Reply to Thread

Post a reply to the thread: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

Your Message

Click here to log in

 

Additional Options

  • Will turn www.example.com into [URL]http://www.example.com[/URL].

HTML
Rate Thread

You may rate this thread from 1-star (Terrible) to 5-stars (Excellent) if you wish to do so.

Topic Review (Newest First)

  • 10-17-2010, 08:07 PM
    Cnance

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post
    Cnance, since you listed Ephesians 1;13 as a "contradiction", let's look at the chapter:
    Verse 4: "according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.
    "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by jesus Christ..."
    Those are fine uplifting words that Paul wrote, but is it true? Where is the Old Testament is there such a commitment by God? I'm not against salvation, but it must be real. No where in the Old Testament does the Lord claim to have a son, no where in the Old Testament does the Lord, or His son (who doesn't exist), chose us before the foundation of the world. These are Paul's words, something he concocted to promote a new religion.

    Just these two verse declare recognition of god's omniscience, with which you have also shown agreement. Now, we can say that God ONLY dealt with Israel, but then ONLY Israelites would qualify for that predestination. Whow were those that qualified? Those born of promise to Abraham. You say no, so let's assuime that every Israelite is to receive this promise by adoption. That would mean no logical reason to give a law at Sinai, since all would qualify regardless. That's totally ridivculous.
    Again, promises made to Israel do not include salvation. How can someone be predestined if salvation is not possible? Paul was responsible for claiming salvation through Jesus. Since then, there has been much discussion about predestination. It is part of Protestantism and has greatly influenced Christianity in one form or another.

    As I mentioned, the promises to Abrahan and Isaac do not include salvation. The extension of the promise to salvation was Paul's addition to God's promise to Israel. Therefore, that promise is null an void.

    Slip down to Eph. 1:9: "Having made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which HE HATH PURPOSED IN HIMSELF"

    Again, assume that God ONLY dealt with Israel. Who are those IN ISRAEL, who understand this mystery? If we understood it, it wouldn't be a mystery, nor would it require many different versions, would it? Yet even among Jews, there is a variety of religious views.
    I accept that. I'm making my argument based on literal interpretation of scripture and, of course, my own opinion.

    In Ephesians 1:10, Paul writes, "to bring all things in heaven and earth together under one head, even Christ." That is way off the mark. Here he infers Christ can be the head when he as already referred to Christ as the firstborn of many brothers. Also, there can only be one head in heaven. It's not subject to dispute or debate. God is the only ruling authority in heaven.

    In verse 11, someone has obtained an inheritance. Who? If israel failed, themn ther is no reason to do anything, no reason to believe, and nothing is to be gained from the searfh, since israel blew it. In either case, there is no reason to folow any religion or believe any man, since no one can prove the "mystery".
    It is not possible to prove the mystery of God. Having that kind of knowledge would make you equal to God. It is another one of Paul's riddles, one with no meaning and no resolution.


    If you are right, there is nothing to be gained from joining any religion. If Paul is right, there is STILL nothing to be gained. The only difference eing that Paul offers a reward based on grace and freedom, and you offer nothing but death.

    Nothing is to be gained in either case, except that we are free from all religions.
    Regardless, it wont change the truth. Only God knows. Paul assumes authority he doesn't have and makes promises based only on words. I accept the idea of being free from false beliefs, that includes the writings of Paul.

    My position about salvation however is not unique. You will not find Paul's salvation in the Old Testament. I ask questions about Paul and the OT that apparently no one has asked. That's a puzzle. Because there is such high regard for Paul no Christian questions him. In the Catholic Church he's Saint Paul.

    I suppose for the sake of everyone's mental health, it's best to believe in salvation. As for me, I'd rather know the truth than live a lie.

    I hate fraud!
  • 10-17-2010, 04:02 PM
    doojie

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    Cnance, since you listed Ephesians 1;13 as a "contradiction", let's look at the chapter:
    Verse 4: "according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.
    "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by jesus Christ..."

    Just these two verse declare recognition of god's omniscience, with which you have also shown agreement. Now, we can say that God ONLY dealt with israel, but then ONLY Israelites would qualify for that predestination. Whow were those that qualified? Those born of promise to Abraham. You say no, so let's assuime that every Israelite is to receive this promise by adoption. That would mean no logical reason to give a law at Sinai, since all would qualify regardless. That's totally ridivculous.

    Slip down to Eph. 1:9: "Having made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which HE HATH PURPOSED IN HIMSELF"

    Again, assume that God ONLY dealt with israel. Who are those IN ISRAEL, who understand this mystery? If we understood it, it wouldn't be a mystery, nor would it require many different versions, would it? Yet even among Jews, there is a variety of religious views.

    In verse 11, someone has obtained an inheritance. Who? If israel failed, themn ther is no reason to do anything, no reason to believe, and nothing is to be gained from the searfh, since israel blew it. In either case, there is no reason to folow any religion or believe any man, since no one can prove the "mystery".

    If you are right, there is nothing to be gained from joining any religion. If Paul is right, there is STILL nothing to be gained. The only difference eing that Paul offers a reward based on grace and freedom, and you offer nothing but death.

    Nothing is to be gained in either case, except that we are free from all religions.
  • 10-17-2010, 03:48 PM
    doojie

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post

    What you've explained is simple enough if you believe Paul. I don't believe him. In his own words he admitted he was not divine? Why would he have divine knowledge?
    Understanding what Paul wrote doesn't require divine knowledge.

    Paul wrote, "the sinful mind is hostile to God," Romans 8:7. Then Paul wrote, "I know nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have a desire to do good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do--this I keep on doing." Romans 7:18-19.

    Therefore, how does Paul know, "For those God foreordained to be conformed to the likeness of his son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers."


    Simple and very basic logic, which anyone can see with a little thought. If God is all knowing, he would obviously know in advance those who would "accept" or "reject" him. Therefore, there woud be no doubt as to the outcome for God.
    No decision you can make will alter God's perfect knowledge. Now, whether or not God predestined them or foreordained them is irrelevant, since they will only do exaclty as God's knowledge dictates. There would be no difference whatever between foreknowledge, predestination, and omniscience.



    Romans 8:29? If Paul was, as he admitted a sinful man incapable of doing good, how could he know that? It is interesting that we find no reference to God's firstborn, Jesus, in the Old Testament. Paul made it up for his new religion.
    What religion? Paul has already stated clearly that you cannot affect God's perfect knowledge, and since you, Cnance, have admitted of God's omniscience, your only refutation is to simply ignore the obvious, and even Lord jag knows better than that.

    As for Gal 28, Paul extended God's promise to Abraham to fit with his own agenda to create "sons of God." What a neat marketing tool. Believe in what I say and you will become "sons of God." Oh, excuse me, you are "sons of God, I just can't tell anyone if there are or not. Don't fret however, if you are God's chosen, you're saved. That puts it all out there in LA LA Land.
    Logically, you have one of two choices:
    1. You can believe that God selects a few and sends the rest to hell, ala Calvinism
    2.You can believe that, since God is omniscient and already knows who will accept or reject him, the rest will have an opportunity at a later time, which Paul clearly states in Romans 11.

    Now, whichever one you choose to believe, there is absolutely nothing you can do to affect the outcome, because God is all knowing.

    If you can offer any provable decision procedure whatever to get from here to God, I'm still waiting.

    As for Gal. 29, ("If you belong the Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.")
    I accept God's promise for Abraham's descents, but I do not believe Paul had authority to amend it or incorporate it into his theology.
    In fact, there is no need to incorporate it into any human theology. If God is all knowing, then certainly he would know which Israelites would be "saved" or "die". Even stopping at the Old testament, an all knowing God would alrady be well aware of who would be his servants and who would not. Nothing would be gained from the effort from God's perspective.


    This has been my main point every since we've discussed Paul. I believe Paul was a man driven by evangelist zeal to form a new world religion. It's all about what Paul wants for the world. God has nothing to do with it.
    That would be nice if Paul had actually offered something that could be used to organize a world religion but his direct teachings say there is no way we can by-pass Gd;s perfect knowledge of who is "saved" and who is not. From that perspective, any other decison offered b any man would be illusory, which is why jesus asaid to follow no man saying "here is Christ".

    What experience? How can anyone have an experience that tells him or her about a relationship with God. To have the full story, you have to read Paul. Most people profess faith in something. Even atheist extol the virtues of something, mostly science. So true freedom is not a normal experience. Also, Paul keeps coming back to the same story.
    Yes he does, that tose born of promise are foreknown, as isaac was, which is fully consistent with an all knowing God. He also tells us that the promise made to Abraham dealt with those who wwere born of that promise, and whether you believe Paul or not, it must logically be accepted that God already knows his children from the start, so Romans 8:29-30 is true from awhatever perspective you choose.

    "Believe in my gospel message for your salvation." Romans 1:16; 10:9; 13:11, 2Cor. 1:1; 6:2; 7:10
    Eph. 1:13; 6:17, Php 2:12.
    Not one of those statements contradict Paul's statements of Romans 8 and 9. I'll have to deal with them below.

    How can Paul make such a claim? By his own authority? God made his covenant with Abraham Gen. 12:2-3 and with Isaac Gen. 19, not with Gentiles or Paul.
    Precisely, so if Paul is wrong, then God will still know those who will be his children, and knew from the beginning. Even excluding gentiles, it is impossible to get around God's foreknowledge.

    I knew that without reading Paul. It's within God's domain, not humans.

    The only difference is Paul was the first to make Holy Spirit claims. Paul's claim that Jesus was God's firstborn is untrue. Where in the OT did God claim to have a son? If I have a choice, which I do, I choose the Lord God over Paul.
    Choose whatever you wish, You wil be just one of thousands who have their ideas about God. Paul has already pointed out the futility iof such processes, and so did Jesus. No one is required to believe you or anyone else making such claims.

    I have cross checked most of Paul's references and found that in areas of theological importance such as the "new covenant," "son of God," and "sons of God" (predestination) there are no literal references in the Old Testament.
    That's fine. And since God is all knowing, and knows who his children will be, then there is certainly the knowledge that there is no way for anyone else, by any process to be "saved". Romans 8:29-30 is still true.


    Yes, I agree Paul was truthful in saying no man can know. However, that is a simple truth. There are more important truths Paul claims to know. He claims to know that Jesus is the son of God, he claims to know that Jesus was God's firstborn, he claims to know about the sons of God. Yet, he claims he to be sinful man. I accept that Paul was a sinful man. As a sinful man, he concocted stories about Jesus, salvation and God.
    Again, if Paul was wrong, the same conclusion applies,. There dexists no certain knowledge of salvation, and therefore no need to follow any man.






    God's promises to Abraham and Issac make no mention of salvation. The promises are to bless and to curse those who curse you. God also promised Israel land. The modern state of Israel is a fulfillment of that promise.

    In the Old Testament, I don't recall Gentiles or Paul being included in God's promises to Israel.[/quote]
  • 10-17-2010, 02:18 PM
    Cnance

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post
    Read the whole damn chapter. Romans 8:29-30 says plainly that there is no way to choose such actions. Romans 9:7-22 shows that those born of spirit are those born just as Isaac was born(Galatians 4;28, Gal. 3:29). If you are born of spirit, you are foreknown (as Isaac was) predestined(as Isaac was). Paul took you by the hand and led you through that, including his own plain statements in Roans 7 that he himself could not overcome. I gotta say it, You're a ing moron. How many times do I have to explain simlicity itself?
    What you've explained is simple enough if you believe Paul. I don't believe him. In his own words he admitted he was not divine? Why would he have divine knowledge?

    Paul wrote, "the sinful mind is hostile to God," Romans 8:7. Then Paul wrote, "I know nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have a desire to do good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do--this I keep on doing." Romans 7:18-19.

    Therefore, how does Paul know, "For those God foreordained to be conformed to the likeness of his son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." Romans 8:29? If Paul was, as he admitted a sinful man incapable of doing good, how could he know that? It is interesting that we find no reference to God's firstborn, Jesus, in the Old Testament. Paul made it up for his new religion.

    As for Gal 28, Paul extended God's promise to Abraham to fit with his own agenda to create "sons of God." What a neat marketing tool. Believe in what I say and you will become "sons of God." Oh, excuse me, you are "sons of God, I just can't tell anyone if there are or not. Don't fret however, if you are God's chosen, you're saved. That puts it all out there in LA LA Land.

    As for Gal. 29, ("If you belong the Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.")
    I accept God's promise for Abraham's descents, but I do not believe Paul had authority to amend it or incorporate it into his theology.


    This has been my main point every since we've discussed Paul. I believe Paul was a man driven by evangelist zeal to form a new world religion. It's all about what Paul wants for the world. God has nothing to do with it.

    Anyone whio accepts his/her individual freedom is still free, God or no God. paul has merely stated that which is obvious from the facts of experience.
    What experience? How can anyone have an experience that tells him or her about a relationship with God. To have the full story, you have to read Paul. Most people profess faith in something. Even atheist extol the virtues of something, mostly science. So true freedom is not a normal experience. Also, Paul keeps coming back to the same story.

    "Believe in my gospel message for your salvation." Romans 1:16; 10:9; 13:11, 2Cor. 1:1; 6:2; 7:10
    Eph. 1:13; 6:17, Php 2:12.

    Paul has merely claimed that God alone knows who his children are, and IF you have that spirit, IF you happen to be born of that birth, THEN(syllogism) you have the "Holy Spirit".
    How can Paul make such a claim? By his own authority? God made his covenant with Abraham Gen. 12:2-3 and with Isaac Gen. 19, not with Gentiles or Paul.

    You can't choose it, and Paul nowhere says you can. In fact, he goes into great detail to say you can't.
    I knew that without reading Paul. It's within God's domain, not humans.

    What do you mean "we"? Paul has already pointed out a simple process oflogic: if God is all knowing, then he knows who will 'accept" and who will 'reject" him. Paul has merely verified this fact in Romans 8:29-30, while the churches, in trying to run around it, BECAUSE of THEIR sinful minds, result in 38,000 versions of Christianity. I can't choose it, you can't choose it, no one can, except God.
    The only difference is Paul was the first to make Holy Spirit claims. Paul's claim that Jesus was God's firstborn is untrue. Where in the OT did God claim to have a son? If I have a choice, which I do, I choose the Lord God over Paul.

    I have cross checked most of Paul's references and found that in areas of theological importance such as the "new covenant," "son of God," and "sons of God" (predestination) there are no literal references in the Old Testament.


    You don;t have to. All you have to di s recognize that it is impossible to make such choices since no one can know all truth in such fashion, and therefore Paul has told the truth.

    If you can prove we actually DO have such knowledge, by all means show it.
    Yes, I agree Paul was truthful in saying no man can know. However, that is a simple truth. There are more important truths Paul claims to know. He claims to know that Jesus is the son of God, he claims to know that Jesus was God's firstborn, he claims to know about the sons of God. Yet, he claims he to be sinful man. I accept that Paul was a sinful man. As a sinful man, he concocted stories about Jesus, salvation and God.




    because the spirit of God belongs to those who are born of promise, in the same fashion as isaac, which is exactly what he says, so either God has knopwn and selected you, or he has not, and there ain't one damn thing you can do either way. Therefore, by the simplest of logic, you need not follow any man claiming to represent Christ, which is what Paul and Jesus said.
    That is Paul's story. In God's promise to Abraham and Issac there is no mention of salvation. Paul corrupted God's promises.


    L
    et's agree with that. Then we STILL arrive at the same conclusion, that there's no need to follow any man, since truth cannot be packaged by one man, so you STILL come up with the same conclusion.
    Well, if that's true, include Paul as one not to follow.



    What divine knowledge? paul plainly said it in different ways. God foreknows his children, those children are born as Isaac, foreknown, predestined, etc, and that birth is not within our power to choose. You don;t need divine knowledge to figure out something that simple.
    God's promises to Abraham and Issac make no mention of salvation. The promises are to bless and to curse those who curse you. God also promised Israel land. The modern state of Israel is a fulfillment of that promise.

    In the Old Testament, I don't recall Gentiles or Paul being included in God's promises to Israel.
  • 10-17-2010, 11:48 AM
    doojie

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    What you've neglected in your rebuttal is Paul's intent according to his own words. If, as you say, Paul meant "that truth cannot be placed in one system," then why did Paul say with certainty, "And if anyone does not have the spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ." Romans 8:9. Throughout Romans 8:5-15 Paul is making judgments regarding one's spirit. That is just liked all 38,000 religions who claim the have the Holy Spirit.
    Read the whole damn chapter. Romans 8:29-30 says plainly that there is no way to choose such actions. Romans 9:7-22 shows that those born of spirit are those born just as Isaac was born(Galatians 4;28, Gal. 3:29). If you are born of spirit, you are foreknown(as Isaac was) predestined(as Isaac was). Paul took you by the hand and led you through that, including his own plain statements in Roans 7 that he himself could not overcome. I gotta say it, You're a ing moron. How many times do I have to explain simlicity itself?

    Paul is stating with certainty that without a "good" spirit we are condemned. Romans 8:6. If therefore no man can know the truth about God, why does Paul claim to have such knowledge. Isn't knowledge about the spirit to be free of death knowledge of God?
    Anyone whio accepts his/her individual freedom is still free, God or no God. paul has merely stated that which is obvious from the facts of experience.



    Paul claims no man can have such knowledge, and yet he according to his own words claims such knowledge.
    Paul has merely claimed that God alone knows who his children are, and IF you have that spirit, IF you happen to be born of that birth, THEN(syllogism) you have the "Holy Spirit".

    You can't choose it, and Paul nowhere says you can. In fact, he goes into great detail to say you can't.



    If men are sinful, they can have no such knowledge. The belief that we have been chosen before the foundation of the world comes from the mind of a sinful man.
    What do you mean "we"? Paul has already pointed out a simple process oflogic: if God is all knowing, then he knows who will 'accept" and who will 'reject" him. Paul has merely verified this fact in Romans 8:29-30, while the churches, in trying to run around it, BECAUSE of THEIR sinful minds, result in 38,000 versions of Christianity. I can't choose it, you can't choose it, no one can, except God.

    How can I believe Paul, a sinful man?
    You don;t have to. All you have to di s recognize that it is impossible to make such choices since no one can know all truth in such fashion, and therefore Paul has told the truth.

    If you can prove we actually DO have such knowledge, by all means show it.


    Then, why can he claim to know about the spirit of God?
    because the spirit of God belongs to those who are born of promise, in the same fashion as isaac, which is exactly what he says, so either God has knopwn and selected you, or he has not, and there ain't one damn thing you can do either way. Therefore, by the simplest of logic, you need not follow any man claiming to represent Christ, which is what Paul and Jesus said.

    A carnal man telling us about God's truth. I'd say that's the height of hypocrisy.
    Let's agree with that. Then we STILL arrive at the same conclusion, that there's no need to follow any man, since truth cannot be packaged by one man, so you STILL come up with the same conclusion.

    Paul claims to have knowledge about Jesus, the spirit of God, and answers to many other important questions relating to God's truth. If Paul truly believes "the sinful mind in hostile to God," then why does he, a sinful man, claim to understand the truth about God? You can't have it both ways, be a sinful man, and have divine knowledge.
    What divine knowledge? paul plainly said it in different ways. God foreknows his children, those children are born as Isaac, foreknown, predestined, etc, and that birth is not within our power to choose. You don;t need divine knowledge to figure out something that simple.
  • 10-17-2010, 07:34 AM
    Cnance

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post
    And again you commit a logical mistake. If we live according to the spirit by choice, then we are making choices clearly defined that show what the "spirit" is. IOW, if I choose right from wrong, I should be able to define clearly a difference between right and wrong.

    However, using exactly the same conclusions as you, the various religions have splintetred into 38,000 versions of right and wrong, all claiming to have the "Holy Spirt", which is in many cases contradictory.

    That is evidence that Paul was telling the truth in Romans 8:7. If the natural mind is enmity against od and cannot be subject to God, yet assumes that it can, by choice, live according to the spirit of truth, the result will logically be an incrasing number of definitions of God.

    Again, Paul's statement conforms to Godel's theorem, which tells us that truth cannot be placed in one system.

    Again, if it meant "to choose", there would be clear definitions as to what it is that's being chosen, yet using the same logic as you have, the assumptions of your own human mind, the result is 38,000 versions of that truth. By using your mind, you have proven Romans 8:7 correct again.

    What you've neglected in your rebuttal is Paul's intent according to his own words. If, as you say, Paul meant "that truth cannot be placed in one system," then why did Paul say with certainty, "And if anyone does not have the spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ." Romans 8:9. Throughout Romans 8:5-15 Paul is making judgments regarding one's spirit. That is just liked all 38,000 religions who claim the have the Holy Spirit.

    Paul is stating with certainty that without a "good" spirit we are condemned. Romans 8:6. If therefore no man can know the truth about God, why does Paul claim to have such knowledge. Isn't knowledge about the spirit to be free of death knowledge of God? Paul claims no man can have such knowledge, and yet he according to his own words claims such knowledge.



    First of all, in accordance with an omniscient God, Ephesians 1:4:
    "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world".

    Since you have concluded God is omnisicent, this is in accordance with your statement. Therefore, whatever people choose, they will choose according to God's perfect knowledge.
    If men are sinful, they can have no such knowledge. The belief that we have been chosen before the foundation of the world comes from the mind of a sinful man.

    Next chapter, Ephesians 2:10: "For we are his workmanship, created in good works, which God hath BEFORE ORDAINED that we should walk in them".
    How can I believe Paul, a sinful man?


    men cannot choose to live by spirit, and Paul himself never claimed such power by freewill. Simplt look at Paul's description of himself in Romans 7:18:

    "For I know that in me(that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for TO WILL IS PRESENT WITH ME; BUT HOW TO PERFORM THAT WHICH IS GOOD, I FIND NOT"
    Then, why can he claim to know about the spirit of God?

    Verse 23: But i see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and BRINGING ME INTO CAPTIVITY to the law of sin which is in my members".

    In verse 14, Paul declares himself to be carnal, sold under sin. And as we see from verse 18, he can't do it.
    A carnal man telling us about God's truth. I'd say that's the height of hypocrisy.

    Paul claims to have knowledge about Jesus, the spirit of God, and answers to many other important questions relating to God's truth. If Paul truly believes "the sinful mind in hostile to God," then why does he, a sinful man, claim to understand the truth about God? You can't have it both ways, be a sinful man, and have divine knowledge.
  • 10-17-2010, 01:44 AM
    doojie

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    No, even though I don't believe it, I am following Paul's words. In Romans 8:4.

    Paul wrote preceding these verses, "who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the spirit." Romans 8:4. That does not say they are "according to the spirit." It says they "live according to the spirit."
    And again you commit a logical mistake. If we live according to the spirit by choice, then we are making choices clearly defined that show what the "spirit" is. IOW, if I choose right from wrong, I should be able to define clearly a difference between right and wrong.

    However, using exactly the same conclusions as you, the various religions have splintetred into 38,000 versions of right and wrong, all claiming to have the "Holy Spirt", which is in many cases contradictory.

    That is evidence that Paul was telling the truth in Romans 8:7. If the natural mind is enmity against od and cannot be subject to God, yet assumes that it can, by choice, live according to the spirit of truth, the result will logically be an incrasing number of definitions of God.

    Again, Paul's statement conforms to Godel's theorem, which tells us that truth cannot be placed in one system.


    Adversely, Paul points out what happens if you choose a sinful spirit. "Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the spirit have their minds set on what the spirit desires." Romans 8:5. Doesn't "live by" mean to chose?

    Again, if it meant "to choose", there would be clear definitions as to what it is that's being chosen, yet using the same logic as you have, the assumptions of your own human mind, the result is 38,000 versions of that truth. By using your mind, you have proven Romans 8:7 correct again.

    What else could it mean? In both cases, they "live by" the spirit. If one lives by the spirit, one is not possessed by the spirit. "By" means in accordance thereof, or as a guide.
    If only you could simply stop there and kick out everything else Paul writes.

    Well, you just referenced verses where you claim Paul said sons of God have no choice. Yet, preceding those verses, Paul used the words "those who life according to. Doesn't that mean choosing. How to you "live in according to" if not by choice.
    First of all, in accordance with an omniscient God, Ephesians 1:4:
    "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world".

    Since you have concluded God is omnisicent, this is in accordance with your statement. Therefore, whatever people choose, they will choose according to God's perfect knowledge.

    Next chapter, Ephesians 2:10: "For we are his workmanship, created in good works, which God hath BEFORE ORDAINED that we should walk in them".
    Do you mean Paul meant that men who make choices are driven by the spirit? That's a contradiction.
    men cannot choose to live by spirit, and Paul himself never claimed such power by freewill. Simplt look at Paul's description of himself in Romans 7:18:

    "For I know that in me(that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for TO WILL IS PRESENT WITH ME; BUT HOW TO PERFORM THAT WHICH IS GOOD, I FIND NOT"

    Verse 23: But i see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and BRINGING ME INTO CAPTIVITY to the law of sin which is in my members".

    In verse 14, Paul declares himself to be carnal, sold under sin. And as we see from verse 18, he can't do it.





    I didn't say Paul had a bias, although he clearly does, I said you have a bias.
    Of course I have a bias. We all do, qwhich is precisely why Paul said it is impossible, in accordance with Godel's theorem, to define truth by our own minds in one single package. Paul declared that he himself was unable to choose such actions of goodness.

    How? By what logic or by what argument did you show me that?
    Because you took one scripture, Romans 10:9, and lifted it out of the whole framework in which Paul refuted your own conclusions, such aas the scriptures I showed you above, and Ro,ans 11;7, and 11:32, as well as Matthew 13:11, which show that it is impossible to choose truth by freewill. Now I add Ephesians 2;10 to the mix, and you keep repeating, "there are contradictions" with nothing to back you up.



    When I say Christians follow Paul, I am referring to history. I was once a Catholic. I recall, and I am certain it is still true, an enormous number of references to Paul. Catechism lessons made more references to Paul than to the gospels. Don't tell me Paul has not influenced the Catholic Church. The facts speak otherwise.

    Thomas Aquinas, the greatest logical mind, supposedly of the catholic church, tried to build a bridge of authority connecting the church to God by reason. He failed. He coud not make the connection.

    Why? Romans 8:7. His mind, my mind, your mind, Paul's mind, by Paul's own admission, cannot be subject to God.

    The catholic church, unfortunately did a lot of cherry picking, as they had to, inorder to borrow authority from Paul, yet Romans 8 and 9 cancel their authority, as well as all christian authority.

    How do I argue back and forth? My arguments have been consistent. I don't need to change. My original criticisms about Paul are on target.
    You're trying to argue that christianity is flawed, and then you use theologians to "prove" your points, after you've already declared they are flawed in their logic. Either they're right, or they're wrong. You're using them both ways to "prove" your conclusions.


    You quote just a few verses. I quote about an equal number to reply. So what's the problem? Quote more verses, that way we can expand to include all of Paul.
    All I've seen up until recently is Romans 10:9, over and over again.

    You're arguing that Paul influenced the catholic church, and now you see that the catholics were wrong. Obviously it never occurred to you that they were wrong because they ignored the key statement on which Paul focused in two chapters, that we cannot come to God by any human decision procedure, and that God already knows who his children are, as logic dictates fo omniscience. You use all kinds of argumnets to somehw slide aropunf basic logic.


    That's not true. Most of what Paul wrote has to do with Jesus the redeemer for everyone. If your read Paul carefully, you'll realize what he was promoting a new religion. In essence, he said people are helpless by themselves, they can to nothing about their salvation, all is hopeless, but, wait, there is hope. If you do as I (Paul) say and believe Romans 10:9, you will be saved. I guarantee it. Paul was an evangelist, not a philosopher. He was not promoting an elitist doctrine, he was promoting a new religion. How could he could he win over Gentiles if he didn't offer salvation to all men?


    And what did Paul say? He said that it is impossible to develop a decision procedure to get from here to god. If you believe in Jesus, who paid the penalty for sin, therefore, you are free from the proposed decision procedures of all men, since Jesus has already paid the price for sin. So what, then, do you choose? You choose to be free frommen, since no law, no system of rules, no effort of men, can bring salvation. If they could, there would e no need whatever for the sacrifice of jesus to pay that penalty in our stead.



    [quote]No, I was saying to rewrite Paul you would have to get their approval, a sort of joke. I am not on a campaign to discredit Christians. I am in search of truth. All I want before I die is to know the truth about God.[/quote

    If you could find the truth about God in any humanly definable sense, it would be subject to programming, so that anyh computer can embody "God" as much as any human. Better, in fact, since the computer is not limited by human nature. You cannot find truth, in that sense, about God, because the very realization of truth would cancel the very humanness necessary for free will choice among systems of thought. Once truth can be defined in one package, which Godel has demonstrated it cannot, there would logicaly be one religion, one government one control by one group of men, or as Ayn Rand says, one neck ready for one leash.

    Paul has shown this, and thousands of varying christian beliefs prove it as fact.

    Paul was a fraud. It is difficult to understand how the NT authors could make up so many lies about God.
    If all the various churches tried to establish authority as God's representatives by Paul's teachings and failed, then we can assume it was precisely because of Romans 8:7, Romans 9:16-22, and Romans 8:29-30. By defining their authority according to free will choice, as you keep insisting, they branched into thousands of confusing religious ideas of God, and the number grows. How does that make Paul a fraud? Answer my questions.

    Okay, you could say I am a fraud for suggesting Jesus was God. After all, I have little scripture to support such an assertion. It is interesting however that the son of God isn't in the Old Testament. I believe that speaks volumes. Why didn't the Lord God mention his son?
    Let's conclude that an all-knowing God never intended a sacrifice of Christ. Being all-knowing, he must have known that there would be a Godel's theorem to demonstrate that all truth cannot be placed in one package. He must have known there would be a Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, a Darwin, a Dawkins, or E.O. Wilson, to name a few. The very existence of Godel's theorem showing the impossibility of placing truth in one consistent complete package, would have demonstrated to an all knowing God that hos chosen people simply could NOT have organized in perfect accordance with his law. But he knew they could not(Deut.5:29)

    The true story about Jesus (God) is Revelation 11. Paul and the other NT authors committed fraud by making up lies about Jesus.
    The only thing i see in Rev 11 is that two witnesses will be hated by the world because they presch a truth that eliminates the authorities of the world. You can do that by simply readin Romans 8 and 9, and Jesus' statement in Matthew 24;23.

    I have answered your every argument with statements from Paul and with logic. Let's see what you've got.
  • 10-16-2010, 07:25 PM
    Cnance

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post
    Let's look at Romans 8:10-17:
    "And IF Christ be in you..." He never said "choose Christ, and he will be in you".

    Verse 11; "But IF, the spirit of him...."

    Now these verses are consistent with Romans 8:7 and 8:29-30.

    Verse 12:"we are DEBTORS..." We owe something. We haven;t been made free yet.
    13: "For IF ye live after the flesh, but if ye THROUGH THE SPIRIT do mortify the deeds of the body..."

    What is the spirit? Paul explains it clearly through the rest of chapters 8 and 9.
    14: For as many as are led by the spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
    15: For ye have not received the spirit of bondage, but ye have received the spirit of adoption...."

    16: "The spirit beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the childsren of God".
    17: And IF children, then heirs..."

    Notice that nowhere in that section did Paul once say you could become sons of God by choice. he said IF...

    All the way up to verse 29, Paul points out that IF you are a son of God, and then, you have the inescapable statement that God already foreknows and predestines his children, which eliminates the authority of christianity.
    No, even though I don't believe it, I am following Paul's words. In Romans 8:4.

    Paul wrote preceding these verses, "who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the spirit." Romans 8:4. That does not say they are "according to the spirit." It says they "live according to the spirit." That means by choice, not by decree. If you live according to the spirit, you chose to do so.

    Adversely, Paul points out what happens if you choose a sinful spirit. "Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the spirit have their minds set on what the spirit desires." Romans 8:5. Doesn't "live by" mean to chose? What else could it mean? In both cases, they "live by" the spirit. If one lives by the spirit, one is not possessed by the spirit. "By" means in accordance thereof, or as a guide.

    I have rtead evetry verse and quoted from paul himself to show you why he doesn't contradict himself. All I'm gwetting from you is an insistence that he did.
    Well, you just referenced verses where you claim Paul said sons of God have no choice. Yet, preceding those verses, Paul used the words "those who life according to." Doesn't that mean choosing. How to you "live in according to" if not by choice. Do you mean Paul meant that men who make choices are driven by the spirit? That's a contradiction.



    What bias? Paul went to great extremes in two adjoining chapters(or somebody did) to show us we cannot make a proper choice to get us from here to God, and the physical evidence, with 38,000 versios of christianity verifies it. Where's the bias? Jesus himself pointed out in Matthew 10:34-38 that if you ****u to follow him, it will produce exactly that very splintering and speciation. Again, verified by the facts.
    I didn't say Paul had a bias, although he clearly does, I said you have a bias.

    And I have shon you direct wuoted that demonstrate why you;re full of shit, direct statements.
    How? By what logic or by what argument did you show me that?



    Most theologians/ First you claim christianity has no authority, and now you borrow from christianity to state your "authority". If there exists no decision procedure to get from here to God, and if you can make no such decisions, and if jesus himself said not to follow any such religion, then "most theologians" would obviously be wrong, as you have already stated.
    When I say Christians follow Paul, I am referring to history. I was once a Catholic. I recall, and I am certain it is still true, an enormous number of references to Paul. Catechism lessons made more references to Paul than to the gospels. Don't tell me Paul has not influenced the Catholic Church. The facts speak otherwise.

    You're arguing back and forth to prove your own bias, then accusing me.
    How do I argue back and forth? My arguments have been consistent. I don't need to change. My original criticisms about Paul are on target.


    And you use only one verse that tells us nothing specific, while i continue to quote verse aftert verse to show you're wrong.
    You quote just a few verses. I quote about an equal number to reply. So what's the problem? Quote more verses, that way we can expand to include all of Paul.


    Then if I have distorted Paul's meaning, and Paul was an evangelist, e told the peoplethey could make no choices to get them any closer to God. Poor evangelizing. You can't start much of a religion by telling people they can make no decisions, nor perform any work to get them to god.
    That's not true. Most of what Paul wrote has to do with Jesus the redeemer for everyone. If your read Paul carefully, you'll realize what he was promoting a new religion. In essence, he said people are helpless by themselves, they can to nothing about their salvation, all is hopeless, but, wait, there is hope. If you do as I (Paul) say and believe Romans 10:9, you will be saved. I guarantee it. Paul was an evangelist, not a philosopher. He was not promoting an elitist doctrine, he was promoting a new religion. How could he could he win over Gentiles if he didn't offer salvation to all men?

    Since both you and I have agreed that christianity is full fo shit exactly because of the fact that you cannot choose God, then therre is no need to get approval from the christian community. You wish the christians were right, so you could find a flaw.
    No, I was saying to rewrite Paul you would have to get their approval, a sort of joke. I am not on a campaign to discredit Christians. I am in search of truth. All I want before I die is to know the truth about God.

    Paul was a fraud. It is difficult to understand how the NT authors could make up so many lies about God.

    Okay, you could say I am a fraud for suggesting Jesus was God. After all, I have little scripture to support such an assertion. It is interesting however that the son of God isn't in the Old Testament. I believe that speaks volumes. Why didn't the Lord God mention his son?

    The true story about Jesus (God) is Revelation 11. Paul and the other NT authors committed fraud by making up lies about Jesus.
  • 10-16-2010, 03:56 PM
    doojie

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    I have never said there is a linear process. However, contrary to what you've said about Paul, he did propose such a process. According to Romans 8:10-17, Paul makes it clear that if you accept the spirit of God through his son you will be saved. That is Paul's theology, not your theology.
    Let's look at Romans 8:10-17:
    "And IF Christ be in you..." He never said "choose Christ, and he will be in you".

    Verse 11; "But IF, the spirit of him...."

    Now these verses are consistent with Romans 8:7 and 8:29-30.

    Verse 12:"we are DEBTORS..." We owe something. We haven;t been made free yet.
    13: "For IF ye live after the flesh, but if ye THROUGH THE SPIRIT do mortify the deeds of the body..."

    What is the spirit? Paul explains it clearly through the rest of chapters 8 and 9.
    14: For as many as are led by the spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
    15: For ye have not received the spirit of bondage, but ye have received the spirit of adoption...."

    16: "The spirit beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the childsren of God".
    17: And IF children, then heirs..."

    Notice that nowhere in that section did Paul once say you could become sons of God by choice. he said IF...

    All the way up to verse 29, Paul points out that IF you are a son of God, and then, you have the inescapable statement that God already foreknows and predestines his children, which eliminates the authority of christianity.


    .

    I assume you prefer to ignore anything that contradicts your bias. Go back and read all of those verses that I posted where Paul contradicted himself.
    I have rtead evetry verse and quoted from paul himself to show you why he doesn't contradict himself. All I'm gwetting from you is an insistence that he did.

    Somehow, you'll have to magically alter Paul's writers in order to make him conform to your extraordinary bias.
    What bias? Paul went to great extremes in two adjoining chapters(or somebody did) to show us we cannot make a proper choice to get us from here to God, and the physical evidence, with 38,000 versios of christianity verifies it. Where's the bias? Jesus himself pointed out in Matthew 10:34-38 that if you ****u to follow him, it will produce exactly that very splintering and speciation. Again, verified by the facts.

    Good point and, if you have observed, I have used Mr. X, whoever it might be, to dispute with you that Mr. X contradicted himself. Mr. X happens to be Paul.
    And I have shon you direct wuoted that demonstrate why you;re full of shit, direct statements.

    There again you're selecting what you want from Paul for your own bias. Paul's central thesis, and one that most theologians accept, is that if you accept the son of God Jesus as you savior you will be saved. Romans 10:9.
    Most theologians/ First you claim christianity has no authority, and now you borrow from christianity to state your "authority". If there exists no decision procedure to get from here to God, and if you can make no such decisions, and if jesus himself said not to follow any such religion, then "most theologians" would obviously be wrong, as you have already stated.

    You're arguing back and forth to prove your own bias, then accusing me.
    There are of course many other such versus. That happens to be my favorite "loaded dice" verse from Paul.
    And you use only one verse that tells us nothing specific, while i continue to quote verse aftert verse to show you're wrong.

    I will continue to debate that Paul, although writing such verses, was primarily concerned with promoting a new religion based on a guarantee of salvation. My argument is based on actually verses from Paul. Your argument is a distortion of Paul's meaning. Paul was an evangelist, not a philosopher.
    Then if I have distorted Paul's meaning, and Paul was an evangelist, e told the peoplethey could make no choices to get them any closer to God. Poor evangelizing. You can't start much of a religion by telling people they can make no decisions, nor perform any work to get them to god.



    In order to prove I'm wrong you will have to rewrite Paul. If you do that, you will have to obtain approval from the Christian community.


    Since both you and I have agreed that christianity is full fo shit exactly because of the fact that you cannot choose God, then therre is no need to get approval from the christian community. You wish the christians were right, so you could find a flaw.
  • 10-16-2010, 03:32 PM
    doojie

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    Let's go one step further. Assuming Jesus was God and not his son, then what Mathew wrote (24:23) is of no value. You can look, but you can't find something that doesn't exist.
    Well, DUH. Of course it doesn;t exist. There are no churches you can join, no decisions you can make, that will do you any good.

    Also, all of what Paul wrote is of no value if Jesus was God and not his son. Therefore, the son of God is a phantom or, if you will, a pagan god. If he doesn't exist, Christian pray to nothing.
    First, if you consider God, whatever he/she/it/they are, you have already considerd God as omniscient. That means no matter what decisions anybody makes, from Satan on down, it won't matter, because God already knows what is going to happen. Whoever his children are, or are not, will already be known, so you have Romans 8:29-30. That cancels christianity altogether.

    Now, since God is omniscient, he would have known from the very beginning who they were, so you have Ephesians 1:4, and 1 Peter 1:2.

    If Jesus is not the son of God, we are better off believing in nothing than a false idea.
    Well, DUH, again. If Jesus is not the son of God, there is nothing you can do that will alter God;s perfect foreknowledge, and if Jesus IS the son of God as Paul said, and as Jesus taught, there is STILL no reason to follow the teachings of any man.

    Yes, Romans 10:9 does require a decision. You must by Paul's words accept Jesus (mental commitment to Jesus as Lord and savior) and for your spirit (to have eternal life). It is certainly a decision procedure, one that is of no value if Jesus Christ did not die for our sins.
    Then you will have to explain why both Jesus and Paul said clearly that such decisins are simply not given to the masses(Matthew 13:11, Romans 11:7, 11:32, John 14:17), and why Paul has clearly stad that there simply are no works you can do that will get you there.

    You're trying to disprove the Nrew testament by disproving christianity. Paul and Jesus do not represent christianity. Look at the book of Revelation. First resurrection, the elect, foreknown of God, and born of the promise. Second resurrection, the rest of the world who will THEN be judged for their works. EVERYBODY, just as Paul said, gets a second chance.

    Now, let's suppose that's a lie. Then there is no reason to believe anything since nothing is provable anyway, so you got six of one, half a dozen of the other. Paul and Jesus told the truth.


    I agree, there are no works to get you there. Neither can you get there because of Paul's guarantee. You have said that Paul didn't mean that (Romans 8:7). Well, why did he write it? I think you've lost track of Paul's purpose. He was a missionary. If it were not so, why is Paul a founding fathers of the Catholic Church,

    Bullshit. The catholic church is a total perversion of Paul's teachings. The catholics practice power in the name of the pope, the so-called vicar of Christ. The catholics teach freewill conversion, which Paul nowhere teaches, and they teach doctrines of going toheaven, when the bible doesn't teach anything about going to heaven when you die.
    and many other Christian religions? I recall this discussion before. You have selected verses from Paul to make him something that he was not.
    All I can do is tell you precisely what he said, and why the statements are correct. Romans 8:7: if the natural mind is enmity against God, then it stands to reason that the natural mind cannot correctly choose God, and there would be thousands of differing ideas about God, just as we have today. Romans 8:7 is verified by the physical evidence.

    Most Christians agree, Paul was an evangelist, not a philosopher.
    There you go, trying to argue from two contradictory positions, and trying to accuse me of it. If christianity is flawed, why do you use th4em as authorities?
  • 10-16-2010, 02:16 PM
    Cnance

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post
    Exactly.



    Okay, let's accept your POV. Paul is absolutely wrong. he contradicts himself, and christianity is a fraud. That would mean there's no point in following christianity in any form would there? Then I simply refer to Matthew 24:23. DUH.
    Let's go one step further. Assuming Jesus was God and not his son, then what Mathew wrote (24:23) is of no value. You can look, but you can't find something that doesn't exist. Also, all of what Paul wrote is of no value if Jesus was God and not his son. Therefore, the son of God is a phantom or, if you will, a pagan god. If he doesn't exist, Christian pray to nothing.

    If there is no point in following any christian religion, then obviously there is no decision procedure we can make that would justify such a religion, or logically we could simply eliminate all others. That would mean logically, that the natural mind cannot be subject to God, and no decision propcedure will get you there: Romans 8:7, Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:16-22.
    If Jesus is not the son of God, we are better off believing in nothing than a false idea.

    This in itself cancels all christian religions. You counter with Romans 10:9. Does this profess any works or decisin procedure? Any mechanical prescription by which we can organize? None. Simply profess that you are free by the sacrifice of Christ. Free from what? From God? Hardly, if God is omniscient. The only thing you can possibly be free from are the ideas of others who claim to represent God.
    Yes, Romans 10:9 does require a decision. You must by Paul's words accept Jesus (mental commitment to Jesus as Lord and savior) and for your spirit (to have eternal life). It is certainly a decision procedure, one that is of no value if Jesus Christ did not die for our sins.


    Therefotre, if you confess that jesus has died to free you from sin, there exists no human authority to say other wise. No contradiction, since you can't perform any works to get you there.
    I agree, there are no works to get you there. Neither can you get there because of Paul's guarantee. You have said that Paul didn't mean that (Romans 8:7). Well, why did he write it? I think you've lost track of Paul's purpose. He was a missionary. If it were not so, why is Paul a founding fathers of the Catholic Church, and many other Christian religions? I recall this discussion before. You have selected verses from Paul to make him something that he was not.

    Most Christians agree, Paul was an evangelist, not a philosopher. His letters were all about promoting a new religion based on Jesus. Paul's message, which I've shown in many verses, is if you accept Jesus as your savior you will be saved. That's contradicts your interpretation of Paul that "nothing, neither works or decision procedures, will save you." You are wrong, that was not the thrust of Paul's writings. What you should do is write your own holy book. In that way, you wouldn't have to deal with all of the contradictory verses.

    If you believe otherwise, show me the works. Show me a linear process of decisions that lead from here to God, and I'll concede. You can't, therefore Paul must be correct when he says it is by grace and not works that you are saved.
    I have never said there is a linear process. However, contrary to what you've said about Paul, he did propose such a process. According to Romans 8:10-17, Paul makes it clear that if you accept the spirit of God through his son you will be saved. That is Paul's theology, not your theology.

    Any time you can show me a system of decisins that lead provaly to God, I'll concede.
    Why bring it up. I never said it's possible. On the other hand, I don't believe humans have salvation. It's the good news message from Paul and other NT authors that has perpetuated the lie. I don't find such guarantees in the OT. The OT doesn't make such guarantees. The truth is a bitter pill to swallow. Humans would rather believe a lie than know the truth.

    I keep asking, contradict himself how?
    I assume you prefer to ignore anything that contradicts your bias. Go back and read all of those verses that I posted where Paul contradicted himself. Somehow, you'll have to magically alter Paul's words in order to make him conform to your extraordinary bias.

    Again, let's assume Paul never wrote any of it. Let's say some well meaning monk wrote it. The next question, is it true or false, regardless of who wrote it. Would E=MC^2 if someone besides Einstein had written it? Would it matter, as long as it correspnded with what we cna demonstrate?
    Good point and, if you have observed, I have used Mr. X, whoever it might be, to dispute with you that Mr. X contradicted himself. Mr. X happens to be Paul.

    Somebod claiming to be Paul wrote that the mind cannot be subject to god, that God foreknew all his children in advance, that there is nothing we can do to demonstrate any closer relatin to God than any other person.

    Prove it wrong. You haven't done it yet. Whether paul wrote it or not is irrelevant.
    There again you're selecting what you want from Paul for your own bias. Paul's central thesis, and one that most theologians accept, is that if you accept the son of God Jesus as you savior you will be saved. Romans 10:9. There are of course many other such versus. That happens to be my favorite "loaded dice" verse from Paul.

    Again, you need to write your own book to support your bias. While I accept in principle what you've proposed, I will continue to debate that Paul, although writing such verses, was primarily concerned with promoting a new religion based on a guarantee of salvation. My argument is based on actually verses from Paul. Your argument is a distortion of Paul's meaning. Paul was an evangelist, not a philosopher.



    Go for it. I'll still prove you wrong.
    In order to prove I'm wrong you will have to rewrite Paul. If you do that, you will have to obtain approval from the Christian community.



    Exactly as explained above. Now, would you be less free if you did NOT believe? What, exactly, would be changed? You'd still die, you'd still probably suffer the same old trials, nothing demonstrably would change.
    [/quote]

    I agree, nothing changes. Actually, my chances are better for not believing in lies.

    I've enjoyed our debate. I must confess, I dislike fraud. For me, that's a motivator. I should also mention that when I was in my twenties I made a good living as an insurance investigator. It paid for my undergraduate and part of my graduate education at a state university. I had a reputation for discovering fraud that no one else could find. I spent more time in the manager's office than any other employee. Underwriters hated me because they had to decline applicants because of my reports. The manager would reopen my case and give it to other investigators. Then, I'd end up in his office facing them. The manager would say, your report is accurate, keep up the good work. I had the highest decline rate in the office, it was a regional office of about 60 employees.

    I would take a case and do a neighborhood investigation. I'd talk to neighbors and compare different stories, then I'd follow up on leads, check court records, etc. and find reasons to decline applicants. So you see, I have a nose for fraud. I am older now, but I still think I can smoke out more fraud than anyone else. I also investigated death claims, accidents, and disability claims. It was an exciting life.
  • 10-16-2010, 05:48 AM
    doojie

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    My responses have been nothing but vague.
    Exactly.

    You spin Paul, I quote Paul. That's why we're arguing.
    Okay, let's accept your POV. Paul is absolutely wrong. he contradicts himself, and christianity is a fraud. That would mean there's no point in following christianity in any form would there? Then I simply refer to Matthew 24:23. DUH.

    If there is no point in following any christian religion, then obviously there is no decision procedure we can make that would justify such a religion, or logically we could simply eliminate all others. That would mean logically, that the natural mind cannot be subject to God, and no decision propcedure will get you there: Romans 8:7, Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:16-22.

    This in itself cancels all christian religions. You counter with Romans 10:9. Does this profess any works or decisin procedure? Any mechanical prescription by which we can organize? None. Simply profess that you are free by the sacrifice of Christ. Free from what? From God? Hardly, if God is omniscient. The only thing you can possibly be free from are the ideas of others who claim to represent God.

    Therefotre, if you confess that jesus has died to free you from sin, there exists no human authority to say other wise. No contradiction, since you can't perform any works to get you there.

    If you believe otherwise, show me the works. Show me a linear process of decisions that lead from here to God, and I'll concede. You can't, therefore Paul must be correct when he says it is by grace and not works that you are saved.

    Any time you can show me a system of decisins that lead provaly to God, I'll concede.


    Again, what I've done is cast doubt on Paul's credibility. If a man is credible, he does not contradict himself. Otherwise, we can believe nothing of what he says.
    I keep asking, contradict himself how?



    No, it is not. If Paul didn't write it, then our argument is about another author.

    Again, let's assume Paul never wrote any of it. Let's say some well meaning monk wrote it. The next question, is it true or false, regardless of who wrote it. Would E=MC^2 if someone besides Einstein had written it? Would it matter, as long as it correspnded with what we cna demonstrate?

    Somebod claiming to be Paul wrote that the mind cannot be subject to god, that God foreknew all his children in advance, that there is nothing we can do to demonstrate any closer relatin to God than any other person.

    Prove it wrong. You haven't done it yet. Whether paul wrote it or not is irrelevant.

    If you want to assume Paul wrote everything with his name to it that's fine with me. In that case, I can find even more contradictions and inconsistencies than I've already found.
    Go for it. I'll still prove you wrong.


    Again, your spinning Paul. If Paul truly meant that why did he write Romans 10:9?
    Exactly as explained above. Now, would you be less free if you did NOT believe? What, exactly, would be changed? You'd still die, you'd still probably suffer the same old trials, nothing demonstrably would change.
  • 10-15-2010, 01:05 PM
    Cnance

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post

    A vaugue response. I've responded to every specific comment you make, I can't do much by saying "Was not!"
    My responses have been nothing but vague. You spin Paul, I quote Paul. That's why we're arguing.

    Again, what I've done is cast doubt on Paul's credibility. If a man is credible, he does not contradict himself. Otherwise, we can believe nothing of what he says.



    Again, vague and useless as an argument.

    Your point?
    No, it is not. If Paul didn't write it, then our argument is about another author. If you want to assume Paul wrote everything with his name to it that's fine with me. In that case, I can find even more contradictions and inconsistencies than I've already found.



    Already explained. The promise to Abraham, which is covered in Romans 9 and shows clearly that those orn of "promise' to Abraham are the same as those born of "spirit" and are the same as the ones mentioned in Romans 8:20-30. If you compare Galatians 4:28 with Romans 8:29-30, you see that thise born as isaac are predestined as isaac, foreknown as isaac, called as isaac, etc.
    Again, your spinning Paul. If Paul truly meant that why did he write Romans 10:9?


    Everyone is ultimately saved.
    According to who? Paul apparently did not consult the Lord because it's not in the Old Testament.

    No answer to what? That Jesus was called the son of God and Lord? Whoopti do.
    Apparently you don't understand. If Paul said Jesus is the son of God, why did he all of a sudden say Jesus is Lord?


    Other verse of what? Again, vague statements. I can;t read your mind.
    What is vague? To make myself clear, I've quoted Paul. You, on the other hand, spin Paul. I have repeatedly said He contradicting himself. Then, I proof he did just that. How is that vague?





    Christianity was always false. Diversity of religion is merely further proof.
    So why include Paul? Isn't Paul part of Christianity?




    precisely, which is exactly why there is no way for any human mind to come up with THE truth about God. Therefore, you are either saved completely by grace, or you have no way of discovering the truth of Christ(Matthew 24:23, for the millionth time).
    If that is true, why quote Paul. Maybe what he said about Jesus is not true?


    Precisely. I have offered a simple proposition: there exists no decision procedure by which anyone can ever get from "here" to "God" which cancels all human ideas and leaves it totally a matter of grace, or there is no way to God in the first place which STILL leaves us free of all human concepts of God.
    That's what you've said. Paul didn't say that, or if he did, you need to delete parts what he wrote or come to terms with his contradiction, Romans 10:9). There are other such versus by Paul, but that's the most direct.
    I only need to prove a biblical concept consistent with what we can actually see. I don;t need to prove a concept for which there exists no proof one way or another. If there is no God and jesus never existed, then no need to follow any saying "here is Christ". If Jesus id exist, then he already told us exactly the same thing: no need to follow any man saying "here is Christ".
    If that is true, why bother with Paul?


    I have shown a statement consistent with demonstrable truth. You have not.
    What statement is with demonstrable truth? You've never made such a statement. This is of course if you are referring to empirical evidence. If it's about scripture, I too can play that game. My favorite game with respect to scripture is "you can't find the son of God in the Old Testament." Actually, most of what Paul asserted, you can't find in the Old Testament, except of course with reference to non-theological matters.

    Then prove whay its full of contradictions. I can't read your mind.

    If Paul was wrong, then it wouldn;t matter, would it? Since there is obviously no decision process by which we can prove any special relation to God, we would be free to do as we please. Since Paul has already stated there exists no such decision process, he has apparently stated the truth. If there are no "special elect" foreknown by God, then I cannot make a proper choice of any religion to follow God, so there's no need to do so.

    Either way, the truth is the truth. I am free in all cases.
    You don't have to read my mind, just read the words. Look up contradiction in the dictionary and then look at the verses that I've said are contradictions. Do they fulfill the dictionary definition of the word?

    I am repeating myself here. If you say Paul wrote x and I agree he wrote x, but he also wrote y, which contradicts x. that's a contradiction. Now, do you get it?

    Contradictions bother a reasonable man. Are you a reasonable man?

    [quote]
    Well, DUH.
    Well, I guess the answer is yes. Then, I expect that you'll read my responses without prejudice.




    Then all men die, and there is no judgement. I'm still free from the systems of men in either case. I don't have to rove there is a judgement, only that what Paul teaches is consistent with truth, and you have offered nothing except opinion.



    Then there's no guaranteed salvation, and we're still free to do as we please. What Paul offered pragmatically is a process by which people can claim freedom from law, both human, and God's law, to be free from penalties imposed by men. Even assuming there is no God, I can still challenge law on that very basis.
    No, I have offered nothing but Paul's contradictions. Apparently, you life on a another planet where contradictions and inconsistencies don't exist.


    [quote]
    Of course, since you can offer no proof whatever that there exists any organization that is any closer to god than any other.

    You're gonna have to do better than that.
    I don't have to do better than anything. I offer no substitute for Paul. It's already there. It's called the Old Testament. What I've maintained and proven by Paul's own words is you can't believe Paul either.

    Mostly, I hate fraud. Most of Christianity is pure fraud.
  • 10-15-2010, 11:20 AM
    doojie

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    [quote=Cnance;976564]must Furthermore, it is easy to debunk Paul because he was illogical and contradictory. It was almost as if he wanted to cover all bases so he could come back and say, Yes, of course, I can answer that. [quote]
    A vaugue response. I've responded to every specific comment you make, I can't do much by saying "Was not!"

    You can find almost anything in Paul's writings and there some doubt about their authenticity.
    Again, vague and useless as an argument.
    Scholars have cast doubt on certain writings. As an example, most scholars agree that Hebrews was not written by Paul.
    Your point?

    If you interpretation is correct, why did Paul write a contradiction. "That if you
    confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9. Then, there is even a contradiction about that verse. Paul says "Jesus is Lord," but does he mean that? Read Romans 8:29. "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his son, the he might be the firstborn among many brothers."
    Already explained. The promise to Abraham, which is covered in Romans 9 and shows clearly that those orn of "promise' to Abraham are the same as those born of "spirit" and are the same as the ones mentioned in Romans 8:20-30. If you compare Galatians 4:28 with Romans 8:29-30, you see that thise born as isaac are predestined as isaac, foreknown as isaac, called as isaac, etc.

    Here again Paul contradicts himself.
    Everyone is ultimately saved.

    There are many other versus where Paul refers to Jesus Christ as the son of God. So, why does he call him Lord? Don't come back with, it's a great mystery. That's what most theologians say when they have no answer.
    No answer to what? That Jesus was called the son of God and Lord? Whoopti do.

    If you go back to it's a mystery argument, then you have no basis for making a logical argument concerning other verses. It's clear however that word Lord is found many times in the Old Testament in reference to God.
    Other verse of what? Again, vague statements. I can;t read your mind.



    I agree Christianity is enslavement, but because it is false theology, not because there are so many versions of the same message.
    Christianity was always false. Diversity of religion is merely further proof.



    Yes, if you truly want to be free, question what has written about God.

    There is a caveat, however, since we only have one record of God's visitation to planet earth, I believe we should read the Bible. Even then, we need to be careful because we find human prejudice, biases, and ideology in the written word.
    precisely, which is exactly why there is no way for any human mind to come up with THE truth about God. Therefore, you are either saved completely by grace, or you have no way of discovering the truth of Christ(Matthew 24:23, for the millionth time).

    Only you can prove it! Nothing you've said can be proven.
    Precisely. I have offered a simple proposition: there exists no decision procedure by which anyone can ever get from "here" to "God" which cancels all human ideas and leaves it totally a matter of grace, or there is no way to God in the first place which STILL leaves us free of all human concepts of God.

    I only need to prove a biblical concept consistent with what we can actually see. I don;t need to prove a concept for which there exists no proof one way or another. If there is no God and jesus never existed, then no need to follow any saying "here is Christ". If Jesus id exist, then he already told us exactly the same thing: no need to follow any man saying "here is Christ".

    I have shown a statement consistent with demonstrable truth. You have not.



    .



    The scripture that you quote is full of contradictions and inconsistencies because Paul was full of contradictions and inconsistencies. What I suggest you do is rewrite Paul. That way you can delete or change all of those problematic verses.
    Then prove whay its full of contradictions. I can't read your mind.



    How do you know that? The word of Paul is not the word of God, it's the word of Paul, a man.
    If Paul was wrong, then it wouldn;t matter, would it? Since there is obviously no decision process by which we can prove any special relation to God, we would be free to do as we please. Since Paul has already stated there exists no such decision process, he has apparently stated the truth. If there are no "special elect" foreknown by God, then I cannot make a proper choice of any religion to follow God, so there's no need to do so.

    Either way, the truth is the truth. I am free in all cases.


    I do agree that many principles of justice and law have been given to us from the Lord. Without Paul, we find those principles in the Old Testament.
    Well, DUH.


    Says who? Paul? We don't find such references in the Old Testament. We find that humans are destined to die and seems to be the end of it. "From dust you are and to dust you will we return." Genesis 3:19.
    Then all men die, and there is no judgement. I'm still free from the systems of men in either case. I don't have to rove there is a judgement, only that what Paul teaches is consistent with truth, and you have offered nothing except opinion.

    The New testament is unique in providing false promises. Otherwise, why don't we find literal references to the son of God in the Old Testament, references to guaranteed salvation. Well, I suppose you can say that's because Jesus hadn't made the sacrifice. What a clever ploy. Now all bases are covered. Everyone should buy the "good news." It's so easy. Oh, I forgot, it's not easy. Paul didn't really mean that when he said it.
    Then there's no guaranteed salvation, and we're still free to do as we please. What Paul offered pragmatically is a process by which people can claim freedom from law, both human, and God's law, to be free from penalties imposed by men. Even assuming there is no God, I can still challenge law on that very basis.



    That makes it even easier. Now, assuming we are God's chosen, all we have to do is wait. It couldn't be any easier than that.
    Of course, since you can offer no proof whatever that there exists any organization that is any closer to god than any other.

    You're gonna have to do better than that.
  • 10-15-2010, 10:06 AM
    Cnance

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post

    It is, always has been, from the biblical perspective.

    Yes, simply because the "wages of sin is death(Romans 6:23)" and all must pay that price. Let's assume that, upon "accepting Christ", we don't have to die, everything points to eternity, etc. Would anything be required other than that simple decision? Well, if you plan on living forever, and any decision of rebellious intent would cancel that immortality, you would work very hard to do as you're told. But who would decide? God, by his perfect knowledge that transcends our human knowledge?
    First, we must clear up something. My dreams have little to do with my criticisms of Paul. If you've noticed, I have not referenced dreams in my comments about Paul. Furthermore, it is easy to debunk Paul because he was illogical and contradictory. It was almost as if he wanted to cover all bases so he could come back and say, Yes, of course, I can answer that.

    he did, and all men will have a chance. However, if you read carefully, you see that only a few are now being dealt with, because only a few will have the "balls' to queastion the system and think for themselves. The "kingdom of God" is composed of those individuals who are willing to question wrong ideas and live as individuals.
    You can find almost anything in Paul's writings and there some doubt about their authenticity. Scholars have cast doubt on certain writings. As an example, most scholars agree that Hebrews was not written by Paul.

    If you interpretation is correct, why did Paul write a contradiction. "That if you
    confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9. Then, there is even a contradiction about that verse. Paul says "Jesus is Lord," but does he mean that? Read Romans 8:29. "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his son, the he might be the firstborn among many brothers." Here again Paul contradicts himself. There are many other versus where Paul refers to Jesus Christ as the son of God. So, why does he call him Lord? Don't come back with, it's a great mystery. That's what most theologians say when they have no answer. If you go back to it's a mystery argument, then you have no basis for making a logical argument concerning other verses. It's clear however that word Lord is found many times in the Old Testament in reference to God.



    Christianity is enlavement. For further examination read essays at http://doojie23.wordpress.com
    I agree Christianity is enslavement, but because it is false theology, not because there are so many versions of the same message.

    Jesus himself supposedly said we do not need to follow any man saying "here is Christ". Therefore, we only need Jesus for the simple fact that he freed us from enslavement to ALL ideas of men.
    Yes, I agree no man understands God or the truth about Jesus.



    That is precisely why you see a description of stages, a system in which a few who think for themselves and question power are being selected now as servant/leaders who will set an example for all others later. Look at the verses Matthew 7:14-21, Matthew 13:11, 1 Corinthians 1:27-29. Thise who are the "called" are to "come out, and be separate' not join into the world's power structures, seeking fame and fortune.
    Yes, if you truly want to be free, question what has written about God.

    There is a caveat, however, since we only have one record of God's visitation to planet earth, I believe we should read the Bible. Even then, we need to be careful because we find human prejudice, biases, and ideology in the written word.

    If only you could prove it.
    Only you can prove it! Nothing you've said can be proven.



    I never said otherwise. That's why death is the penalty everyone has to pay.



    DUH? How many tiomes do I have to quote scriptures that directly contradict what you just said? Paul said you cannot form a religon, because the natural mind is enmity aganst god and cannot be subject to God. He then said it was impossible by your decision to make yourself any closer to God. he said there are no works you can perform for salvation.
    The scripture that you quote is full of contradictions and inconsistencies because Paul was full of contradictions and inconsistencies. What I suggest you do is rewrite Paul. That way you can delete or change all of those problematic verses.

    You just read something and then start the same crap all over again, because you are determined to prove some exerience in a drweam superior to logic and fact.
    No, if you notice, I have made absolutely no references to my dreams. It's all about Paul's false theology.



    First, we're not going to heaven, the kingdom of God is supposed to be right here. Second the penalty for sin is death, which we all must pay, and only a few are being selected now as servant/leader examples.
    How do you know that? The word of Paul is not the word of God, it's the word of Paul, a man.


    No, because Paul has clearly stated that we are not under LAW, which means that no law can act in God's interest or kill us because of its law. We are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Read the damn book again.
    I do agree that many principles of justice and law have been given to us from the Lord. Without Paul, we find those principles in the Old Testament.


    All men ARE, ultimately, God's children. ALL men must die. It is appointed to men once to die, and AFTER THAT, the judgement.
    Says who? Paul? We don't find such references in the Old Testament. We find that humans are destined to die and seems to be the end of it. "From dust you are and to dust you will we return." Genesis 3:19.

    The New testament is unique in providing false promises. Otherwise, why don't we find literal references to the son of God in the Old Testament, references to guaranteed salvation. Well, I suppose you can say that's because Jesus hadn't made the sacrifice. What a clever ploy. Now all bases are covered. Everyone should buy the "good news." It's so easy. Oh, I forgot, it's not easy. Paul didn't really mean that when he said it.

    God already knows who these "firstborn" are, and no dogma will change it. No human organization will change it. All peopl ewill be saved, but not by human effort.
    [/quote]

    That makes it even easier. Now, assuming we are God's chosen, all we have to do is wait. It couldn't be any easier than that.
  • 10-15-2010, 06:52 AM
    doojie

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    [quote=Cnance;976395]


    No matter how you spin it, it's still a contradiction. If, as you say, "there are no thought processes by which we can be save," then there's a worry, but is there? Didn't Jesus save us from sin, then why worry, salvation is for all men.
    It is, always has been, from the biblical perspective.

    That should be the case, but, of course, Paul was clear in stating that we must accept Jesus before we're saved. If that's the condition, is salvation therefore a free gift?

    Yes, simply because the "wages of sin is death(Romans 6:23)" and all must pay that price. Let's assume that, upon "accepting Christ", we don't have to die, everything points to eternity, etc. Would anything be required other than that simple decision? Well, if you plan on living forever, and any decision of rebellious intent would cancel that immortality, you would work very hard to do as you're told. But who would decide? God, by his perfect knowledge that transcends our human knowledge?

    I thought Jesus settled it, he paid the sin for all of us. Why should there be conditions?
    he did, and all men will have a chance. However, if you read carefully, you see that only a few are now being dealt with, because only a few will have the "balls' to queastion the system and think for themselves. The "kingdom of God" is composed of those individuals who are willing to question wrong ideas and live as individuals.

    "That's a wonderful promise and for that reason Christianity a popular religion. But is it true?
    Christianity is enlavement. For further examination read essays at http://doojie23.wordpress.com

    Yes, I understand the logic, but it is a huge stretch. There are many problems. If we're equal to Jesus because he paid the price for our sin, why do we need him.
    Jesus himself supposedly said we do not need to follow any man saying "here is Christ". Therefore, we only need Jesus for the simple fact that he freed us from enslavement to ALL ideas of men.

    Aren't we brothers? Also, if we're equal to Jesus then we too are sons of God. Actually, Paul said that. It is at this point that Paul's theology becomes totally ridiculous. Just think of God's many sons running around heaven competing for power.
    That is precisely why you see a description of stages, a system in which a few who think for themselves and question power are being selected now as servant/leaders who will set an example for all others later. Look at the verses Matthew 7:14-21, Matthew 13:11, 1 Corinthians 1:27-29. Thise who are the "called" are to "come out, and be separate' not join into the world's power structures, seeking fame and fortune.

    AI believe the truth sets you free. No human can be a co-heir with God. There is no son and no brothers of a son; therefore no co-heirs with God. There is just God and the angels.
    If only you could prove it.

    The basic truth is God is HOLY and we are not.
    I never said otherwise. That's why death is the penalty everyone has to pay.

    The assumption that we are free of sin because of Jesus is nonsense. Something NT authors made up to sell a new religion. Look at history, where is the evidence that humans have been changed because of Jesus?
    DUH? How many tiomes do I have to quote scriptures that directly contradict what you just said? Paul said you cannot form a religon, because the natural mind is enmity aganst god and cannot be subject to God. He then said it was impossible by your decision to make yourself any closer to God. he said there are no works you can perform for salvation.

    You just read something and then start the same crap all over again, because you are determined to prove some exerience in a drweam superior to logic and fact.

    If the argument is that there is no evidence until we go to heaven, that's highly illusory. Assuming we pay no penalty for our sins, what is the incentive to not sin?

    First, we're not going to heaven, the kingdom of God is supoposed to be right here. Second the penalty for sin is death, which we all must pay, and only a few are being selected now as servant/leader examples.
    For this, Paul wrote, God "will give to each person according to what he has done." Romans 2:6. Isn't that a penalty for sin? I thought Jesus paid the penalty for our sin! Again, Paul has contradicted himself.
    No, because Paul has clearly stated that we are not under LAW, which means that no law can act in God's interest or kill us because of its law. We are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Read the damn book again.


    If Jesus saves all of us because of His sacrifice, how can God have "his children," unless you mean all men are God's children, because Jesus saved everyone. Here again, we need dogma to tell us who God's children are.
    All men ARE, ultimately, God's children. ALL men must die. It is appointed to men once to die, and AFTER THAT, the judgement.

    Giod already knows who these "firstborn" are, and no dogma will change it. No human organization will change it. All peopl ewill be saved, but not by human effort.
This thread has more than 16 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •