Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not just me. The Bible says it--specifically Ephesians 2:11-16
"Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility."
I completely agree. What was Abraham's faith in? It was in the promise that God gave to him. He had faith in God's plan of redemption -- of him blessing Abraham, and his people. God's plan is to do that through Jesus. So while Abraham was righteous by believing and looking forward to the Messiah, we are righteous by looking back at the Messiah.
Yes, it does exclude them from having to practice the Law. He makes the point in Romans that their Law-keeping did not make them righteous.
The point is that, if we read what Ephesians 1-2 says...we are not able to make that choice. John 1:12 says that those that believe have the right to become children of God, then it says that it's not even a choice made out of our own will, but of God. So God gives us the grace, and changes our hearts so that we WANT to choose him where we did not want to before.
Predestination does not invalidate the will. But the Bible clearly teaches that sinful man cannot choose God. We do not have libertarian free will to be able to freely choose God or sin. We are born with an evil heart, and we live in it until God regenerates us.
I have not suggested that we not evangelize. God uses us to preach the Gospel to all nations, (Matthew 28:18-20.
There are a number of cherries you can't overlook just to create the dish that you want. The reason that the Jews (Paul says) werer in enmity to God (as you put it) is only because they were not righteous. Not in themselves and not in the observance of the law. Whether that's a fair accusation or not (the OT quotes he uses are certainly unfair) his argument is not that all Jews, (and certainly not the gentiles) were at war with God -only if they were unrighteous. This line doesn't really stand up, but then Paul isn't very sound. But it is his argument.
And you are quite wrong about keeping the law. Romans 2.12 on makes it clear that those who are Under the Law will be judged under the Law. I'm sure there is a passage that says Jews are obliged to observe the law and note Galatians 5 saying that anyone who is circumcized is obliged to keep the whole Law. Now can you claim that Faith in Christ excludes them from observing the law?
I don't deny that is what he would like to do - say that Belief in Jesus means that a Jew becomes not a Jew and the law ceases to apply, and that's certainly the Christian view now. But that wasn't the view at the time, and remember in Acts where such a fuss is made to show Paul and doing nothing to wean Jews away from Jewish observance.
I certainly don't see Ephesians as saying that we can't make the choice. The gift and the credit is God's but the choice is ours, it has to be, or why should those who choose wrong be punished for it? And John? it talks of the people who whom Jesus came receiving him or not. What's that but a choice? Are you saying that Jesus was rejected by the Jews because God hardened their hearts (Pharoah like) so they had no choice? Where's the justice or free will in that? How can you punish manipulated puppets like that unless you are a Psychotic beast? You have to believe that people DO have a choice (in theology) or the the whole Dogma is rubbish.
Galatians 3 Gal 3:10
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Gal 3:12
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Is remonstrating with those who are being persuaded to embrace Jewish law. Paul has to rehearse hos whole argument that for those not adopting Jewish law (Gentiles) they could simply become Righteous through Faith in Jesus, but those who had accepted Jesus -if they are persuaded to the Law (say circumcision) become obliged to observe the law entirely or sin.
That hardly looks like the doctrine that Jesus faith releases the Jew from Mosaic Law, even though he later seems to believe that it does. But then Paul was capable of arguing it whichever way it suited him.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-12-2018 at 06:51 PM..
There are a number of cherries you can't overlook just to create the dish that you want. The reason that the Jews (Paul says) werer in enmity to God (as you put it) is only because they were not righteous. Not in themselves and not in the observance of the law. Whether that's a fair accusation or not (the OT quotes he uses are certainly unfair) his argument is not that all Jews, (and certainly not the gentiles) were at war with God -only if they were unrighteous. This line doesn't really stand up, but then Paul isn't very sound. But it is his argument.
And you are quite wrong about keeping the law. Romans 2.12 on makes it clear that those who are Under the Law will be judged under the Law. I'm sure there is a passage that says Jews are obliged to observe the law and note Galatians 5 saying that anyone who is circumcized is obliged to keep the whole Law. Now can you claim that Faith in Christ excludes them from observing the law?
I don't deny that is what he would like to do - say that Belief in Jesus means that a Jew becomes not a Jew and the law ceases to apply, and that's certainly the Christian view now. But that wasn't the view at the time, and remember in Acts where such a fuss is made to show Paul and doing nothing to wean Jews away from Jewish observance.
I certainly don't see Ephesians as saying that we can't make the choice. The gift and the credit is God's but the choice is ours, it has to be, or why should those who choose wrong be punished for it? And John? it talks of the people who whom Jesus came receiving him or not. What's that but a choice? Are you saying that Jesus was rejected by the Jews because God hardened their hearts (Pharoah like) so they had no choice? Where's the justice or free will in that? How can you punish manipulated puppets like that unless you are a Psychotic beast? You have to believe that people DO have a choice (in theology) or the the whole Dogma is rubbish.
Galatians 3 Gal 3:10
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Gal 3:12
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Is remonstrating with those who are being persuaded to embrace Jewish law. Paul has to rehearse hos whole argument that for those not adopting Jewish law (Gentiles) they could simply become Righteous through Faith in Jesus, but those who had accepted Jesus -if they are persuaded to the Law (say circumcision) become obliged to observe the law entirely or sin.
That hardly looks like the doctrine that Jesus faith releases the Jew from Mosaic Law, even though he later seems to believe that it does. But then Paul was capable of arguing it whichever way it suited him.
It is that people take one REALLY STUPID argument and they try and put all the law under this same argument. That argument was about salvation, and to say somebody had to be circumcised to be saved IS JUST STUPID, having said that, anyone who converted to Judaism were ZEALOUS to keep the law. That one stupid argument doesn't reflect the beauty of wanting to follow the law. Paul himself took people to be circumcised and if Paul ever taught any Jew not to follow the customs of Moses, he needs to die as a false prophet.
The thing is this, MOST ANY PERSON cannot get out of this ignorant STUPID idea that keeping the law puts you under the curse of the law.
INTENTION IS EVERYTHING,.
If you are zealously keeping the law and teaching others to keep the law while you tell them that the punishment of not keeping the law has been taken away, it makes you and any other NORMAL person ZEALOUS to keep any law they can, there is NO PUNISHMENT.
Then imagine bringing in one REALLY STUPID Jew saying,'' LOOK GENTILE, you can't be saved unless you get circumcised.''
OF COURSE that is stupid, but OMG, Don't let it reflect on the people who keep the law ZEALOUSLY BECAUSE the punishment has been lifted. OF COURSE, that is you tell ANYONE that they have to keep a law to be saved, THEY ARE STUPD, and they bear NO WITNESS against Gentile and Jews who LOVE the law and how they are so zealous to please God BECAUSE THEY NO LONGER HAVE TO.
NOW, keeping the law is spiritual in order to learn who Messiah is and who Israel is for all these Gentiles becoming Israel and rejecting the ways of other gods as they glorious came up to the Tabernacles to keep the Jewish feasts BUT NOT OUT OF FEAR.
Understand that BIASED CHRISTIANS who hate the law try and make it illegal to have zeal for keeping the law, BECAUSE they take that one stupid debate about Salvation when Salvation DOESN"T EVEN ENTER THE CONVERSATION.
It doesn't apply to everyone who wants to please God, AND THEY WANT TO NOW BECOME ZEALOSU TO KEEP THE LAW BECAUSE THE PUNISHMENT HAS BEEN LIFTED.
BUT STUPID PEOPLE TAKE EVERYTHING IN THE LAW AND TRY TO MAKE IT VILE AS IF WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO PLEASE GOD, EVEN AFTER HE HAS LIOFTED THE CURSE, AND AFTER THIS CURSE HAD BEEN LIFTED, WHAT INSANE PERSON WOULD NOT TRY AND PLEASE gOD WITH THE LOVE HE HAS SHOWN YOU? hE ONLY HAS ONE WAY AND DAMN THE TORPEDOES, HE HAS SAVED YOU, DO YOU NOT EVEN OWE HIM THE SIMPLEST RESPECT FOR BECOMING YOUR LOWEST GREEDY COWARDLY SIN THAT HE BORE FOR YOU?
AND HAVE WE HAVE SURE IGNORANT PEOPLE WHO TRY AND TAKE A SAYING ABOUT CIRCUMCISION AND SALTION WHEN NEITHER ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER, BUT NOW EVEN LOVOING YOUR NEIGHOR AS YOURSLEF HAS BECOME LOATHSOME BECAUSE THIS IS THE WILL OF GOD, AND PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS WHO ARE SELFISH AND WANT EVEN ADMIT THE GOOD THINGS OF THE LAW THAT JESUS CAME AND DIED FOR YOUR A SORRY SELF, YOU EVEN INULT THE WORD OF GOD SAYING,'' I HAVE NOTHING TO REPENT OF, SEE, THE LAW WILL NOT JUDGE ME, BUT THE LAWH HAS already JUDGED EACH ONE OF YOU. YES YES, BGRING YOU DEBATE ABOUT HOE SOME STUPID JESUS SAID YOU HAD TO BE CIRCUMSIXED
my god my lover, my hope, is this what you look for, a people who have created their own laws against the Holy Lord of Host and general of the armies of Heaven, O Lord, how long sir, how long will this evilness continue Lord, they say what is unrighteous and they call it righteousness, and they call what is righteous, unrighteous. Dear Lord, you supposed followers are calling you a Babylonian lawless God, they are calling you a Tyrrant who crushes your own people O lord. Dear Lord, when will you lift up your own people and make the world come to kneel at their feet and no that you have loved them?
The time is now O Hashem, bring your vengeance against those who would destroy your people Israel and make Jerusalem the highest of mountains that all people will stream to. Dear Lord, THIS YEAR IN JERUSAMEM LORD, THIS YEAH, YEA, THIS YEAR IN JERUSALEM, this year in Jerusalem, this year in Jerusalem, this year in Jerusalem.
Let it be stern warning to all you anti-Semites who think you have replaced the chosen of God, THIS YEAR IN JERUSALEM,'' SAYS I.'
Look around in the News and tell me what you see?
We are witnessing history being made where EVERYING will change, the enemies of Israel will be sought out and killed as enemies to human kind itself whether we bomb them, shoot them in the face or beat them to death will a shovel, we will no longer stand for a mentality of oppression against any civil person.
This is the decade of reckoning when the people from Iran to the people of Egypt begin to change from brutal oppression to primitive stage of civility.
This is the year everything changes.
The world is about to unite although it may seem impossible, they will have but one cause that wull bind them to all humans.
This is the year, this is the beginning of the beginning of the great revile, there numbers are so vast as to not being counted, and the sheer number of them will overwhelm until a new Jerusalem is created and.
Not just me. The Bible says it--specifically Ephesians 2:11-16
"Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility."
That doesn't seem to specifically or explicitly defend your position that we are born at war with God. It seems to indicate that there were outcasts, "the uncircumcision" who were "alienated from the commonwealth of Israel." It seems that these people were bitter and hostile as indicated by phrases such as "killing the hostility." The causes of this lack of peace that you claim is not because these people were born at war with God. It was a result of not being part of the chosen people. Reading comprehension is already difficult for me and even more so when it comes to the Bible. If there is some word or phrase that I missed that indicates "birth" and "at war" please point it out to me.
This specific part of the Bible may have spoken to you personally and answered some specific question you may have had. But I can't think of a single question that this passage would have led me to conclude that we are at war with God, especially when born.
One question I can think of that this may answer for me is "Can Gentiles be saved and go to heaven?"
On the other hand the post you're responding to suggests that people who change religions "more than once" are the only ones thinking. If meant literally, that is an absurd assertion.
This implies that at least two false starts are required to find a belief system that is supportable and/or works for you personally. I don't think that's at all necessarily true. Nor is it necessarily a great idea; life is short, and thrashing around in religion-land is not the best way to spend it.
In my case I left my religion of origin because it's based on a failed epistemology (religious faith) that does not tend to move one closer to a clear view of reality. A careful review of all the major religions revealed the same problem. Meanwhile over the years I've found a far better epistemology (expressed in rationality, empiricism, the scientific method) that accurately explains experienced reality and accurately predicts outcomes of various actions. This solves the problem -- and the things that remain unknown / unexplained are clearly identified and owned as such and, I see no explanatory power in religious ideation that would shed any light on those matters. On the other hand I see a lot of potential in rational inquiry to eventually shed light on them, and am perfectly comfortable admitting ignorance about it in the meantime. These areas are also not terribly relevant to every day living, e.g., origin of life from non-life.
I have recently and provisionally modified my thinking to allow for the possibility of seeking community and refuge among the liberal religious, to the extent I can engage in that with intellectual honesty and without being a second-class citizen. I have no expectations of this providing me with supportable new information about life or purpose or meaning, etc., only of providing the main thing religion is actually good for: community. That is a social good that does not need god to explain it, but sometimes, because religion is so entrenched for so long in the larger society, is most easily obtained through a social circle that happens to be centered on a religious tradition.
At any rate this experiment does not to my mind qualify as a second "change of religion", merely a softening toward some very watered-down aspects of religion as a possible source of something useful such as feeding the hungry in our community. I remain an atheist and in many respects an anti-theist. I am simply finding common cause with liberal believers, which, actually, secular humanists and atheists have a tremendous amount of.
My parents were catholic and they raised us kids catholic, they sent us all to catholic school, but my brother and I are the only ones that this really didnt 'take'. I fought them tooth and nail growing up about school and church, I did not want to go, but they forced me to.
All this did was make the catholic religion less desirable to me and my brother and now as adults, we are not catholics anymore. Being forced into it probably had a negative effect looking back, I wish they had let me make up my own mind about my faith and religion.
I didnt like how much the catholic faith tended to benefit the secular world and vice versa, We always heard how much catholics were hated and despised for what they believed in, but in the real world, thats not the case, at least where I live, catholics are very well respected, even by those who do not share the same beliefs, the city gets along great with the church and pretty much every other church in the area as well...thinking about it, this should be the opposite.
Im now leaning towards Panspermia, I think thats the most logical explanation for us and our creation, but Im not entirely sure those who created us, should be literally worshiped as gods.
Im now leaning towards Panspermia, I think thats the most logical explanation for us and our creation, but Im not entirely sure those who created us, should be literally worshiped as gods.
It really just kicks the can down the road: who created the creators? I think all solutions to this infinite regress miss the point: we simply don't know how life arose from non-life, and won't know until we do. In the meantime we need to sit with that uncertainty until it can be legitimately resolved. It honks humans off no end when they can't figure out an answer to an interesting question, and that leads to all sorts of premature speculation and wild theories.
I do know where I think the supportable answer is going to come from. Hint: it's not religion. Religion will never have more than it currently has -- unfalsifiable assertions.
It really just kicks the can down the road: who created the creators? I think all solutions to this infinite regress miss the point: we simply don't know how life arose from non-life, and won't know until we do. In the meantime we need to sit with that uncertainty until it can be legitimately resolved. It honks humans off no end when they can't figure out an answer to an interesting question, and that leads to all sorts of premature speculation and wild theories.
I do know where I think the supportable answer is going to come from. Hint: it's not religion. Religion will never have more than it currently has -- unfalsifiable assertions.
Not another Abiogenesis debate, I hope We really don't know, but the universe does Not liiked designed, despite claimns that it does, and life looks evolved despite denials that it doesn't.
I/D-I/C has failed as science or anything really than Genesis -literalist Creationism. Cosmic Origins and origins of life and indeed consciousness are far from explained, but I have seen over the past few decades, the case for natural origins in al three cases get stronger while the Goddunnit loby has nothing, and what evidence it had has been invalidated.
But it's al really irrelevant to the debate. Mordant is right - panspermia simply kicks the can down the road. If Life didn't evolve here, but arrived on a meteorite, where did ity originate? In fact while panspermia is useful as a welcome alternative to the Only Two Claims there are, I suspect that it more to do with someone who has been sold the 'statistically impossible' argument (which is flawed) while not withing to acept Goddunit as the only alternative.
I don't mind the Panspermia argument, and will accept strong evidence for it. There is none.
But, asI say, it's irrelevant because even if you say 'a god', which God? The Christians will of course say there is only One, but that kicks the can down the road, too. Which one? Let me cut the cackle - the leap from a sorta-god to a spefic God is the leap of faith and it is invalid an unjustified.
If assumin 'a god dunit' for life, the universe and everything is invalid, 'Biblegod dunnit' is even more so. The response or rationale of course has to be 'The Bible'. The bible maked Biblegod the 'Only One God' they say is the creator, and that stand or falls on whether the Bible is credible. That - not Cosmic origins or Abiogenesis - is the real argument and always has been.
I'm always amused (and bemused (1) by how quickly any debate is met by 'Well, Who made everything, then?" because they know that the only answer we really have id 'Don't know" (2). In Theist -thinking, that means that Goddunit and by a further unjustified assumption - Biblegod dunnit - is the default theory.
It isn't and never has been
(1) I can't wait to find out what Cimused means.
(2) I'm always reminded of a Dillahunty debate with some preachifying plonker who made a point in in his presentation of sneering at the atheists' 'We don't know". What he didn't know was that it is the logically correct and true answer (at the moment) and his 'Well BibleGod, of course" is the logically invalid and wrong one. And it's becoming more invalid and wrong all the time.
The problem is that most other people don't know it either because they instinctively think mythologically ("What's doing that?"
"A big invisible human")
rather than rationally. No idea - but let's wait for science to tell us..perhaps.
We have to evolve a bit through rationality as part of education, before we give up kneekerk superstition for skeptical rationalism.
Well, until science can tell us how something comes from nothing, design is the only explanation.
No, I thought it was obvious. The only choices are unsupported or supported assertions.
You can mischaracterize it as a question of "something from nothing" if you want, but that's a false dilemma.
Life arising from non-life is not something from nothing. It's something from something.
As for ultimate creation, physics and math increasingly point to the eternality of the universe, and the breakdown of time as we know it at the extremes of the BB and heat death. "How did something come from nothing" is most likely the wrong question. And a begged question at that. It assumes there aren't multiple possibilities.
In any case ... even if that were the right question, "it just did, because god" is hardly any sort of answer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We really don't know, but the universe does Not liiked designed, despite claimns that it does, and life looks evolved despite denials that it doesn't.
