I gathered from this statement: "IF a Christian is motivated to change behavior or "ask for forgiveness" based upon his/her GUILT and not out of actual love for God then he has sinned again..." is seems more than distasteful, especially when one thinks of the converts of people who have never heard of God. But that is my opinion that is probably not shared by certain people who consider themselves Christian. To each his own I suppose.
Quote: For a Christian to seek forgiveness based upon guilt is simply not acceptable and a sin in an of itself, again from a Christian perspective this is not debateable. It would appear you know what is acceptable to God and what isn't. Or did you mean not acceptable to you?

Again, note how the word 'sin' is thrown around. It almost appears as though in modern western society, the word 'sin' can be substituted for the words "I don't think 'X' is right", or the words 'I don't understand it'.
Let's try it:
1a) I don't think drinking is right
1b) I think drinking is a sin
2a) I don't understand how a person can look at a picture of a naked person as art and not consider it porn.
2b) I can't look at a naked picture, art or not, without lusting so it must be a sin
Seems to work.

You are perfectly free to believe what ever you wish, it simply does NOT square with Christian theology.

As pure good God is incapable of USING guilt, guilt is a SELF generated emotion of the individual will pure and apparently NOT so simple.

It is not I who assumes to KNOW the tools that God uses to force compliance to His will as you do by saying He must use guilt. I am saying that such a claim suggests a lack of knowledge of basic beliefs of the Christian God altogether, by simply saying that God would USE guilt, you simply have no actual sense of the basic beliefs of Christianity. It does not mean you can't believe it, it just means it conflicts with basic Christian theology of God the source for all that is good.

I simply stated two obvious Christian positions. A Christian motivated by guilt is NOT repentant and selfishness is a sin. How ANY Christian can argue either of those points is simply beyond me.

I do not throw the word sin around I am quite specific about it, and if you assume that when I say that self indulgence is a sin that I somehow exclude myself from being self indulgent you could not be more wrong. And you will notice that I NEVER single out "things I don't like" as sins. Sin is universal and the issue is not drinking or sex the issue is almost always self aggrandizement and pride very general things that we all must be careful of. I do not know who's selfishness qualifies as sin, I know my own does, that is between God and that person, but I do know that we are all sinners.

I wonder why you insist on putting words in my mouth? To prove your point perhaps? I don't know. I never said this: "...His will as you do by saying He must use guilt." Please stop doing this.
I said this:"And I believe guilt to be a tool used by God to bring people to God." Do you see the word 'must' in there...anywhere?
Quote: I am saying that such a claim suggests a lack of knowledge of basic beliefs of the Christian God altogether, by simply saying that God would USE guilt, you simply have no actual sense of the basic beliefs of Christianity. And you are welcome to that opinion - I don't much care. I could just as easy say the same thing to you and we would be in another vicious circle which I am not going to elaborate on.
Quote: A Christian motivated by guilt is NOT repentant and selfishness is a sin. Nice of you to tell us all what are sins and what aren't - I am sure we are all appreciative of that. What other 'things' are sins? If God can use the death of a loved one, war, or basic evil in general, He can most assuredly use guilt. Perhaps you should give God more credit than you apparently do. I would suggest you try to understand guilt more.
Quote: How ANY Christian can argue either of those points is simply beyond me. Obviously many things are beyond your understanding. Of course, not everyone does understand everything, so no harm done there.
Quote: And you will notice that I NEVER single out "things I don't like" as sins. Are you serious with this?!? My comment was made in a larger context - I suggest you go back and read it for complete understanding.

Based upon your statements, I could question your understanding of Christianity as well, but that doesn't matter to either of us.
So basically, you don't believe I don't have an understanding of the basic principles of Christianity and I believe you to be an arrogant Christian who assumes to know more than he probably does. However this is a debate forum setting and all your replies (as well as mine) are taken as such. While I don't agree with, I do respect your right to believe different things in regard to Christianity. Now let's move on to other issues.

[LetsGetReal]

toddytodd wrote: To compare religious beliefs with nature, and ask 'how can one blindly follow natural laws/occurrences but not a religious book' is a very poor comparison indeed - grasping at straws if you will. But earlier he quoted me as saying... LetsGetReal wrote: And I wasn't connecting it to faith, but your statement saying you shouldn't follow anything blindly. Now do I not have the ability to read or him? My point was that people follow a lot of things blindly and he keeps saying I say I'm comparing religion to it and I'm not. :?

[toddytodd]

LetsGetReal wrote: toddytodd wrote: To compare religious beliefs with nature, and ask 'how can one blindly follow natural laws/occurrences but not a religious book' is a very poor comparison indeed - grasping at straws if you will. But earlier he quoted me as saying... LetsGetReal wrote: And I wasn't connecting it to faith, but your statement saying you shouldn't follow anything blindly. Now do I not have the ability to read or him? My point was that people follow a lot of things blindly and he keeps saying I say I'm comparing religion to it and I'm not. :?
I'm not sure you know what you are saying anymore :lol:
People can blindly follow whatever they want of course. That is a poor choice to do so in my opinion. And that, no one can deny.

[LetsGetReal]

I'm not the one saying it, you are. You keep stating I'm comparing my observations with religion which I have stated I'm not. Maybe you have the inablitiy to read. Which would actually explain alot.

[toddytodd]

LetsGetReal wrote: I'm not the one saying it, you are. You keep stating I'm comparing my observations with religion which I have stated I'm not. Maybe you have the inablitiy to read. Which would actually explain alot.
That is my point, which is something I never came outright and accussed you of saying. Talk about an inability to read.......
So now that we are over it, let us move on please.

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote:

I wonder why you insist on putting words in my mouth? To prove your point perhaps? I don't know. I never said this: "...His will as you do by saying He must use guilt." Please stop doing this.
I said this:"And I believe guilt to be a tool used by God to bring people to God." Do you see the word 'must' in there...anywhere?
Quote: I am saying that such a claim suggests a lack of knowledge of basic beliefs of the Christian God altogether, by simply saying that God would USE guilt, you simply have no actual sense of the basic beliefs of Christianity.

If the only word I put in your mouth was MUST then it does not change the point you did not address. Whether God MUST or not in your opinion he DOES use our feelings of guilt to bring people to Him. I have no doubt that SOME people may, as a result of feelings of guilt, turn to God. I have no doubt that some people as a result of living an empty unfulfilled life turn to God. I have no doubt that some people as a result of living a life of violence, turn to God. My simple point is that ALL of these things are NOT products of God, they are products of OUR own will.

Your belief is your own but you CAN not superimpose it on 2000 years or belief and then say it is Christian to believe that God coerces man by manipulating man's free will, it simply runs contrary to Christian dogma.

If as human beings we are willing to accept Jesus Christ as our Savior then we may feel guilt for having done bad things in the past, or we may feel guilty about the things we have done for reasons we can not explain and then accept Jesus Christ as our Savior. But WE CAN NOT remain in the state of feeling guilty AND simply ASK for fogiveness or say "I'm sorry" and have our sins forgiven because we fear hell or simply because we feel guilty. That is and remains the point I am refuting. These points are not a matter of my opinion they are long standing Christian doctrine.


[
Quote: A Christian motivated by guilt is NOT repentant and selfishness is a sin.
Nice of you to tell us all what are sins and what aren't - I am sure we are all appreciative of that. What other 'things' are sins? If God can use the death of a loved one, war, or basic evil in general, He can most assuredly use guilt. Perhaps you should give God more credit than you apparently do. I would suggest you try to understand guilt more.
Quote: How ANY Christian can argue either of those points is simply beyond me. Obviously many things are beyond your understanding. Of course, not everyone does understand everything, so no harm done there. I have made a statement which clearly can be proven true or false. It is such an obvious statement, to any practicing Christian that your refutation of it proves my point that you lack an understanding of basic Christian beliefs.

God does NOT use war or death or evil any more than He uses guilt., all of these things are products of OURS not of God. You simply continue to add credibility to my point, by asserting that God would USE evil or war to manipulate human will.

It is obviously YOUR opinion, again which you are free and welcome to hold, but you offer NO support for it as having ANY place in Christian belief or theology.


toddytodd wrote:

Quote: And you will notice that I NEVER single out "things I don't like" as sins. Are you serious with this?!? My comment was made in a larger context - I suggest you go back and read it for complete understanding.

Based upon your statements, I could question your understanding of Christianity as well, but that doesn't matter to either of us.
So basically, you don't believe I don't have an understanding of the basic principles of Christianity and I believe you to be an arrogant Christian who assumes to know more than he probably does. However this is a debate forum setting and all your replies (as well as mine) are taken as such. While I don't agree with, I do respect your right to believe different things in regard to Christianity. Now let's move on to other issues.

If you believe I am misrepresenting a Christian belief or mistaken I welcome your correction.

The two points I repeated, that guilt alone is NOT enough for my new sins to be forgiven I must move past MY OWN feelings and have the sincere love of God and the belief in Jesus Christ my savior to find repentance AND that the Christian God CAN NOT employ guilt or war or evil or death as tools to manipulate our will to come to Him are both such basic beliefs that I simply can not understand your Christian basis for refuting them.

And if you do not agree as a Christian that selfishness is a sin within Christianity whether you as an individual believe it or not, then you are right there really is not a basis for any conversation.

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote:

I wonder why you insist on putting words in my mouth? To prove your point perhaps? I don't know. I never said this: "...His will as you do by saying He must use guilt." Please stop doing this.
I said this:"And I believe guilt to be a tool used by God to bring people to God." Do you see the word 'must' in there...anywhere?
Quote: I am saying that such a claim suggests a lack of knowledge of basic beliefs of the Christian God altogether, by simply saying that God would USE guilt, you simply have no actual sense of the basic beliefs of Christianity.

If the only word I put in your mouth was MUST then it does not change the point you did not address. Whether God MUST or not in your opinion he DOES use our feelings of guilt to bring people to Him. I have no doubt that SOME people may, as a result of feelings of guilt, turn to God. I have no doubt that some people as a result of living an empty unfulfilled life turn to God. I have no doubt that some people as a result of living a life of violence, turn to God. My simple point is that ALL of these things are NOT products of God, they are products of OUR own will.

Your belief is your own but you CAN not superimpose it on 2000 years or belief and then say it is Christian to believe that God coerces man by manipulating man's free will, it simply runs contrary to Christian dogma.

If as human beings we are willing to accept Jesus Christ as our Savior then we may feel guilt for having done bad things in the past, or we may feel guilty about the things we have done for reasons we can not explain and then accept Jesus Christ as our Savior. But WE CAN NOT remain in the state of feeling guilty AND simply ASK for fogiveness or say "I'm sorry" and have our sins forgiven because we fear hell or simply because we feel guilty. That is and remains the point I am refuting. These points are not a matter of my opinion they are long standing Christian doctrine.


[
Quote: A Christian motivated by guilt is NOT repentant and selfishness is a sin.
Nice of you to tell us all what are sins and what aren't - I am sure we are all appreciative of that. What other 'things' are sins? If God can use the death of a loved one, war, or basic evil in general, He can most assuredly use guilt. Perhaps you should give God more credit than you apparently do. I would suggest you try to understand guilt more.
Quote: How ANY Christian can argue either of those points is simply beyond me. Obviously many things are beyond your understanding. Of course, not everyone does understand everything, so no harm done there. I have made a statement which clearly can be proven true or false. It is such an obvious statement, to any practicing Christian that your refutation of it proves my point that you lack an understanding of basic Christian beliefs.

God does NOT use war or death or evil any more than He uses guilt., all of these things are products of OURS not of God. You simply continue to add credibility to my point, by asserting that God would USE evil or war to manipulate human will.

It is obviously YOUR opinion, again which you are free and welcome to hold, but you offer NO support for it as having ANY place in Christian belief or theology.


toddytodd wrote:

Quote: And you will notice that I NEVER single out "things I don't like" as sins. Are you serious with this?!? My comment was made in a larger context - I suggest you go back and read it for complete understanding.

Based upon your statements, I could question your understanding of Christianity as well, but that doesn't matter to either of us.
So basically, you don't believe I don't have an understanding of the basic principles of Christianity and I believe you to be an arrogant Christian who assumes to know more than he probably does. However this is a debate forum setting and all your replies (as well as mine) are taken as such. While I don't agree with, I do respect your right to believe different things in regard to Christianity. Now let's move on to other issues.

If you believe I am misrepresenting a Christian belief or mistaken I welcome your correction.

The two points I repeated, that guilt alone is NOT enough for my new sins to be forgiven I must move past MY OWN feelings and have the sincere love of God and the belief in Jesus Christ my savior to find repentance AND that the Christian God CAN NOT employ guilt or war or evil or death as tools to manipulate our will to come to Him are both such basic beliefs that I simply can not understand your Christian basis for refuting them.

And if you do not agree as a Christian that selfishness is a sin within Christianity whether you as an individual believe it or not, then you are right there really is not a basis for any conversation.
Quote: God does NOT use war or death or evil any more than He uses guilt., all of these things are products of OURS not of God. You simply continue to add credibility to my point, by asserting that God would USE evil or war to manipulate human will. An assumption that you know what God can or can't, does or doesn't do. I find that offensive, but we can agree to disagree on that tpoic as well - just add it to the list :)
Quote: Itis obviously YOUR opinion, again which you are free and welcome to hold, but you offer NO support for it as having ANY place in Christian belief or theology. You are correct in this statement.
Quote: ...that guilt alone is NOT enough for my new sins to be forgiven... You are partially correct. Guilt (feeling sorry for something) isn't enough, however, guilt can be accompanied by many other emotions that can lead to forgiveness. Which is something I have said and stand by.
Quote: ..I must move past MY OWN feelings and have the sincere love of God and the belief in Jesus Christ my savior to find repentance... Agreed.
Quote: ...AND that the Christian God CAN NOT employ guilt or war or evil or death as tools to manipulate our will to come to Him... Again, God can do whatever He wants to do to get to His people. To think otherwise is, I believe, doing God a dis-service. How can someone love God if they don't truly know Him? Answer this: Can a person who have never truly heard of God be saved? Do they have to love God in order to be saved? What makes them seek out God in to be saved?
If you don't believe God can use guilt to bring people to Him, I don't think you are paying much attention to your surroundings.
Another issue to add to the list (which is growing by leaps and bounds).
Selfishness as a sin....I have never been spoken to by God about selfishness. I am not a selfish person - quite the opposite actually. Therefore, I have not really considered it a sin or not.
Quote: If you believe I am misrepresenting a Christian belief or mistaken I welcome your correction. I have, and will continue to, point out our idealistic differences. All one needs to do is read the many posts between us to find them :lol:
If you would ever like to, I would be happy to list a few for discussion. Not in this thread though.