ARCHIVE: I believe religion to be obsolete

[1PeaceMaker]

Originally posted by Balder

PeaceMaker,

I understand the point you are making about everyone being equally selfish, but I think it just isn't true that all people are equally depraved and evil.

Depravity means morally bad. The same as evil, and evil just means bad. When is a person bad? when they do something that is not considered to be good. The moral code says what is good and bad. It is that simple. Therefore the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the law, the moral code. Eating it's fruit is taking on the good/bad paradigm. This brought shame as people realized that they don't do what they think they should. So they set up a works program, which is simply put, a reward system whereby they may be rewarded for good behavior, and punished for being "bad". Now people commence the work of making themselves good by good deeds. But there is a hitch. People do what they must do. This means man is suddenly thrown into a hopeless defeat. Thus, the wages of sin is death, for men see themselve separated from the God they "know" to be good, through and through. And of course God is good, but they are locked into what they believe to be bad.

Now they must understand that THIS is why men are equally depraved. All men do what they must, and satisfy their foolishness equally. So they hide from their perfect God, denying themseves their very life! (guilt)

But we are all capable of love when we feel Loved, when we accept Love, and we respond to that Love. When you are in love with a God who only cares about your Love-motives and you know that is all that you are held to, of course you can never sin against the law of love!

You would have to stop loving God, and well, that just isn't possible, as I know from experience. God just keeps on loving you, so you can't help yourself. Kinda like Jacob and Rachel.

But even though we are in love with God, we are still people who will get mad, scared, lazy or depressed. It is who we are. If I do 1 bad action, my body is dead in the water, useless to me to pull off any remote type of action-based perfection, so any other depravity is just more flesh-weakness. Nothing really differs then from another.

Spiritually, it is just the same.

Physically, some things are way more outrageous than others, but that doesn't really matter on the eternal-scales.

Originally posted by Balder

and yet I think we go astray if we imagine in fact that all moral growth in an individual is illusory, a mere surface coating on the "crap" that is our essential nature.

For me, we are either sinners OR saints. Never both. Never in-between. I speak of that which is spiritual. Still, I think you the apreaciate the same behaviours, but I have a different priority placed on actions. I want to know only motives.

Originally posted by Balder

That position, in my mind, is also an unacceptable extreme. This is another subject for discussion, though, and may not be appropriate here.

I merely assert that behaviour modifaction for spiritual growth is an impossible goal. I opt instead for heart transformation/circumcision.

 

[Lighthouse]

prodigal-
Are you no longer interested in engaging in conversation with me?

 

[Balder]

Hi, 1PeaceMaker,

I have a few questions inspired by your last post. What you were saying was not entirely clear to me, so I'd like to get a better idea where you're coming from.

You say that a person is bad when they do something that is not good. Does this go both ways? If a person does something good, meaning they do something that is not bad, does that mean they are then good? Is it possible for someone to do good sometimes and bad sometimes? If so, does their essential nature keep changing every time they perform one or the other action?

You said that if you do one bad action, your body is dead in the water and no amount of good acts will help you. Why do you think things are weighted this way, where one bad act has eternal negative consequences, but even hundreds of good acts have nil positive effect?

Another line of questions has to do with your discussion of the Fall. You said that after the Fall, people bought into the good/bad paradigm, the reward/punishment paradigm, and then began trying to "work" their way to virtue. Are you saying that the whole reward/punishment way of thinking is a type of Fallen mindset, not representative of the true nature of reality? Because it seems most Christians are quite sure that reward and punishment are God's idea, starting at the garden when God punished Adam and Eve for disobedience, and ending with Christ's gift, where God offers people eternal rewards for faith in Him.

When you say "all men do what they must," I'm not clear what you mean here. What defines this necessity? What drives it? How do you know that people only do what they "must"? Why do you think that all human action is equally foolish?

Lastly, at the end of your letter, you intimated that I was interested in action over motivation, and in some kind of spiritual behavior modification instead of a transformation of the heart. What gave you that idea?

Peace,
Balder

 

[prodigal]

Rolf,

Not that it cannot be done, but you are mistaken, friend, when you say that there is some obligation that I prove what I say on the basis of scripture.

I dunno, Rolf. I’ve always said that you’re free to believe whatever you like, and I’m glad you have so much confidence that you believe it can be proven, but when you make the claim that it is truth you should be prepared to defend it. Folks at this site, Christians, that is, have been very forthright in their claims to possessing “proof” of the bible’s validity, but they have been more than reluctant to supply it, and for the most part they are surprised that I dare ask for them to show it.

There is no other book that precisely describes the condition of fallen man as he is even to this day and how he came to be so.

That's a bold claim. Psychology explains the condition of man as well, and so does evolution, and so do many other religions. There’s really nothing that special about Christianity. My point is that if you’re going to pass something off as indisputable, you should be prepared with the proof and the willingness to fearlessly defend it. That hasn’t happened in over five hundred posts.

In other words, you consider yourself qualified to make demands upon Him and us yet you demonstrate lack of sincerity with your utter lack of interest in the ONE SIGN that will destroy every objection to Christ if the Holy Spirit is pleased to so use it. And if He is not so pleased, there is, I promise you, NO OTHER MESSAGE!!

Rolf, it isn’t just I who is qualified. Every unbeliever has the right to question the validity of that which you call truth, especially when you claim to possess the proof to back it up. The claims you make are fantastical and many people, ex-christians and their like would like to see some sort of proof as to the validity of your claims. Dancing away from the issue by quoting scripture to someone who disbelieves in the scripture can easily be construed as an attempt to escape difficult questions.

you demand a proof of the Bible that is external to the Bible. The evidences for biblical integrity are internal--found in the Bible itself.

Rolf, if this were a court case it would be thrown out at this point. Using the bible to prove itself is circular and just not good enough. You need a second witness.

Wickwoman,

But Christians often use the "grace excuse" as an excuse to continue to be obstinate and unkind to others. Some fall back on the "I'm not perfect, just forgiven." It becomes an "out" for those who put little to no effort into being a good person

The core of their beliefs are based on “outs”, WW. Escape routes designed for dodging what normal people choose to deal with on a day to day basis, like guilt and responsibility. Christianity, fundamentalist Christianity caters to the weak willed and insecure, in short, people who aren’t strong to deal with what you and I deal with regularly.

Balder,

According to this sort of thinking, evil is what is natural; it is the only "given" in the world, and in a sense is acausally present. By divorcing evil from temporal causes, which can be understood -- and, in the light of understanding, truly healed -- evil is practically deified.

This reminds me of an idea I came to a while ago, I’d like to run it past you.

In order for the death of Christ to have any necessity attached to it, there must be a negative, such as hell. In order for the death of Christ to carry any water, hell, sin, evil and satan himself must be raised to a level equal to or greater than that of Christ.

In my opinion, Balder, there is some sort of indirect worship by Christians of sin, hell, satan, evil, etc. They must be elevated to a status equal to Christ if his death for his death to be important.
Would you agree?

Lighthouse,

It’s not that I’m uninterested in engaging with you, LH, it’s just that I’m not sure if we’re accomplishing anything. I don’t think god cares about us, I think it’s far far way, if it exists at all. You believe quite the opposite, so I’m not sure if there’s any ground we could cover that could be construed as constructive. Our presuppositions are too dogmatic and opposite for us to have a productive debate.

Clete,

I haven’t seen you for a while, buddy. Runnin’ for the hills? Tail between your legs? Lickin’ your wounds? Any other cliché that fits the situation?

I’ll be waiting for a reply, but I ain’t holdin’ my breath, just crossing my fingers.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Balder--I agree with you that generally, if not all, religions have in them an expression of man's moral difficulties, but they have various ways of handling those heartfelt deficiences.

Some tribes in remote regions beat themselves until their backs are lacerated. Those in India bathe in the Ganges river. Some in China have annual festivals wherein, with great fanfare and fireworks explosions they attempt to drive the evil spirits from their cities. Some Catholics in South America crawl miles toward shrines until their knees are bleeding.

Iwould not say that such doctrine can be found in official Catholic
teaching because early in the history of the Roman church, they encouraged those of foreign faith to bring their own earlier traditions into their practice of christendom. I am no authority on Catholic belief and practices so I will speak guardedly (as ill-informed people should) concerning their doctrines.

My point is that only historic, bible-based doctrine presents the gospel. Only Christ has made an atonement. Only Christ has been raised from among the dead, and only Christ is worthy to take the book and open its seals. Only Christ arose to be a Mediator between the Father and His people. Only Christ stands before the Father as an advocate (lawyer) for His people.

Mormonism does not rightly declare the all-sufficiency of Christ--His person, and His work. Anything in the book of mormon which approaches the border of truth was not taken directly from mormonism, but from the Bible.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Originally posted by Balder

You say that a person is bad when they do something that is not good. Does this go both ways? If a person does something good, meaning they do something that is not bad, does that mean they are then good? Is it possible for someone to do good sometimes and bad sometimes? If so, does their essential nature keep changing every time they perform one or the other action?

I am reffering to the works based mentality here. And from that perspective, doing one - 1 bad action destroys the program, because God is perfect, and since He/She is the key to life, as God is the life in us, we are seperated from His perfection by 1 bad action. It is basically saying I am not Elohiym because El is perfect, and I am not, because I did 1 bad thing.

That is the underlying failure of works-based salvation. Nobody can be as good as God under works, and therefore no one can be in full(necessary) communion with him. That is where Adam and Eve hid themselves. Their fig leaves didn't impress them.

Originally posted by Balder

You said that if you do one bad action, your body is dead in the water and no amount of good acts will help you. Why do you think things are weighted this way, where one bad act has eternal negative consequences, but even hundreds of good acts have nil positive effect?

See above. The standard we measure ourselves by is God. If we fall short, even a little, we're screwed. That is where the Messiah comes in handy. God tells us, wait, let's change this around!"How about I just give you my righteousness? I give it to EVERYONE!" Then, you see, he ties it up by saying by your words you will be justified or condemned, and if you judge others you will be condemned, because you can't say God gives it to you, but not anybody else. Hence, the "judge not" clause. You can tell others not to deny themselves Christ's righteousness, but you can't tell them they don't have it, based on their works. You can't say, "YOU are scum, I am NOT!!"

You see?

Originally posted by Balder

Another line of questions has to do with your discussion of the Fall. You said that after the Fall, people bought into the good/bad paradigm, the reward/punishment paradigm, and then began trying to "work" their way to virtue. Are you saying that the whole reward/punishment way of thinking is a type of Fallen mindset, not representative of the true nature of reality?

Yes. But the fallen mindset becomes their fate.

Psalms 82:6-7 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

Originally posted by Balder

Because it seems most Christians are quite sure that reward and punishment are God's idea, starting at the garden when God punished Adam and Eve for disobedience, and ending with Christ's gift, where God offers people eternal rewards for faith in Him.

Hence the deception. This is where pharasees and modern Christians have it wrong. God didn't punish them for breaking a law, but rather protected Himself, and all of us from inheriting this eternal selfishness, once they had taken upon themselves the law. Now, if anyone wants to go eat from the tree of Life, they must die to the flesh/works-based "goodness", and accept Love.

Originally posted by Balder

When you say "all men do what they must," I'm not clear what you mean here.

I understand that this is unclear. People just do what they do. You can attribute this to actually being forced to, or choosing to, but we all lose our tempers, menstruate, ejaculate, lust, covet. It is just what we do.

Originally posted by Balder

What defines this necessity? What drives it?

Having earthly bodies/flesh

Originally posted by Balder

How do you know that people only do what they "must"? Why do you think that all human action is equally foolish?

I was writing hastily, and I could have written that better. I must apologize. But it serves as a great example of my point. We are not perfect, in fleshly terms. And we never will be. In fact, we are very far from it, don't you think? From God's perspective, it really doesn't matter what makes you imperfect. All He cares about is if you consider yourself imperfect, because that will keep you from Him.

Originally posted by Balder

Lastly, at the end of your letter, you intimated that I was interested in action over motivation, and in some kind of spiritual behavior modification instead of a transformation of the heart. What gave you that idea?

Oh, I dunno.. Maybe it was when you said this;

I understand the point you are making about everyone being equally selfish, but I think it just isn't true that all people are equally depraved and evil... I think we go astray if we imagine in fact that all moral growth in an individual is illusory, a mere surface coating on the "crap" that is our essential nature. That position, in my mind, is also an unacceptable extreme. This is another subject for discussion, though, and may not be appropriate here.

I may have misunderstood you, but I do know a thing or 2 about Buddist works-based salvation programs. Buddism won't serve you in the long-run for this reason.

Do you still ever hurt sentiant beings for any reason?

 

[dotcom]

Originally posted by prodigal

I am my own standard for validating my senses.

What about if you are not well conversant with what you call your "own standard" prodigal ? Check this out

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Balder--while you seem to view the Bible's careful detailing of man's moral estate as excessive, unnecessary and detrimental to a more transcendent form of love, I view it as necessary so men might come to fully realize the extremity of the spiritual hazard which they are in by nature. In the words of scripture, they must be made to realize that they are desperately sick before they can truly turn to the great physician. As Jesus said, "they that are whole have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

This is necessary because (1) men--all men--by the deceitfulness of their own nature--"The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. WHO CAN KNOW IT?"--naturally think themselves better off than they are, and (2) they do not realize the extent to which God's holiness bars the way to peace with Him except for the one way of reconciliation He has provided through Christ.

Unless they fully realize the severity of the serpent's sting in the wilderness, they will not look to the remedy lifted up between heaven and earth on the accursed tree.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Granite1010-- Concerning your post # 532--Your focus iswrong, my friend. Rather than obsess about punishment, focus upon sin and the predicament all humanity is in because of it and THEN focus upon the redemption that is in Christ: the remedy to that predicament.

Rather than worry about the consequences of eternal judgement, look at all God has provided for men to have a better end! What is wrong with considering the perfect righteousness of Christ which God has provided for all those who turn back to Him to be dressed in for judgement?? How about THAT? Will THAT do for you?

How about being robed in the same righteousness which enabled Christ to overcome death and ascend to the Father? Will THAT do for you? When God has set such an abundant table in the wilderness for us, a table much better than any of us deserve, why do you want to obsess on the end of those who refuse His offers of free grace?? In this day, realize the enormity of wickedness in rebelling against such a God and turn back, my friend. Flee the evils of sin against Him in this life or be forever bound by cords of wickedness throughout an eternity in which no redemption will be offered! Every evil, every pain and difficulty which confronts in this life comes either directly or indirectly from sin. What comfort do such dry husks of the world have for you?

The keys of death and hell are on Christ's belt. While still He is not far from anyone of us, go to Him who breaks bonds of iron, opens the gates of prison, and will turn none away! Along with all His redeemed, bow gladly before the feet of Him who is worthy of all praise, honor and glory! "The spirit and the bride say, come; and whosoever will, let him come and take of the water of life FREELY! (caps mine)

 

[Balder]

Prodigal,

This reminds me of an idea I came to a while ago, I’d like to run it past you.

In order for the death of Christ to have any necessity attached to it, there must be a negative, such as hell. In order for the death of Christ to carry any water, hell, sin, evil and satan himself must be raised to a level equal to or greater than that of Christ.

It does seem like a classic sales trick, doesn't it? In order to sell the good news, you have to get people to buy the bad news first. Once they've bought it, then the good news becomes a "must have"!

Peace,
Balder

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by prodigal

Lighthouse,

It’s not that I’m uninterested in engaging with you, LH, it’s just that I’m not sure if we’re accomplishing anything. I don’t think god cares about us, I think it’s far far way, if it exists at all. You believe quite the opposite, so I’m not sure if there’s any ground we could cover that could be construed as constructive. Our presuppositions are too dogmatic and opposite for us to have a productive debate.

Your loss. Especially that you don't think God cares about us.

 

[Granite]

Rolf, I think you miss the point. The predicament mankind is in, according to you, is an eternal hell unless they accept Christ. For all this talk of righteousness and redemption, righteousness and redemption is only necessary BECAUSE of hell.

 

[Ecumenicist]

For some people, its not about the threat of hell. Its more about
the possibility of being more than mortal, finding and being one's
authentic self, finding meaning in an otherwise empty existance.

Another incarnation of evil is inactive depression - nonbeing,
walking death, mere existance.

Dave

 

[prodigal]

Dotcom,

Didn't really get what you were shooting for. Maybe you could clarify?

Lighthouse,

Just saw the picture you posted of yourself on the home page. You and I are probably around the same age, LH. I find that really interesting for one reason or another. Probably because at this age we're supposed to be looking at porn and getting drunk at parties. We're not going to be young forever, dude. You gotta enjoy it while you can.

Rolf,

You haven't responded to me. I do think that if you're going to pass off what you believe as indisputable truth you should be prepared to defend it. I do think that claiming what you believe to be fact does actually obligate you to some extent to show some evidence supporting what many would call outlandish claims.

Balder,

Thanks for the response.

 

[prodigal]

Rolf,

Unless they fully realize the severity of the serpent's sting in the wilderness, they will not look to the remedy lifted up between heaven and earth on the accursed tree.

This kinda makes my point. The "severity of the serpent's sting" is equal to or greater than the "remedy". By necessity the "serpent" and the "sting" you refer to are objects of indirect worship and facilitate the necessity of your "robes of righteousness". Without the sting of the serpent you would have no need for these robes. Without the threat of hell, you would need no salvation.

 

[wickwoman]

The only Hell to fear is the one we make for ourselves. And the Kingdom of God is in us. All we need do is clear the distractions out of the way.



Luke 17:20-21 : New International Version

20Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within[1] you."

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Granite1010, post #552: Where did I say that the predicament man was in was "the threat of hell"? The predicament man is in is his being in a state of sin and rebellion against God.

I know better than to worry about consequences when the problem is not the consequences, BUT the condition which ISSUES in the consequences. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Great Physician. He treats the disease, not its results. Obsession with the RESULTS is not a cure.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

WICKWOMAN: Your post #556: EXCELLENT

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Granite1010, post #552: Where did I say that the predicament man was in was "the threat of hell"? The predicament man is in is his being in a state of sin and rebellion against God.

I know better than to worry about consequences when the problem is not the consequences, BUT the condition which ISSUES in the consequences. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Great Physician. He treats the disease, not its results. Obsession with the RESULTS is not a cure.

If the sin and rebellion were followed by no afterlife there wouldn't be an issue, i.e., no consequences.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Prodigal: I enjoy the firmness of your position. It makes life interesting. I have spoken of the Bible's internal evidences proving its integrity. Before detailing some of them, I must say that if i engage you--even if i persuade you--on the basis of some of these evidences it will profit you nothing. The only thing that will be of any true value is the work of the Holy Spirit who creates new creatures in Christ Jesus. Therefore, before I begin, friend, understand that my motive is nothing further than an intent to answer you according to your charges lest you believe you can make some headway before intelligent people by attempting to discredit the Bible. To the contrary, Prodigal, the Bible thoroughly discredits the scientific community.

Why not begin with the creation account? If you mark the Bible's first pages everywhere you see "God said" and "it was so," the numerous marks will convince you that the Bible is testifying to creation ex-nihilo. How the "scientists" used to guffaw! "Creation ex-nihilo? Absurd!" Then Einstein wrote upon the board: "Energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared." (I apologise for not having a superscript 2). To this day, that formula stands. Men even know how to use it to create gold, but the costs of doing so exceed the price of gold. The E=MC2 formula transposes to M=E/C2>>>CREATION EX-NIHILO!! Despite the fact that no one is willing to dispute Einstein's formula, modern "science falsely so-called"(the quote is from the Bible) persists in ignoring the bible's scientific statement of creation ex-nihilo and focuses on its pet unscientific "theory" of some sudden explosion which somehow (they are not agreed upon either the "how" of the explosion or the "how" of progression from that point) resulted in all that we see today.

And THEY are spending OUR tax dollars to pursue their vain, atheistic fantasy of a world without the Christian God. Atheistic science is bankrolled by the government which is (ha! ha!) neutral in matters of religion. The difficulty they labor against is that the biblical account of origins is backed by hard science and their account is not.

Turn a few pages and you see God's statement to Abraham that the stars cannot be numbered. Oh boy!! Did your "scientists" have fun with that one! Even in the early 1900's astronomers were still ridiculing and "disproving" the Bible's statement of innumerable stars by doing just that--numbering them! They even vied for being regarded with highest esteem by reporting that they had confirmed a greater number of stars found and totaled than a previous "astronomer."

Question: has modern science caught up with the Bible yet, or does it still try to number the stars? If they no longer try to number the stars, did they have the integrity of character it took to announce that the Bible, despite its pronouncement being millenia earlier than the statements they made on the basis of their "scientific expertise," was RIGHT, and they were WRONG? Don't bother answering that, Prodigal. I know what the answer to THAT question is.

I don't like to make long posts. What do you think so far? There is more to come. As a matter of fact, I think that next I will discuss
some statements the Bible made aeons ago about a scientific reality of which scientists are just now, in state of the art science, are just BEGINNING to speak.