"Not a true Christian"

[johnnyrodgers20]

It's also worth noting that this isn't the first time in human history or in modern scientific history we've not had a full explanation for something. At no time has positing a supernatural explanation ever helped solve a mystery. It's just replacing a mystery with another one.

 

I can see no other reason for our complete lack of defense this past week against Northwestern than the Flying Spaghetti Monster had deliberately slowed down our defensive backs.

 

 

Or Pelini (DC) had the same D for the whole game and NW figured it out in the first quarter. You know Einstein said insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

[johnnyrodgers20]

I see, so why did you pick Jesus to follow?

 

By background is in Christianity, and I was very familiar with the teachings of Jesus.

 

There are many moral men in the history of this Earth!

 

Then who better would you suggest as a replacement?

 

 

I don't have a better one but there were many mortals who preached peace and love, Ghandi being one of many. I was just wondering why Pick Jesus of all men to follow. I follow his teachings also but for a different reason.

[Sub-Husker]

I don't have a better one but there were many mortals who preached peace and love, Ghandi being one of many. I was just wondering why Pick Jesus of all men to follow. I follow his teachings also but for a different reason.

 

Which ones are your favorites?

[Landlord]

This is a very, very simple idea that you are either knowingly or unknowingly twisting around. Faith is required, nothing else is. Faith, by it's very nature, leads to a desire (not a requirement) to live a lifestyle in line with the commandments and teachings of God and His word. You do not have to do these things, you want to, and if you do not want to, you may not have a regenerate heart.

 

I am not trying to twist, but let me see if I have this straight... Faith is all that is needed for salvation, and by having faith one will do good deeds and not commit unforgivable sins.

 

But we are only mortals. We have sinned in the past, and we will continue to sin regardless of how strong our faith is. How am I doing so far? I believe that Paul of Tarses would be in agreement with me.

 

All sins will be forgiven if we have faith, ask for forgiveness, and repent. I'm still doing well, I take it?

 

However here is the kicker... blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is still an unforgivable sin. If we sinned the unforgivable sin before we had faith and were "born again", was that sin washed away in the baptism by submersion (and fire)? Lastly, what if in a moment of weakness a born again commits that unforgivable sin in a moment of weakness?

 

 

Where did you get the idea that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is still an unforgivable sin, and what do you even mean by that? Give me a practical example of what exactly that means. Regardless of that, though, forgiveness from sin isn't a one-time moment -- it's a continuous, never-ending forgiveness of past, present and future.

 

And water baptism is not essential for salvation, just for clarity. It's an outward symbol of inward change; nothing more.

[The Dude]

Let me ask all of you one question. Matter can only come from other matter correct? So where did matter come from in the beginning? You can't have matter from nothing so something had to make matter who or what made matter? I mean at some point when you back far enough you would go all the way back to nothing so how did matter come to be, just curious?

 

Failure to provide a full and complete explanation of this (which is currently scientifically impossible, and may never be possible) does not mean that God exists.

Yeah it's like seeing a peculiar light in the night sky and saying "welp, must be space aliens visiting from a distant galaxy". Logically, there's no reason to jump to that conclusion.

[Sub-Husker]

Where did you get the idea that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is still an unforgivable sin, and what do you even mean by that?

 

Mark 3:29... read Jesus' words, not mine.

 

Give me a practical example of what exactly that means. Regardless of that, though, forgiveness from sin isn't a one-time moment -- it's a continuous, never-ending forgiveness of past, present and future.

 

Not being a trinitarian, my definition would likely be different from yours. The best answer I could give is in my posts 294 and 298 in this thread.

 

And water baptism is not essential for salvation, just for clarity. It's an outward symbol of inward change; nothing more.

 

I agree, and doesn't being born again mean that you have been baptized with fire from the Holy Spirit (for Christians)?

[Hammerhead]

I think the very fact that the Tree was named "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" means they didn't know what they were getting themselves into prior to eating it. How could they, if they didn't truly understand Wrong?

 

But that is entirely beside the point. A loving parent doesn't put a child in a room with a loaded bear trap. The loaded bear trap never, ever, ever gets in the room. What the heck was it doing there?

I think we are going round in circles. You believe that God is fraudulant and I believe otherwise. God placed the tree there for a reason why only he would know. The humans knew not to eat of it and they chose to do so. Maybe evil was already in the world you know the devil had rebelled against God before the earth was made. So maybe the tree was made to hold the evil in and the eating of the fruit released it.

 

It's not a question of whether or not God is fraudulent. Moreso a question of whether God exists at all.

 

 

That is the question you have to ask yourself being God is the most powerful force in the universe do you believe - Well, do you Punk (What movie is that from, movie buffs)?

 

I ask myself that quite often. I can't definitively answer the question, but as I once read on a Magic 8 Ball, "Signs point to no."

 

Let me ask all of you one question. Matter can only come from other matter correct? So where did matter come from in the beginning? You can't have matter from nothing so something had to make matter who or what made matter? I mean at some point when you back far enough you would go all the way back to nothing so how did matter come to be, just curious? Wrong movie you don't win the Cupie doll!!

 

The matter always existed, just in a vastly different state.

 

To continue, there's often argument among creationists that it's not possible that an uncontrolled, chaotic development could have possibly created life as we know it today, to which I argue that it didn't, at least not entirely. It's feasible that although very early life could've been highly unstable, in a span of millions (perhaps billions) of years, simple evolution bred more and more efficiency and stability.

 

I'm by no means saying I'm fully convinced that that's "how it is", but I think it's every bit as feasible as believing that a being that we can't sensually perceive (yet are expected to worship despite this, with a penalty of an eternally tortured life looming over our heads if we find that concept preposterous), who has existed since time itself began, created us for what appears to be "sh*ts and giggles".

 

We didn't exist before we were born. I don't see why there's any reason why we have to exist, in whatever form, after we die.

 

 

How do you know matter already existed and has always existed? That is like you telling me that believing in a God is hard to conceive. How do you prove matter always existed? You don't believe a God can exist for all eternity but matter has just always been around.

 

Occam's razor. We know that matter exists and can prove it. We don't know if a supreme being exists, and can't prove it. Saying matter has always existed in some form or another is, logically, more believable.

 

I'm not saying that makes it undeniably true, I'm saying it takes less of a leap of logic to believe.

[Landlord]

Where did you get the idea that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is still an unforgivable sin, and what do you even mean by that?

 

Mark 3:29... read Jesus' words, not mine.

 

Give me a practical example of what exactly that means. Regardless of that, though, forgiveness from sin isn't a one-time moment -- it's a continuous, never-ending forgiveness of past, present and future.

 

Not being a trinitarian, my definition would likely be different from yours. The best answer I could give is in my posts 294 and 298 in this thread.

 

And water baptism is not essential for salvation, just for clarity. It's an outward symbol of inward change; nothing more.

 

I agree, and doesn't being born again mean that you have been baptized with fire from the Holy Spirit (for Christians)?

 

 

As far as your last point, yes, although some would argue that there is a difference between receiving and being baptized in the Holy Spirit, born-again salvation, at the very least, is intimately linked with the Holy Spirit being present in your soul.

 

As far as blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, this is my best guess, but I really don't know how to properly interpret that Scripture. In v28 Jesus says that all sins will be forgiven and whatever blasphemies we may blaspheme - and then in v29 he says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can never be forgiven. What does it mean?

 

I think Jesus is explaining that all sin is forgiven through true heart-based repentance, but heart-based blasphemy against the Holy Spirit puts you beyond true repentance and therefore beyond forgiveness. However, I would make the point of clarifying that this isn't a punishment scenario, but a natural repercussion scenario, likened to "if you play with fire, you'll get burned". So with that being said, the reason that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit puts you in that kind of position while blasphemy against God the Father or God the Son or angels or scripture or anything else do not, is because of the unique and decisive role that the Holy Spirit plays in our salvation. If we blaspheme God the Father or God the Son that is bad, but there is still hope in both cases, the Father having planned redemption and the Son having achieved it, but the Holy Spirit is so essential in applying said salvation onto and into our hearts. Simply put, I would say this:

 

The unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an act of resistance that belittles the Holy Spirit so grievously that he withdraws for ever with his convicting power so that we are never able to repent and be forgiven.

[Landlord]

I think the very fact that the Tree was named "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" means they didn't know what they were getting themselves into prior to eating it. How could they, if they didn't truly understand Wrong?

 

But that is entirely beside the point. A loving parent doesn't put a child in a room with a loaded bear trap. The loaded bear trap never, ever, ever gets in the room. What the heck was it doing there?

I think we are going round in circles. You believe that God is fraudulant and I believe otherwise. God placed the tree there for a reason why only he would know. The humans knew not to eat of it and they chose to do so. Maybe evil was already in the world you know the devil had rebelled against God before the earth was made. So maybe the tree was made to hold the evil in and the eating of the fruit released it.

 

It's not a question of whether or not God is fraudulent. Moreso a question of whether God exists at all.

 

 

That is the question you have to ask yourself being God is the most powerful force in the universe do you believe - Well, do you Punk (What movie is that from, movie buffs)?

 

I ask myself that quite often. I can't definitively answer the question, but as I once read on a Magic 8 Ball, "Signs point to no."

 

Let me ask all of you one question. Matter can only come from other matter correct? So where did matter come from in the beginning? You can't have matter from nothing so something had to make matter who or what made matter? I mean at some point when you back far enough you would go all the way back to nothing so how did matter come to be, just curious? Wrong movie you don't win the Cupie doll!!

 

The matter always existed, just in a vastly different state.

 

To continue, there's often argument among creationists that it's not possible that an uncontrolled, chaotic development could have possibly created life as we know it today, to which I argue that it didn't, at least not entirely. It's feasible that although very early life could've been highly unstable, in a span of millions (perhaps billions) of years, simple evolution bred more and more efficiency and stability.

 

I'm by no means saying I'm fully convinced that that's "how it is", but I think it's every bit as feasible as believing that a being that we can't sensually perceive (yet are expected to worship despite this, with a penalty of an eternally tortured life looming over our heads if we find that concept preposterous), who has existed since time itself began, created us for what appears to be "sh*ts and giggles".

 

We didn't exist before we were born. I don't see why there's any reason why we have to exist, in whatever form, after we die.

 

 

How do you know matter already existed and has always existed? That is like you telling me that believing in a God is hard to conceive. How do you prove matter always existed? You don't believe a God can exist for all eternity but matter has just always been around.

 

Occam's razor. We know that matter exists and can prove it. We don't know if a supreme being exists, and can't prove it. Saying matter has always existed in some form or another is, logically, more believable.

 

I'm not saying that makes it undeniably true, I'm saying it takes less of a leap of logic to believe.

 

 

 

By Occam's razor, we've never witnessed any evidence for the eternal existence of anything. Saying matter had a starting point, a beginning, is, logically, more believable.

[True2tRA]

Christianity preaches that there is only one true judge. One true judge that all of mankind will face when their life ends. Is it not sinful to put yourself in the Lord's place by taking it upon yourself to judge others? Who is anyone to judge what a true Christian is? You may think your doing everything the Lord wants of you, but if you are going around pointing out those who you don't think are living up to these so called standards, you may be the one who faces a harsher reality when you are judged by the one and only Judge.

[Landlord]

Christianity preaches that there is only one true judge. One true judge that all of mankind will face when their life ends. Is it not sinful to put yourself in the Lord's place by taking it upon yourself to judge others? Who is anyone to judge what a true Christian is? You may think your doing everything the Lord wants of you, but if you are going around pointing out those who you don't think are living up to these so called standards, you may be the one who faces a harsher reality when you are judged by the one and only Judge.

 

 

There's a difference between stating what a Christian is, and going around telling people whether or not they are Christians. Who in this thread has said that you should do that, or who has done it?

 

Furthermore, if you are a Christian and you see another Christian behaving or acting sinfully, you should righteously judge them out of love and rebuke whatever sin you see. Jesus even tells us in the Bible to "judge correctly".

[bennychico11]

 

How do you know matter already existed and has always existed? That is like you telling me that believing in a God is hard to conceive. How do you prove matter always existed? You don't believe a God can exist for all eternity but matter has just always been around.

 

Occam's razor. We know that matter exists and can prove it. We don't know if a supreme being exists, and can't prove it. Saying matter has always existed in some form or another is, logically, more believable.

 

I'm not saying that makes it undeniably true, I'm saying it takes less of a leap of logic to believe.

 

 

 

By Occam's razor, we've never witnessed any evidence for the eternal existence of anything. Saying matter had a starting point, a beginning, is, logically, more believable.

 

The whole matter/anti matter battle seems to play a big part of it:

http://www.pbs.org/w.../gleiser-1.html

 

I think matter is more seen as just a result of the Big Bang and the conditions thereafter. It was never an expected result...it just happened. I think the hardest concept for humans to grasp is "infinity". And not only that, but understanding time before time. Hawking suggested that recently...that time, energy and matter came into existence simultaneously. So asking what came before the Big Bang is insignificant, because there was no time.

If anyone caught "Through the Wormhole" series...there was an interesting theory about the beginning of the universe. Or actually that the universe has always existed. If I remember this correctly, the thought is that we exist in one of multiple geometrical planes of universes and that the universe started when two of the planes crashed into each other. The theory also suggested that this has happened multiple times and will continue to happen...essentially re-starting the universe as we know it all over again. And probably in a complete different form.

[bennychico11]

How do you know matter already existed and has always existed? That is like you telling me that believing in a God is hard to conceive. How do you prove matter always existed? You don't believe a God can exist for all eternity but matter has just always been around.

 

But then the same thing could be said about a god. What happened before god. And if a god could exists for all of eternity...why can't the universe (or in your simplification...matter?)

[knapplc]

If anyone caught "Through the Wormhole" series...there was an interesting theory about the beginning of the universe. Or actually that the universe has always existed. If I remember this correctly, the thought is that we exist in one of multiple geometrical planes of universes and that the universe started when two of the planes crashed into each other. The theory also suggested that this has happened multiple times and will continue to happen...essentially re-starting the universe as we know it all over again. And probably in a complete different form.

 

This sounds like the "branes" of string theory. I need to re-read my Greene, but basically energy/matter whatever you want to call it just is, and at times these various branes interact, and the interaction can create these bubbles where portions of the laws of one brane and portions of the laws of another brane interact, mesh, and create a universe with its own unique set of laws.

 

It's similar to what happens when a sperm fertilizes an egg. Genes from both parents interact to create a new creature made up of the parts of the parents.

 

I agree very much with your statement of the difficulty of truly grasping the infinite. Did a thought experiment on it once and it really freaked me out.

[bennychico11]

If anyone caught "Through the Wormhole" series...there was an interesting theory about the beginning of the universe. Or actually that the universe has always existed. If I remember this correctly, the thought is that we exist in one of multiple geometrical planes of universes and that the universe started when two of the planes crashed into each other. The theory also suggested that this has happened multiple times and will continue to happen...essentially re-starting the universe as we know it all over again. And probably in a complete different form.

 

This sounds like the "branes" of string theory. I need to re-read my Greene, but basically energy/matter whatever you want to call it just is, and at times these various branes interact, and the interaction can create these bubbles where portions of the laws of one brane and portions of the laws of another brane interact, mesh, and create a universe with its own unique set of laws.

 

It's similar to what happens when a sperm fertilizes an egg. Genes from both parents interact to create a new creature made up of the parts of the parents.

 

I agree very much with your statement of the difficulty of truly grasping the infinite. Did a thought experiment on it once and it really freaked me out.

 

That sounds maybe kind of like it...but it was more that these planes existed outside of each other and when they began to vibrate or sway back and forth some how, one would touch the other and create a spark/explosion/big bang/etc. I think they equated it to sheets on a clothes line blowing in the wind. But one of the sheets touches another and it sparks an energy "explosion", for lack of a better word". Hmm...I'll have to do some research tomorrow and try and find the name of it. I just remember watching it and thinking how interesting of a concept it was.