Why is it so hard to have a dialogue about homosexuality?

[cool_name123]

Please Read What My Question Actually Is Before Responding to The Title of this Post


So I've found through numberous discussions about this topic that they all tend to break down at the same point. I'll take you through what have become my 4 primary points when discussing this. I won't go into crazy detail as I'm more concerned with why the discussion breaks down where it does as opposed to rehashing this point yet again (though I'm not entirely opposed if another thread were to form or if you think I need to go into further detail somewhere to better answer my question).

1) The bible appears to be far more concerned with a Love ethic than it does a Sexual ethic. The bible is full of sexual mores, but these are more practices of the time than they are rules by which we must live. Whether or not they agree with this point isn't super important as it's more meant to give a little context and insight into how I read the bible.

2) Regardless of where you personally stand on the issue, how the church has traditionally approached the issue is very detrimental and we need to change how we approach this issue. This point, when flushed out in further detail, is meant to garner a bit of empathy towards those being affected by the church on this matter.

3) This is where the argument tends to take a more theological/exegetical turn and more often than not leads to Paul... And more importantly Romans 1:26-27... I have two issues with this text and the second is where most of my debates tend to be cut short.
a) Romans 1 cannot be understood (in my opinion) without Romans 2... It is a one-two punch, a common literary strategy used my speakers and preachers even today... One of drawing the audience in, feeding them lines they already agree with and then throwing them a curve ball to make them second guess those firm beliefs they had mere moments ago. Romans 1 basically goes, 'look at all these bad things and bad people, we would never do that, shame on them... etc' Followed by Romans 2 which basically goes 'But wait a second, What did Jesus ask us to do? Oh that's Right... Not To Judge!' Which I like to imagine is met by a 'Oh Paul, You clever rascal... You got me! I'll try and be more aware of that in the future' from the reader.
b) but even more importantly than that, is the language Paul uses... Because inevitably I get the 'But he still alluded to it being bad' Yes, but even if you take that route of twisting Paul's intent it still doesn't matter because what he is talking about is not what we know as Homosexuality. What we know as homosexuality would have been quite foreign to Paul, that is same sex loving relationships between two consenting adults. What Paul is talking about here is likely pederasty, or a more dominant kind of relationship between an adult and a child (or temple supported male prostitution). The word Paul uses here (Arsenokoitēs) is a fairly uncommon word in the Greek language that we can only really guess at the true meaning of... But given that there are other more common Greek words for same sex (ίδιου φ�λου), more encompassing terms, and given that how sex was talked about back then was generally framed in specific acts not all encompassing terms, why do we assume that the moment he decides to be quite specific with his wording (a word that is quite commonly translated as pederasty) that he is condemning an entire orientation as opposed to a particular act?

And if the argument from there becomes that they did not use language that way back then, then is it not a reasonable assumption that what we have now come to know as 'homosexuality' is not a concept that Paul would have been familiar with as if he had one would expect him to use similar language? (This paragraph here is a new addition to the argument, I haven't really fleshed that one out yet, feel free to help me develop that one too as I'm basically trying to guess at where the discussion would go from there if it didn't always end).


Anyways, it is around that point above when I start getting nice and exegetical, bringing up Greek translations and things of the sort that people tend to respond with the cold shoulder and end the conversation instead of continuing the discussion beyond there. I really want to know because the only reason my argument has developed to where it is is because people keep giving me counter points that I then go to research and return with how I might respond to said point through my lens of biblical understanding. Through discussion after discussion my points get fine tuned and honed in to say exactly what I want them to say... But now that I've got it to this point people just tend to disagree and that's the end of it... Nothing more to say... How do I respond to that? (which isn't actually the question I started with but another one I'd be curious to hear thoughts on none-the-less).

[help3434]

The latter part: If a person has never heard of the concept due to time and place where it cannot/could not be heard...then Romans 5:13 *may* apply, depending on the heart of the individual. But do not be fooled into thinking its an easy way out, for if a man has never heard of the Gospel, but is aware that he sinned (say, he murdered an enemy or something) and does not seek God for forgiveness...then it is irrelevant whether he knows the Gospel. For his lack of seeking forgiveness from the one and only God in light of knowing his sin of murder...is more than sufficient grounds that he does not qualify for Romans 5:13. See, the truth is this: A person does not need to know of Jesus in order to be guilty. He only need to know he sinned and committed wrong, for Romans 5:13 to no longer hold him unimputable (that is to say...it is still imputed). At that point, if he has not sought the one true God for forgiveness and ransom with language that would utter similar to "God if there be any way that you can save me that I cannot save myself...whatever this unknown manner may be...please, include me in it"...then he is not saved. But if he said such language, and was true to his heart, then it is possible that his ignorance shall be sufficient to apply Romans 5:13.

Well, that doesn't make much sense. How would a person know he should ask God for salvation if he has never heard of salvation and doesn't have a monotheistic concept of God?

I have to say you deceive yourself. I do not apply the meaning of sin to be anything greater than what the rest of the people in the world think of it. Namely, I know it is wrong to murder just as others know it is wrong to murder. I know it is wrong to steal, just as others know it is wrong to steal. And perhaps not everyone knows it is wrong to be homosexual (as an example)...but there is no man who is a homosexual where that is the only sin he ever committed. There is no man who does not have a multitude of sin which they commit on a daily basis, myself included. I do my best and still fail and sin a thousand times a day. All men know they sin a thousand times a day. But they choose to deceive themselves and claim that they do not sin a thousand times a day. You would be surprised how deceptive the heart of a man is even to his own self. Its fairly straight forward: If a man thinks he is not a sinner....he is bound to end up in hell because he will not seek for God to save him. He will find himself sufficient for his own salvation, and have no need for God to do it. That alone is the heart that determines who is and is not saved, in terms of demeanor of the heart.

The term "sin" as used in the Bible means violating God's will. Obviously people who don't believe in God don't believe that there is a God that has a will to violate. I am glad you brought up homosexuality because it allows us to go back to the topic of the thread a little bit. You say that being a homosexual is a sin whether a person knows it or not. What do you mean by "is a homosexual"? Are you saying feeling the sexual desires that some people naturally have is a sin?

If any man has no access to internet nor any holy books, but truly desires God, then God will send his angels to that man and make it available. You seem to have a need to create counterpoints out of some sort of need in your heart. You doubt God's ability to discern man's heart. I do not doubt God's ability and resulting command to save *exactly and precisely every single individual* that He intends to save. To you, it is about hypothesizing a scenario that would somehow counter-ject the surity of the Gospel, perhaps in an attempt to make it appear unfair. But there is no unfairness in it. For where there *could possibly be* unfairness...God will interject supernaturally, automatically. And He has plenty of times. All of those poor individuals that you are constructing in your hypotheses...if they did not receive a supernatural event...it is because they did not seek God for salvation from their sin, and thus it is all fair.

Again with the idea that people should be expected to seek out salvation even if they don't know the Bible. How does it make sense to expect for people who don't have a concept of salvation to seek for it? Even if we do understand the concept, why should be believe that it is even a valid concept in the first place?

There is no copout. There is only hope to search for a copout. I do not know if the intent is to make the Gospel appear unfair, or if the intent is to have pity for a group of people who do not ask for Jesus. But I assure you, those who you have in mind...God has already fairly determined their salvation or lack thereof.

Should a Muslim pity you because do not believe that Muhammad is God's prophet? Should a Buddhist pity you because you do not follow the practice of non-attachment? The whole concept that a person who does not believe in Christ should know that they should seek Jesus does not make sense. You can claim that God's salvation is fair all you want, but if God condemns or saves people entirely on the basis of whether they believe something or not then it is unfair.

I have not heard of this person. My studies involve some knowledge of Vedic scriptures (though not much), of new age material, of Islam, of Mormonism, of Judaism, somewhat of Buddhism, somewhat of Hinduism. The primary reason Christianity is the most of my research is that, when I was young and blind, it was the only religion which had its origin in "love thy enemy, and thy neighbor as thy self" of which later religions would copy.

Were the majority of people in your hometown at least nominal Christians? Could that be the reason that Christianity is the religion you are most familiar with?

But in addition to that, I have met the angels, I have met the Spirit of God face to face, and I have swum in His Holy Spirit of Life in a way that was spiritually tangeable in the 5 senses. So, I am far more convinced than just by logic alone...but by the evidence of the senses in addition to the logic, in addition to my experience. But since you mentioned a name, I will take time to research that man's thoughts.

Did the Spirit of God tell you that the Bible is His word? Maybe you have experienced all that, but I haven't. Would it be fair me to be condemned for not believing?

This is a claim attempting to assert that a person does not have responsibility for their own decisions and their own beliefs, as if they do not have free will to control and decide their beliefs. All people always do.

People can only choose their beliefs to a certain extent. It would probably take room 101 level torture for me to build up enough cogitative dissonance to choose to believe that 2+2=5. If you believe all people always have the ability to choose to believe, then try to make your self choose to believe that 2+2=5 right now. Can you do it? Shouldn't people choose to follow where the evidence takes them?

Exceptions occur only for those who are children, mentally handicapped, or of pure ignorance of the heart...in which all 3 examples Romans 5:13 is fully sufficient. You really do not have any excuse for making the claims you are making about my beliefs, regarding implications. Create whatever specific examples you desire to create to test me on the bounds of what I speak. I am willing to reveal.

If an omniscient being really exists then we would all be retarded compared to that being. Shouldn't we all be let off the hook? Read a psychology book. People hallucinate, suppress memories, create false memories, go in denial, believe things for irrational reasons, react to things irrationally, experience cognitive dissonance, become mentally ill, ect. The idea that a Supreme Being would condemn or reward human beings on the basis of whether they believed a certain thing or not is one of
the more ludicrous and grotesque theological concepts that can be dreamed up.

God is perfect and just, and Romans 5:13 provides more than ample space to maintain that perfection and justice for the ignorant. You have yet to prove that you can show otherwise.

You have yet to show that judging based on belief is the best criteria or even a valid criteria.

And none of the passages that talk about repentance, good works, sinning, traditions, and rituals....none of them say that they are required to obtain salvation. None of them. So if your argument is to say "there are so few passages which claim the only thing relevant to salvation is believing that Jesus is God and Savior who rose from the dead" then please recognize that a few passages declaring that....are up against 0 passages which claim otherwise. You literally have *ZERO* scripture to argue that repentance, good works, remission of sin, or upholding traditions are required for salvation. So there are a few which define the salvation plan explicitly and succinctly. And there are none which contend with those few.

Once again we disagree on the meaning of Matthew 7:21. I think it pretty clearly says that doing the will of the Father is a requirement to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Acts 17:30 says ", "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent." Seems like it is the will of God that everyone repent. If they do not they are not doing the will of the Father, and thus are not saved according to Matthew 7:21.

Do not attempt to argue that because there are only about 20 scriptures which define salvation as free...that it somehow is counterpointed by other scriptures. There are no scriptures which declare that salvation is not free.

You say that someone must choose to believe in order to be saved. I would not call brainwashing one's self to choose believe something you don't believe to be free. In fact I would call giving up intellectual integrity a high price.

There are no scriptures which state repentance is required for salvation. There are no scriptures which declare good works are required for salvation. There are no scriptures which declare tradition is required for salvation. None.

Is it the will of the Father that people should repent and do good works?

"And of course not everyone agrees with you interpretation on what is necessary to be saved."

You bear false witness against me. For I have not given an interpretation at all. I cited the scripture. I believe the scripture for what it says, with no interpretation.

I am not bearing false witness against you. Everyone who has a biblical theology either interprets the Bible or adopts other people's interpretation. Anyone who reads the Bible and tries to understand what it says whether they believe it is true or not interprets the Bible.

If Matthew 12:31 says:

"31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men."

Then that is exactly my doctrine. I did not write Matthew 12:31. But you would argue that I have interpreted Matthew 12:31 to mean what Matthew 12:31 says in and of itself. You are trying to convince yourself that I somehow am interpreting Matthew 12:31 to mean what it says as if I wrote it. But I did not write it. I just believe exactly what it says.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "interpret". "Interpret" means to explain the meaning of something. Therefore if I say you interpreted something I am not saying that you wrote it yourself. To say you interpret Matthew 12:31 to mean what Matthew 12:31 says doesn't make sense because Matthew 12:31 doesn't explain what concepts such as sin, blasphemy, Holy Ghost, and forgiveness mean.

If Romans 11:6 says:

6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Then that is exactly my doctrine. I did not write Romans 11:6. But you would argue that I have interpreted Romans 11:6 to mean what Romans 11:6 says in and of itself. You are trying to convince yourself that I somehow am interpreting Romans 11:6 to mean what it says as if I wrote it. But I did not write it. I just believe exactly what it says.

If John 12:44-48 says:

44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.

46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Then that is exactly my doctrine. I did not write John 12:44-48. But you would argue that I interpreted John 12:44-48 to mean what it says in and of itself. You are trying to convince yourself that I am somehow interpreting John 12:44-48 to mean exactly what it says as if I wrote it. But I did not write it. I just believe exactly what it says.

What you fail to recognize is that you are relying on your ability to strawman me, accusing me of interpreting what is already explicitly written. You hate what is written, so you wish to say I am interpreting it to mean exactly as it is written...so that you can say I am misinterpreting. But I am doing absolutely no interpreting. I am reading it as it states. How am I to convince you you are wrong if you reject exactly what it states? How am I to convince you that its not me misinterpreting, but you refusing to believe that it means what it actually states?

You have gone off on a long tangent based on a misinterpretation of what interpretation means. Kind of ironic.

"Leads to" is not equivalent to "a requirement to obtain." You have misinterpreted, as a result, by equating the two in your own mind. Thus, you have not proven a point. You have no scripture which says "repentance is a requirement to obtain salvation" and you have no scripture which says "we are saved by repentance"...so you rely on scriptures which do not declare those things, and argue that they somehow mean those things when they do not say those things.

If repentance leads to salvation it is hardly irrelevant to salvation.

I can just as equally point out the verse which *explicitly* disproves your belief that repentance is a requirement of salvation...but will you heed it?

I reject the concept of salvation altogether. Still, I like to understand what the Bible says even though I don't believe that everything it says is actually true.

Romans 11

28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

What is the topic of the entire context of Romans 11? Salvation. What is salvation called? It is called the gift and calling of God. What is verse 28 discussing? The gospel message. What is verse 29 stating is given WITHOUT repentance?

Its right there in black and white. Will you deny it? Or will you accept it for what it says?

Judging by how other translations word verse 29 I would say that verse 29 means that God will not withdraw His gifts and callings. It appears you have misinterpreted verse 29 despite your claim that you don't interpret at all. Understanding a hundreds of years old translation of documents that are thousands of years old and written in a culture you did not grow up in is not the black and white affair you are making it out to be. Heck, people argue over the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and that it a more recent and simpler document.

" and John 3:5 says no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit"

A totally irrelevant passage to supporting your point. I believe no man can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. It does not run counter to anything I have stated thus far. A man is born of water when he is born of the womb of a woman. A man is born of the Spirit when he accepts Jesus as his Savior, for that is when the Holy Spirit comes upon a man and enters into him. Please notice how the word "repentance" is totally and utterly void in John 3:5. This discussion is about repentance, not about the Holy Spirit coming upon a person. Perhaps you are confused about what you think it means to have scripture that supports your point of view in contention with another point of view.

If being being of water refers to being born the first time rather than being reborn through baptism then why bring it up? People can't help being born. In fact it is redundant since the subject is "Man" rather than "Angels". John 3:5 says what is necessary to be saved, but it does not say it is sufficient, so I don't see how the omission of repentance in this verse voids it as a requirement for salvation.

"Okay, maybe they are not equivalent, but the verse is clearly contrasting those who merely say "Lord, Lord" with those who do will of the Father"

Nowhere does scripture say a person must become obedient to God in order to obtain salvation. John 12:44-48, infact, says the explicit exact opposite. There is a scripture which declares no man can enter into heaven without obeying God...but that is not the same thing as saying a man cannot be saved without obeying God. Perhaps you think they are the same, but they are not. For one refers to the condition of a heart of a man in order to receive salvation. But the other refers to the actual day when souls enter into heaven, and of the nature of the Holy Spirit keeping and holding a person willfully in obedience with God...something that doesn't occur until it is already absolutely sure that a person is saved. Thus, again, obedience is not a requirement to obtain salvation. It is an effect. Not a cause.

Quite an elaborate and confusing interpretation. What in chapter 7 supports this? The verse before 21 talks about knowing people by their fruits. It is not talking about what saved people will do after judgement day.

"It says that those who do the will of the Father enter His Kingdom, which contradicts your claim that believing in Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead is the only thing that is relevant to salvation. "

Its not my claim. Its the claim of Romans 10:9.

And you claim that Romans 10:9 is true. The meaning of the verse seems clear but according to 2 Peter 3 15-16 some of the things that Paul wrote were hard to understand and can lead the unlearned to destruction so maybe we are both misinterpreting it somehow.

And I just explained that above. You should examine how you are getting your causes and effects messed up.

Is there a passage in the Bible that explains this cause and effect you are talking about?

If a man never obeys God for his entire life, but believes in Jesus....he will still be saved and go to heaven. And when he is resurrected from the grave and ascends into heaven...he will, from that day forward, always be obedient to God. Thus, there is no contradiction.

Read Matthew Chapter 7 again. I think your interpretation of its message it way off. Matthew: 21 says that only those who do the will of the Father will enter His Kingdom, it does not talk about what people WILL do after Judgement Day.

You wish for there to be a contradiction because your doctrine runs contrary to it and needs the contradiction to exist so that you can feel justified in your position. But that causes you to avoid John 12:44-48 like the plague, for you do not wish for John 12:44-48 to be true.

You are making some ill-informed assumptions here. I am not a theist. I don't believe the Bible was inspired, but I still want to understand what its authors were trying to say. If one author contradicts another that does not surprise me and I don't feel a need to avoid any verses.

Yet it is written. So it must be true.

That hardly follows. Just because something is written, it does not mean that it is true.

I did not write John 12:44-48. God wrote John 12:44-48.

John didn't write it? Why isn't called God 12:44-48 then?

Never once did I ever argue that believing in Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead is all there ever was to doing the will of the Father. That is a false accusation that you are making against me because you wish to believe that is what I am trying to say. But that is not what I am trying to say, and it runs completely contrary to my beliefs. There is a *LOT MORE* involved in doing the will of the Father. But should a man never do any of the will of the Father except to believe Romans 10:9....he shall still be saved. John 12:44-48 is the proof of this. Not my doctrine. Not my interpretation. Just the straight words of John 12:44-48.

The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by different people so verses in John are not proof of what Matthew was trying to say.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 29 by help3434]

"You are a Christian and you have not bothered to read the holy books of all the other religions despite having access to them online"

How many times are you going to claim that I believe things that you think I believe...even though I do not believe the things that you think I believe?

How many times are you going to facilitate your prejudice against me?

I am not prejudiced against you. Sorry that it came off that way.

1) I have read the holy books of other major religions. Sikhism is not a major religion. But I have read the Vedic scriptures and I have read the Quran. I was not born and raised Christian. I was born and raised secularist, and taught to believe in evolution at a very young age.

Yes, Sikhism is a medium sized religion rather than a major one. Is that proof that it is false?

I converted into Christianity at approximately the age of 20, and somewhat blindly so.

2) The reason I do not read all other religions is 2 fold: a) There is not enough time in the world to do so, so I must be selective. and b) Although I became a Christian at the age of 20 and somewhat blindly...I am now 33 years old and my faith is no longer blind, for I have seen God with my own eyes, heard him with my own ears, and felt him with my own heart. Not metaphorically. Literally. He revealed himself to me. I know him. He knows me. It is personal. No other religion or other book has ever been able to make that possible.

"so why do you think it would be fair for God to condemn people of other religions who don't bother to read the Bible?"

Please quote where I have stated that God condemns people for not reading the Bible. If you cannot quote me, then please be honest enough to formally announce that you have prejudiced me with that statement.

You said "They do not seek the scriptures, even when it is in plain sight. And therefore, they are guilty and Romans 5:13 does not apply to them."
Why should people seek the Bible? Why are they guilty of sin when they don't even believe in the Biblical concept of sin? Shouldn't Romans 5:13 apply to them?

I do not believe God sends people to Hell for not reading the Bible. He sends people to Hell for the sins which they were forgiven of...because Hell is the place where dead souls go. He has offered a free gift that people may receive a resurrection of their soul through Jesus so that they do not end up in Hell for the sins which were forgiven of them already by God.

And how the "Hell" would anyone know that doctrine if they were not familiar with the Bible? You said if someone did something they knew was wrong they would be damned if they did not ask the One True God (presumably you were referring to the God described in the Bible) for salvation. Why would anyone think to do this if they were not already familiar with the biblical concept of salvation?

He cannot force people to accept his gift. So if they refuse the gift of resurrection through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus...then how can you blame God for where they go? It was their choice.

Not believing something is not the same thing as refusing a gift. If I told you I was handing out a million dollars tomorrow and you did not believe me does that mean that you don't want a million dollars. If believing something is a requirement for getting the gift then it is not actually a free gift, believing something is the price.

"Asking a Sikh if he believes his religion is sufficient to obtaining the Christian concept of salvation is missing the mark. It would be like asking you if Christianity will help you have a good reincarnation."

According to the perspective of Sikhism, being a Christian would help you have a good reincarnation. So..it is not missing the mark at all. And the simple translation, if one were to translate salvation into Sikhism would be thus: Without Jesus...a Sikh will forever become more and more separated from God, and will never get closer to the Divine.

How do you know that from a perspective of Sikhism being a Christian would help you have a good reincarnation? Why would you care since you don't even believe in reincarnation? If a Sikh told you that if gave up Christianity and became a Sikh you would have a better reincarnation, would you find that persuasive?

So no...it doesn't miss the mark at all. I have to wonder if you are trying to construct your arguments around the basis that you hate God and think He is unjust. For you are certainly making every effort to justify yourself in having that belief.

So far you have accused two poster on this thread of hating God. Not sharing your concepts and beliefs about God is not the same thing as hating God.

[/quote]

Please notice that I do not believe in the God which you think that I believe in. And that is your greatest mistake of assumption. You have yet to prove that my God fits into any of the accusations that you make against Him. You have yet to prove that I believe in a God who is unjust. You are simply throwing out accusations that you believe about me in your own head and your own heart....and you have been wrong 100% of the time.

At what point are you going to stop attaching your prejudices towards me and instead ask me if I believe your prejudices before you say that I believe your prejudices?

An unfair criteria is an unfair criteria. You have stated many times that God damns those who don't believe that Jesus is God and Savior and rose from the dead. That is unjust. I am not making mistaken assumptions about what you believe.

You did not ask me if I believed people had to read the Bible to avoid condemnation to Hell.

I did not *ever* declare nor even REMOTELY hint at believing people have to read the Bible in order to avoid condemnation to Hell.

Saying "They do not seek the scriptures, even when it is in plain sight. And therefore, they are guilty" is not a hint? Saying that wrong doers that don't ask for salvation (a biblical concept) is not a hint?

Furthermore:

I believe Muslims who believe that Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead are saved.

I believe Sikhs who believe that Jesus is God and Savior who rose from the dead are saved.

I believe Buddhists who believe that Jesus is God and Savior who rose from the dead are saved.

I believe Hindus who believe that Jesus is God and Savior who rose from the dead are saved.

In Islam believing that Jesus is God is blasphemy, so someone who believed that would not be a Muslim.

I believe evolutionists (Those of the religion of evolution) who believe that Jesus is God and Savior who rose from the dead are saved.

Evolution is not a religion anymore than plate tectonics. This is Young Earth Creationist drivel.

A dead man cannot live without a resurrection. And if a dead man chooses to reject a resurrection that is offered to him...then all the fault and blame, ignorant or otherwise, falls on him.

Dead people can make choices?

You cannot blame God for that man's rejection of a resurrection.

You cannot blame God for that man's own choice.

Do men make their own human nature?

So you don't really have any excuse for the statement you made against me.

You did not ask before making that declaration against me.

Do you know what that is called?

That is called prejudice.

Do you understand that it is called prejudice?

No, I understand that you have misconstrued much of what I wrote.

[help3434]

Mind you this is only my anti theist self-trying to be objective in an opinion on your query.

It is appreciated. It is more than we get from many atheists here. That is one reason why it is hard to have a dialogue about many things. For me expecting people to change the law such that the state has to grant legal status to a relationship between a father and son, which involves anal sex, carries things too far.

Now you are bringing up a different topic. From what I understand incest between a parent and their child almost always involves exploitation. Can we really trust that nothing happened before the son reached the age of consent?

[HumbleDisciple]

[Replying to post 31 by help3434]

"Well, that doesn't make much sense. How would a person know he should ask God for salvation if he has never heard of salvation and doesn't have a monotheistic concept of God?"

Are you suggesting that a person does not have his or own imagination? His or her own ability to reason and think thoughts without those thoughts being put there for them to think?

For that is the only way upon which you can accuse me by saying "that doesn't make much sense."

If a person is *able but not willing* to imagine the course of action (of asking God to save them from themselves, their own sin) on their own....then they are guilty.

If a person is *not able* to imagine the course of action on their own (which may be what you are eluding to perhaps)....then Romans 5:13 covers them.

By those two *if* statements...everything I have stated fits well into the category of "makes perfectly good sense."

I have told you that you can set up scenarios to test me on this position, and rather than test me you have instead declared "that doesn't make much sense." This means you are creating excuses rather than seeking the matter out. That means you do not like what you hear, and are trying to find a way to reject it.

How about test it instead of immediately reject it? What is the rush on trying to immediately reject everything with the emotion of your soul?

"The term "sin" as used in the Bible means violating God's will. Obviously people who don't believe in God don't believe that there is a God that has a will to violate. I am glad you brought up homosexuality because it allows us to go back to the topic of the thread a little bit. You say that being a homosexual is a sin whether a person knows it or not. What do you mean by "is a homosexual"? Are you saying feeling the sexual desires that some people naturally have is a sin?"

In Leviticus it is declared to be a sin if a man lies with another man as he does with a woman. In the new testament Gospels it is declared that if a man even looks lustfully at a woman with his eyes then he has committed adultery. The action comes from the emotion of the heart, but the emotion of the heart is where the true sin lays.

If a man is born with the sexual desire for another man, then even the desire itself is sinful if he lusts after another man, and infact quite difficult to avoid. Not impossible. Just very difficult. And if a man is born with sexual desire for women, then the desire is quite sinful if he lusts after another woman, and infact difficult to avoid. Not impossible. Just very difficult.

Nonetheless, they are both equally sin.

"Again with the idea that people should be expected to seek out salvation even if they don't know the Bible. How does it make sense to expect for people who don't have a concept of salvation to seek for it?"

I was a man who sought out salvation for my sins even though I had never read the Bible, nor knew that Jesus was the one I sought for.

How, to you, does it make sense to expect that people would not seek out salvation from their errors even when totally blind and ignorant from the existence of the Jesus?

It just came by nature. I knew I did wrong. I knew I wasn't worthy of eternal life. I had not received any teachings to come to this point. I came to this level of understanding in my own ignorance and lack of knowledge of the entire world, let alone my ignorance of the Bible.

So I guess that is how it makes sense. It came by nature, even in the total ignorance of my youth.

Do you not also have that same nature?

Did you know that the Bible teaches there are two kinds of seed in this world:

1) The seed which comes from God, which produces the children of God.

2) And the seed which comes from Satan, which produces the children of Satan.

The seed which comes from God is given the natural trait of desiring to find redemption for their errors.

The seed which comes from Satan is given the natural trait of trying to justify themselves of the errors that they made, even going so far as to say that their errors were not errors or that their sins were not sins, or that if they did sin...then they had no choice or cannot be blamed for their ignorance, of which part of that process involves accusing God...that they may feel justified in their position.

Which seed are you? (This is not a rhetorical question, nor is it meant to make an assumption. It is a direct question, and one which you should reflect upon yourself inwardly moreso than answer me with it)

"Even if we do understand the concept, why should be believe that it is even a valid concept in the first place?"

One day you will die, correct? And you are not even willing to explore for options out of that death, for no other reason than because you refuse to believe anything unless it is served to you on a silver platter of tangible proof?

And even worse than that, you refuse to *SEEK* anything unless it is served to you on a silver platter of tangible proof?

A person who does not seek their own salvation...does not have self-worth. It is your choice whether you place value into your own soul. If you believe you are of no value...then you will not seek to find salvation for your soul. If you believe you are of value...then you will seek to find salvation.

The big question is: How are you able to find yourself arguing in your right hand the value of the lives of other people that they should go to heaven in ways which you thought I would have said they didn't....

But then you argue in your left hand that your own soul is not worth seeking salvation for?

The truth is that the points you raise are not raised because you desire to seek truth, nor salvation for the souls of others. (If you did care about the salvation of the souls of others...then your conduct would be of a manner of searching for a way for salvation to be true...not a manner of searching for a way to prove salvation is false) Thus, the truth is that the points you raise are raised because you seek to justify your doubts, that you need not put any further resource investment in seeking down the path that you already prejudicially hated from the beginning.

There is nothing noble in that, and it is a shame that you would use conjecture about the souls of others in such a way that you have....not because you cared about them, but instead because you hate something else and wish to use their case against that which you hate. That is despicable.

You should reflect on how your own motives are causing you to refuse knowledge, and reject seeking.

"Should a Muslim pity you because do not believe that Muhammad is God's prophet? Should a Buddhist pity you because you do not follow the practice of non-attachment? The whole concept that a person who does not believe in Christ should know that they should seek Jesus does not make sense."

I never declared that a person who does not know of the knowledge of Jesus should know that they should seek Jesus.

I declared that a person who seeks salvation from God should know to seek...IN GENERAL. And I also declared that wherever they should seek to their maximum ability, if they should fall short of finding Jesus...then Romans 5:13 covers them.

So again, you have no excuses for the things you are writing. You are writing things about my beliefs that are false and not what I believe. Yet you continue to argue them as if I do believe them. That is called projection. You should spend some time looking up the word "projection." That is what you are doing to me on a continual basis.

And yes, a Muslim should have pity on a man who does not find Muhammad to be God's Prophet. Regardless of whether Muhammad is God's prophet in truth or false. The same goes for any and all other faiths. The same is what I have done here in my declarations.

"You can claim that God's salvation is fair all you want, but if God condemns or saves people entirely on the basis of whether they believe something or not then it is unfair."

God does not condemn or save people entirely on the basis of whether they believe a particular thing or not. You have spoken those words as if that is what God does. But that is not true.

Any and all men in this world have full opportunity to live a life 100% free of sin, never having committed it a single time. In doing so, they would not have to believe in Jesus as their God and Savior, and they would need no salvation, and they would have no condemnation. They will enter into heaven.

But if any man commits just ONE sin, then he is guilty, and thus God condemns them JUSTLY to Hell for their sin.

But if any man commits either just ONE sin, or a plurality of sins all the rest of the days of their lives, and WOULD BE justly condemned to Hell for their sin, but then believe in Jesus as their God and Savior...then they will enter into heaven.

So then, no man is condemned to Hell except that they justly deserve the condemnation. No man is sent to Hell for not believing in Jesus as God and Savior. But all those who *DO* believe in Jesus as God and Savior shall be saved from what would be a JUSTIFIED condemnation.

So then...your accusations are false. You have deceived yourself into thinking God would condemn or save people entirely on their beliefs. But they are not condemned by their beliefs. They are condemned by their actions. And they are saved by their beliefs, if their belief is in Jesus. So it is not entirely as you have said. What comes out of that logic, as it is ultimately cranked through the logic machine, is defined as "Grace." Unmerited favor. None were condemned for their beliefs. Thus, there is no lack of justice.

"Were the majority of people in your hometown at least nominal Christians? Could that be the reason that Christianity is the religion you are most familiar with? "

No. I was born and raised by an atheist father, and raised in a public school where all the teachers were atheist or agnostic.

Here is the problem with your prejudice: You assume that my beliefs come from a social or cultural background. And you make that assumption and prejudice because that is what you have been taught and trained to believe about Christians, or even worse, because that is simply what you desire to believe about Christians.

The crazy part is...most Christians who *really know their Bible*....did not come from such backgrounds. You just do not wish to recognize your own prejudice, and I understand that. It would have to mean admitting to yourself that you have been fooled by being brainwashed by whatever sources influence you. And you would like to retain the integrity of those sources in your own mind. I am sorry that you have relied so blindly and heavily upon them.

The reason Christianity is the religion with which I am the most familiar with today is because it is the one which I have spent the most time researching post-education, post-childhood, post-educational system, post-social and cultural brainwashing. And the reason it is the one I choose, of my own volition, to research the most is because I have met the angels face to face, I have visited heaven, I have met the Holy Spirit, and I have witnessed miracles...all of which (heaven, and the angels, and the Holy Spirit) testify of Judeo-Christianity as the only true religion.

"Did the Spirit of God tell you that the Bible is His word?"

Yes, and the correct demeanor for searching and understanding everything it declares...is by a spirit of Grace.

"Maybe you have experienced all that, but I haven't. Would it be fair me to be condemned for not believing?"

It would not be fair to condemn you for not believing, if you had never sinned. But it is entirely fair to condemn you for your sin. Should you believe in Jesus, you will be saved from that condemnation. But refusing to believe in Jesus is not a condemnation to you. Instead, it is that you have decided to reject Grace which could have saved you from the condemnation which you already sit under, regardless of your beliefs.

"It would probably take room 101 level torture for me to build up enough cogitative dissonance to choose to believe that 2+2=5."

Nobody is asking you to believe in something that is easy to disprove. You have, however, taught and trained yourself to believe that you have disproven God, or at least Christianity. But so far...you have been unable to test and prove that against the things which I have declared. Perhaps this frustrated you. Like I said, it appears you are trying to justify your doubt because, at the heart of it, you do not want to believe it. But what if it is not a matter of convincing you to believe that 2+2=5?

What if it is a matter of "It would probably take room 101 level torture for you to build up enough cogitative dissonance to choose to believe that 2+2=4"?

See, you naturally assume that the things I believe are "cognitively dissonant" to such a degree that you think they are 2+2=5. But what if you are so cognitively dissonant *right now with what you already believe as is* that, because of your beliefs, you think 2+2=4 is cognitively dissonant?

What if Christianity is 2+2=4, and whatever it is you wish to believe...is 2+2=5?

Is it not true that you have *yet* to prove any of your points regarding accusing God of being unjust, with me?

Is it not true that I have asked you to test me, and you have been unable to justify your position with logic?

"If you believe all people always have the ability to choose to believe, then try to make your self choose to believe that 2+2=5 right now. Can you do it? Shouldn't people choose to follow where the evidence takes them?"

I might not be able to choose to believe that 2+2=5 right now, but I know for sure there are things which I used to believe which were false, but I truly believed them. For example, I used to believe in Santa Claus when I was a child. I had the ability to choose to believe it, and I did choose to believe it. So then, you cannot argue that it is impossible to choose to believe that which is false. And no, people should not choose to follow where the evidence takes them. People should choose to follow all paths at all times as a frantic search for knowledge, even the paths that look false to them at first glance, and second appearance, and third, and fourth. They should never stop seeking and be settled with their conclusions...for if they do, then that is the where their ignorance has gotten the best of them. For we all start our life in total ignorance, and if we stopped at that beginning...then we would not even know how to speak, or even be able to recognize what our eyes see (babies are unable to recognize what they see when they are first born). If they had stopped...they would remain that way.

See, your point is a trick question. You are attempting to argue that one should follow where the evidence leads, but this is a scapegoat tactic. For what you really desire to say is "I have seen evidence that could lead to believing other things...therefore that justifies me no longer looking at Christianity because I hate looking at Christianity and do not want to look at it." That is deceptive.

But I do not act that way, like you do. I have studied parts of Satanism. I have studied evolution. I have studied big bang theory. I have studied atheism. And many other things, even though at first glance, and second appearance, etc...they all continue to appear to have a lack of evidence for them.

Don't you say you follow where the evidence leads? Do you believe in evolution of the sort where humans are descendents from non humans? Have you ever seen actual scientific footage of such an ancestry tree? Don't you recognize that adaptation within a "kind" is not evidence of evolution from one kind to another? Don't you recognize that none of the fossil records serve as evidence, except that you willfully desire and choose to believe that they count as evidence?

What an evolutionist does with fossil records is the same thing a Christian does with attempting to argue that good works are required to obtain salvation: They use things that they can see (for the evolutionist it is bones and dead material, and for Christians it is a scripture which talks about good works being commanded to Christians) as their evidence for their doctrinal beliefs. But neither the evolutionist has true evidence, nor does the Christian have true evidence (For the evolutionist readily admits they cannot reproduce their beliefs in a lab for the eye to see firsthand, nor can the Christian who believes good works are necessary for salvation provide scripture which actually declares it).

That is called abuse. That is called delusion. That is called choosing what you believe because you want to believe it.

Do you understand that I did not want to become a Christian, when I became a Christian?

Do you know that?

I can testify to you very much: I did *NOT* want to become a Christian when I became a Christian. But I could not deny truth. And so, even though I did not want it to be true, and did not want to become a Christian, I was at least honest enough with myself to acknowledge the truth which led to that which I did not want to believe.

But you probably have been telling yourself, about me, all this time that I am a Christian because I wanted to be a Christian. Today I am a Christian because I want to be a Christian. But that is most certainly not how it started off at my conversion. And no one forced me to it. It was my own choice, based on recognizing facts which I did not want to recognize.

The primary fact that you do not want to recognize is that the *ONLY THING* a Just God can do for a man who has already sinned and deserves a Just condemnation to Hell....is to make an offering of atonement for that man by His (God's) own hands.

"If an omniscient being really exists then we would all be retarded compared to that being. Shouldn't we all be let off the hook?"

Justice does not operate based on comparative analysis. It does not matter whether God is a genius or a retard, a man who is guilty of his sin is still deductively guilty of his sin regardless of the comparison to God. So no, we should not be let off the hook. The only way a man should be let off the hook is if he himself truly did not know his sin was a sin...which is exactly what Romans 5:13 declares and allows. But if a man is infinitely retarded compared to God, but still knows that his sin was a sin...then he is guilty.

"Read a psychology book. People hallucinate, suppress memories, create false memories, go in denial, believe things for irrational reasons, react to things irrationally, experience cognitive dissonance, become mentally ill, ect. The idea that a Supreme Being would condemn or reward human beings on the basis of whether they believed a certain thing or not is one of the more ludicrous and grotesque theological concepts that can be dreamed up."

Almost all of which are covered by Romans 5:13. (Psychology has gotten off its horse lately, and I would argue that denial, belief for irrational reasons, and reaction to things irrationally do not qualify since they are done in full volition and control over ones' self, but the rest do qualify). Anyone who has hallucinated, created false memories, experienced cognitive dissonance, or become mentally ill have quite a reasonable chance of obtaining salvation without belief in Jesus (I would never be able to decide a particular case, having not known the status of their mind and heart, as no man can know). So again, you have no justification for calling God an unjust God. You have simply tried to find a way around what you do not wish to believe. But the Bible does not teach what you believe to be true about God.

"You have yet to show that judging based on belief is the best criteria or even a valid criteria."

Because I do not believe condemnation comes from lack of belief. That is your prejudice which speaks of me. It is not my belief. You violated me with your projection of what you think my beliefs are, even though they are not my beliefs. Thus, it still stands that you have been unable to provide any justifications for your belief that God that I believe in is unjust.

"Once again we disagree on the meaning of Matthew 7:21. I think it pretty clearly says that doing the will of the Father is a requirement to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

Please quote DIRECTLY where Matthew 7:21 says "Doing the will of the father is a requirement to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

Please note, that according to psychology, you are falling prey to "belief in irrational things" for you say that Matthew 7:21 says "Doing the will of the father is a requirement to enter the Kingdom of Heaven" yet ANYBODY who can read can see that Matthew 7:21 does not say that.

Here is the direct quote of Matthew 7:21

"21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

Nowhere does it state what you say it states. And any man can look at it and verify that it does not state what you say it states. Are you delusional? Are you hallucinating?

"Acts 17:30 says ", "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent." Seems like it is the will of God that everyone repent."

Of course it is the Will of God that everyone repent. Why wouldn't it be? I believe that it is the Will of God that every man repent. Why you you make your statements as if I do not believe it is the Will of God that every man repent?

Are you unable to recognize that Acts 17:30 also does not declare that a man must repent in order to obtain salvation?

Are you unable to recognize that it can be both 1) That God wills that every man repent and that 2) Man can be saved without repenting?

There is no contradiction in point 1 and point 2. There is no reason it cannot be both. So why are you arguing that it cannot be both?

"If they do not they are not doing the will of the Father, and thus are not saved according to Matthew 7:21."

You are in denial, for Matthew 7:21 does not say that one must do the will of the Father in order to be saved.

It is fully acceptable, and not contradictory, that God wills that every man repent, that every man, when he enters into heaven will always do the will of the father, and that a man will be saved even if he never repented and never did the Will of God, though he believed in Jesus. All of these 3 things can be done without any contradiction. The way they are done is by a thing called The Grace of God. The thing which you would rather deny existence of.

"You say that someone must choose to believe in order to be saved. I would not call brainwashing one's self to choose believe something you don't believe to be free."

That is because you base brainwashing on whether the belief is coerced or not. I do not call something brainwashing based on whether the belief is coerced or not. I call something brainwashing if it is false but made to be true.

If it is truth...then how can it ever be brainwashing, coerced or uncoerced? (And yet God does not coerce it). And if it were ever to be called brainwashing...it would be brainwashing in the most positive sense that it could ever be, no?

You want to know what is brainwashing? Telling little children that evolution is true and there is proof of it being true...while at the same time not being able to prove it by sight, example, and first hand experience.

"In fact I would call giving up intellectual integrity a high price."

Why do you think I believe in Christianity? I was taught in public school to doubt, test, and ask abundant questions of anything anyone ever teaches me. I was taught it by atheistic teachers. So when I started doubting, testing, and asking abundant questions about anything they taught me...what did they do when they were unable to provide answers and proofs to the questions I asked (and I asked them having NEVER been exposed to the Bible or ANY religion!)? They said "you will just have to believe it is true." I call giving up intellectual integrity to be a high price.

"Is it the will of the Father that people should repent and do good works?"

Absolutely. And this does not contradict anything that I have said thus far.

"I am not bearing false witness against you."

You were/are bearing false witness against me. If anyone knows when someone bears false witness...its the person who has had false witness born against them. You said I misinterpreted a passage. But I gave no interpretation at all. If I gave no interpretation at all, then how could I have misinterpreted? I declared I believe Matthew 7:21 for exactly what it states. You declared that you believe Matthew 7:21 means something different than what it actually states. Who is the one who has interpreted, and who is the one who has not interpreted? You have interpreted, by saying it means something other than what it actually states. But I have not. Therefore, if anyone is misinterpreting it *at all*, then it would be you, not I. Therefore, you bear false witness against me. You need to admit your fault, if you are going to be honest with yourself.

"Everyone who has a biblical theology either interprets the Bible or adopts other people's interpretation."

Although this statement is mostly true, there may exist people who do not interpret the Bible nor adopt others' interpretations. You cannot actually prove this statement. But oddly enough, even if you did...it does not prove your point. You need to face the fact that I have declared I believe Matthew 7:21, and yet I do not believe "repentance is a requirement for salvation" and that I do not believe "a man must do the will of God in order to obtain salvation." Just because it violates what you believe does not mean it violates what the passage declares. You are lying to me, and to yourself, when you say Matthew 7:21 says *ANYTHING OTHER THAN*

"21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

Nowhere does it say "he who does not do the will of my Father shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

IT DOES NOT SAY THAT. LOOK. IT IS NOT THERE.

"You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "interpret". "Interpret" means to explain the meaning of something."

I am fully aware of the meaning of the word "interpret." And when I say I have not interpreted Matthew 7:21 it means I believe it means exactly what it says, and thus it needs no interpretation. Interpretation does *NOT* mean "a passage has a meaning." Interpretation means taking a group of words off of a page and converting them to another language and attempting to retain the closest spiritual message being conveyed that the mind can understand. When you say Matthew 7:21 means "repentance is a requirement to obtain salvation" and, infact, it does not SAY THAT...then it means you have misinterpreted. It means you have taken words off of a page that convey a message different than what they were intended to convey. But I have not made that conversion which you have made. Thus you interpreted, and I have not. I have retained them to their exact declaration, and you have not. You want them to say something that they do not say, thus you have misinterpreted. I have declared them *ONLY* as they say, and have not added nor taken away from it. You are projecting your guilt onto me. That is denial. And it would be wise of you to recognize it.

"You have gone off on a long tangent based on a misinterpretation of what interpretation means. Kind of ironic."

I forgive you for your lack of better judgment.

"If repentance leads to salvation it is hardly irrelevant to salvation."

I never said repentance was irrelevant, as a generality. Repentance is very important. It leads to salvation. It has its place. Its just not a requirement, and thus have no weight in determining salvation.

"I reject the concept of salvation altogether. Still, I like to understand what the Bible says even though I don't believe that everything it says is actually true."

Then why do you put up such a strong fight trying to argue that the Bible says things that it does not say?

Is it not to justify yourself in trying to prove that God is unjust? So you have spent the strength of your will in trying to make the Bible say what you want it to say, rather than just what it says?

And here I am, a roadblock to your ability to prove what you desire to prove. It must be frustrating. I can imagine how many years you have spent formulating your justifications only to come across a Christian who has a belief system which has not been penetrated by your justifications which you need so badly to feel justified in believing God is not just.

"Judging by how other translations word verse 29 I would say that verse 29 means that God will not withdraw His gifts and callings. It appears you have misinterpreted verse 29 despite your claim that you don't interpret at all."

You always have the right to believe what you wish. I believe it for what it says, exactly as it says it. You seek for ways for it to not mean exactly what it says. I cannot stop you from choosing what you wish to believe. That doesn't mean your beliefs are true. Once again, your desire is causing your beliefs....rather than truth causing your beliefs.

"Understanding a hundreds of years old translation of documents that are thousands of years old and written in a culture you did not grow up in is not the black and white affair you are making it out to be."

I am not making it (Your assertion about the entirety of the writings) out to be black and white. But that scripture (in particular) is black and white. Perhaps that is why you made your statement that reading scripture is not always black and white, as if I had made it out to be that: Because you noticed that this scripture was black and white. If you hadn't noticed it was black and white...then you would not have made your comment, would you have? For it was the black-and-whiteness of the clarity of the scripture which caused you to think of that response. You hated that it was what it was. So you simply created a statement of denial.

"If being being of water refers to being born the first time rather than being reborn through baptism then why bring it up?"

Because its part of the general description?

Or are you one of those people who "interprets" it to mean more than it says? Are you one of those people who tries to claim it means a person must follow a tradition of baptism by a church/priest at some point after birth? Is that you, once again, trying to find a way to make God unjust because you do not want God to be Just?

"John 3:5 says what is necessary to be saved, but it does not say it is sufficient, so I don't see how the omission of repentance in this verse voids it as a requirement for salvation."

Please notice there is a subtle difference between the definitions of "necessary" and "requirement." That which is necessary may not always be a requirement, and that which is a requirement may not always be necessary, but the two are very closely attached. When a man is saved, he will *always* receive the Holy Spirit. Thus, it is coherent logic that baptism of the holy spirit is "necessary", for it is part of the moment of salvation. But a person doesn't need to become baptized in the holy spirit to *then* become saved, as if it were a requirement. The effect of salvation is the cause of the receiving of the holy spirit. One causes the other. I point this out for the following passage, which disproves your motive behind your quotation:

2 Corinthians 12:9

And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

See, you stated that the passage of John 3:5 does not say anything about sufficiency for salvation. But there is another scripture which does *explicitly* declare sufficiency. It states His Grace is sufficient. It does *not* state "His Grace + works (or anything else) is sufficient." It solely states Grace. And Romans 11:6 makes this point exclusive.

"Thus, again, obedience is not a requirement to obtain salvation. It is an effect. Not a cause." -Me

"Is their a passage in the Bible that explains this cause and effect you are talking about?" -Your Response

Yes, and explicitly so. Here are some:

Jeremiah 13

23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil?

John 6

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

But it is always a case of "He cannot, because he will not." It is never a case of "He cannot, because he is not able." For we are all able, but we choose not. And because we always choose not to, we are guilty, and no case can be made of "We cannot, therefore it is unjust to punish us." Instead, it is "We cannot, but were always given the free choice and ability, and willed not...therefore it is just to punish us."

Grand finale verse which makes it explicit:

Ezekiel 36

25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

"Read Matthew Chapter 7 again. I think your interpretation of its message it way off. Matthew: 21 says that only those who do the will of the Father will enter His Kingdom, it does not talk about what people WILL do after Judgement Day."

From the man who is attempting to find interpretations to prove the Bible false.

Matthew 7:21 does not say "that only those who do the will of the Father will enter His Kingdom"

You say that Matthew 7:21 says that. But Matthew 7:21 does not say that. Re-read that second half. It does not say the word "only" in the second half. And it does *not* say "All who do not do the will of the father" in the first half. There is a HUGE gap between those two statements that leaves open the opportunity that *SOME* of those who say "Lord, Lord" may get into heaven, and it leaves that *ENTIRE* gap unexplained in this particular passage, left to be chewed on or filled in by other scriptures.

Let the record be straight from here on forward: I do not need to prove an interpretation to be true in order to win this argument. I only need to prove that a verse can be interpreted in a manner that shows that you can no longer be certain about the interpretation which you desire to believe so that you may disbelieve the Bible. Do you understand why?

The reason is because if I can provide an interpretation which you cannot absolutely disprove...then you no longer have the certainty which you require to feel justified in your own soul for condemning the Bible. You need that certainty in order to maintain that justification. For if it is not certain, then your justification for denying the Bible is not a perfect justification. It is only a hoped for, and blindly believed justification. Nonetheless, you are free to choose to believe whatever it is you choose to believe. I cannot necessarily prove every single interpretation I offer. I can only offer interpretations which offer potential for God being Just...interpretations which you cannot disprove, but desire to reject, that you may feel justified in your belief. That alone should leave you uncomfortable, for it means that your accusations are left unchecked, unproven, and with lack of certainty.

But know this, I can walk away from this discussion quite easily and rest assured that you have not disproven my beliefs. And I readily admit that in some spots it requires some interpretation in order to come to the full knowledge of all of my beliefs. But on the parts where I have said I have not interpreted...I have not interpreted. And on the spot in Matthew 7:21 where it says "not all those who say Lord, Lord will enter into heaven"...I have plenty of opportunity to suggest that the obedience begins on the day they enter into heaven, and that there is a huge gap between the first half of that verse and the second half of that verse which leaves that which you wished to make certain condemnation...to not be certain at all, a gap of hope and grace for those who you want to believe the Bible condemns unjustly.

"You are making some ill-informed assumptions here. I am not a theist. I don't believe the Bible was inspired, but I still want to understand what its authors were trying to say."

I have had to make some assumptions since you speak very little of what you believe. For you spend all of your time picking things apart, rather than trying to seek truth. Your desire causes that effect, and it would be honest of yourself to notice this about yourself. That said, I have kept the assumptions to the limits of your own statements.

But one thing is for sure..."but I still want to understand what its authors were trying to say"....is a lie.

I know you are lying when you making that statement. And that is a strong accusation that I make, but I am able to make it, and justly so, for I can discern your heart on the matter.

If you were truly trying to understand what its authors were trying to say...then you would not be putting up a fight with just about each and every single thing I have thus declared so far, would you?

See...it is the nature of things that a student, when they are attempting to learn, does not throw up roadblocks and arguments against every point that is made. If a student is truly trying to learn, then they ask questions of curiosity, hoping to prod deeper into the root of a statement being made. But you do not ask those kinds of questions. You rarely ask questions, and when you do, they are of doubt. Most of the time you do not ask questions at all. Most of the time you make an argument against what I have said...rather than formulate a question of curiosity. It is your choice in how you have conducted yourself from the very beginning that proves that you are not here to learn, but to argue, debate, and confirm your doubts.

"If one author contradicts another that does not surprise me and I don't feel a need to avoid any verses."

I am aware of the multitude of opportunities for one to choose to believe that scripture has contradictions within itself. If a man has, from the beginning of his quest, the desire to prove contradictions exist...he will find them, and he will be convinced of them. But that does not mean they were truly contradictions. What it means is he stopped searching for truth as soon as he found what he was looking for.

Example:

1) Jesus is God.
2) Mary is the mother of Jesus.
3) God has no mother.

If a man is looking for contradictions in the Bible, then he need not go any further. For there it is, plain and simple, black and white....easy to see.

But points 1, 2, and 3 do not *necessarily* contradict each other. But their appearance was sufficient to stop many men from searching for truth any further...for they found what they were looking for. The problem is...what they were looking for...wasn't the truth.

"That hardly follows. Just because something is written, it does not mean that it is true."

This discussion has been based entirely within the framework of accepting scripture as being true. If you desire to take it outside of that framework, then we may go there. But thus far, you have been trying to prove or disprove scripture from within that framework, and thus I have made my statements within that pretext. Therefore, my statement is still valid, and you have no rebuttal. That is to say, I have shown you scripture which proves, on several points, that what you believe scripture says...that belief is false, that scripture does not say what you claim it says.

"John didn't write it? Why isn't called God 12:44-48 then?"

Now you are advertently drawing attention away from the topic with mockery because you do not wish to acknowledge that John 12:44-48 states something contrary to what you wish to admit scripture teaches.

"The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by different people so verses in John are not proof of what Matthew was trying to say."

Not an acceptable rebuttal statement, since this entire discussion is within the framework of proving or disproving a text from within itself, not outside of itself.

If you wish to engage in a discussion regarding whether the Bible is truly written by God, through a multitude of authors...then the proof for such a discussion lays in the prophecies that have been fulfilled throughout history in extreme detail, with extreme accuracy, written before they came to pass, and yet unable to be "self-fulfilled" prophecies. There are thousands upon thousands of them. There simply is no way to argue the Bible is not authentic once one examines the multitude of prophecies which have been fulfilled.

But that is an entirely different discussion, and I can only suspect that you are relying on making these broader tangential arguments because you recognize that you have been unsuccessful in proving any of your other points from within the framework of proving the Bible false with its own scriptures, and you need an "out."

I pity the offensive and defensive nature of your points. For when a man makes the points that you make...it shows he wishes to be offensive or defensive...rather than inquisitive.

And if he is inquisitive...then that is the sign that shows he wants to learn.

And if he is not inquisitive...then that is the sign that he did not really wish to learn, even if he says he wished to learn.

For truly, if you had wished to learn, then when you heard each and every point I made...you would have been quick to say "Ah yea, I guess it *could* have meant that. I guess that means there was opportunity after all for it to mean something different than I already thought."

But you have yet to do that a single time yet, have you?

Instead...you have been stubborn from the very beginning. Stubbornness comes from a motive that is opposite of learning.

Nonetheless the fact remains:

What I have said is true is not true based on whether I have said it is true. It is either true or untrue, regardless of whether I am able to prove it to be so or not. And in like manner, regardless of whether you wish to accept one interpretation or another...does not determine whether one interpretation is true, or the other.

You reject a viable interpretation. That is your choice. But your choice is not what makes it true or false. Nonetheless it is viable. And the fact that the interpretation which I have given is viable and not totally disproven...means that you no longer have your proof, which you once thought you had, that God is unJust.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 31 by help3434]

"Well, that doesn't make much sense. How would a person know he should ask God for salvation if he has never heard of salvation and doesn't have a monotheistic concept of God?"

Are you suggesting that a person does not have his or own imagination? His or her own ability to reason and think thoughts without those thoughts being put there for them to think?

For that is the only way upon which you can accuse me by saying "that doesn't make much sense."

Of course people have their own imagination. Does that mean that you would expect a person who never heard of Buddhism to independently come up with the Four Noble Truths? I think you are dismissing my points without really thinking about what I am trying to say.

I have told you that you can set up scenarios to test me on this position, and rather than test me you have instead declared "that doesn't make much sense." This means you are creating excuses rather than seeking the matter out. That means you do not like what you hear, and are trying to find a way to reject it.

I explained why I thought it didn't make sense. I wish you would stop making these false personal accusations against me.

How about test it instead of immediately reject it? What is the rush on trying to immediately reject everything with the emotion of your soul?

Test what exactly? Why are you assuming that I am rushing to reject everything with the emotion of my soul?

In Leviticus it is declared to be a sin if a man lies with another man as he does with a woman. In the new testament Gospels it is declared that if a man even looks lustfully at a woman with his eyes then he has committed adultery. The action comes from the emotion of the heart, but the emotion of the heart is where the true sin lays.

If a man is born with the sexual desire for another man, then even the desire itself is sinful if he lusts after another man, and infact quite difficult to avoid. Not impossible. Just very difficult. And if a man is born with sexual desire for women, then the desire is quite sinful if he lusts after another woman, and infact difficult to avoid. Not impossible. Just very difficult.

Nonetheless, they are both equally sin.

People can choose to not to dwell on their desires, but they can't help but feel biological urges. Calling that a sin is absurd.

"

I was a man who sought out salvation for my sins even though I had never read the Bible, nor knew that Jesus was the one I sought for.

I suspect you had at least heard of the concepts. Would you expect a 10th century Native American to seek the Christian concept of salvation from sin?

How, to you, does it make sense to expect that people would not seek out salvation from their errors even when totally blind and ignorant from the existence of the Jesus?

It just came by nature. I knew I did wrong. I knew I wasn't worthy of eternal life. I had not received any teachings to come to this point. I came to this level of understanding in my own ignorance and lack of knowledge of the entire world, let alone my ignorance of the Bible.

How did you know there was such a thing as eternal life and requirements for having it? How can it come by nature? Do you see anything that lives eternally in nature?

[help3434]

Did you know that the Bible teaches there are two kinds of seed in this world:

1) The seed which comes from God, which produces the children of God.

2) And the seed which comes from Satan, which produces the children of Satan.

The seed which comes from God is given the natural trait of desiring to find redemption for their errors.

The seed which comes from Satan is given the natural trait of trying to justify themselves of the errors that they made, even going so far as to say that their errors were not errors or that their sins were not sins, or that if they did sin...then they had no choice or cannot be blamed for their ignorance, of which part of that process involves accusing God...that they may feel justified in their position.

Which seed are you? (This is not a rhetorical question, nor is it meant to make an assumption. It is a direct question, and one which you should reflect upon yourself inwardly moreso than answer me with it)

First you claimed that people can choose to be saved. Now you seemed to be saying that some people are good seeds destined for heaven and some are bad and destined for hell. Which is it?

One day you will die, correct? And you are not even willing to explore for options out of that death, for no other reason than because you refuse to believe anything unless it is served to you on a silver platter of tangible proof?

And even worse than that, you refuse to *SEEK* anything unless it is served to you on a silver platter of tangible proof?

Sure, I hope that my life continues somehow after my physical death. I also wish someone would hand me $50,000 tomorrow. It doesn't mean that I have a logical reason to believe that either of those things will actually happen. Do you think that wanting something to be true is a good reason to believe that it is true?

A person who does not seek their own salvation...does not have self-worth. It is your choice whether you place value into your own soul. If you believe you are of no value...then you will not seek to find salvation for your soul. If you believe you are of value...then you will seek to find salvation.

Do really think that this means anything to someone who doesn't even accept the concept of salvation? Just because I reject these superstitious concepts doesn't mean I lack a sense of self worth.

The big question is: How are you able to find yourself arguing in your right hand the value of the lives of other people that they should go to heaven in ways which you thought I would have said they didn't....

But then you argue in your left hand that your own soul is not worth seeking salvation for?

You still don't understand where I am coming from. My point is the IF God is real it would be unjust for Him to send people to be tortured forever over not believing something while rewarding those who do believe.

The truth is that the points you raise are not raised because you desire to seek truth, nor salvation for the souls of others. (If you did care about the salvation of the souls of others...then your conduct would be of a manner of searching for a way for salvation to be true...not a manner of searching for a way to prove salvation is false) Thus, the truth is that the points you raise are raised because you seek to justify your doubts, that you need not put any further resource investment in seeking down the path that you already prejudicially hated from the beginning.

There is nothing noble in that, and it is a shame that you would use conjecture about the souls of others in such a way that you have....not because you cared about them, but instead because you hate something else and wish to use their case against that which you hate. That is despicable.

You should reflect on how your own motives are causing you to refuse knowledge, and reject seeking.

Enough with the personal comments already. I think you should reread what Jesus said about beams and motes. I can reject the concept of salvation and still search for truth.

[help3434]

God does not condemn or save people entirely on the basis of whether they believe a particular thing or not. You have spoken those words as if that is what God does. But that is not true.

Any and all men in this world have full opportunity to live a life 100% free of sin, never having committed it a single time. In doing so, they would not have to believe in Jesus as their God and Savior, and they would need no salvation, and they would have no condemnation. They will enter into heaven.

This is a shell game you are playing here. It is human nature to be imperfect. The Bible even says no one is good. In order for all men to have the full opportunity to live a life 100% of sin then they would all have to have perfect natures. People don't have perfect natures, thus they don't have the opportunity to live perfect lives.

But if any man commits just ONE sin, then he is guilty, and thus God condemns them JUSTLY to Hell for their sin.

Do people make their own human nature? God punishing people for acting according to the nature that God gave them would be the exact opposite of justice.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 34 by HumbleDisciple]

Matthew 7:21 New International Version
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

If only those who do the will of the Father enter the kingdom of heaven, then how is doing the Will of the Father not a requirement?

If you want me to continue to respond to your posts then stop with your personal attacks, assumptions, attempts at mind reading, and attributing disagreement as sinister motives.

[help3434]

[Replying to help3434]

Matthew 21:7

New Living Translation
"Not everyone who calls out to me, 'Lord! Lord!' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
"Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of My Father in heaven.


International Standard Version
"Not everyone who keeps saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will get into the kingdom from heaven, but only the person who keeps doing the will of my Father in heaven.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the person who does what my Father in heaven wants.

[HumbleDisciple]

[Replying to post 35 by help3434]

"Of course people have their own imagination. Does that mean that you would expect a person who never heard of Buddhism to independently come up with the Four Noble Truths? I think you are dismissing my points without really thinking about what I am trying to say"

I am not dismissing your points without thinking about what you are trying to say. I know exactly what you are trying to say, and I am responding by declaring: Exactly what you are trying to say, as a point, does not delegitimize people from the condemnation of their sin. Your point, exactly as you are saying it, still makes people legitimately and justifiably guilty of the condemnation of their sin. You do not wish to believe that their sin legitimately condemns them, but it does legitimately condemn them. And you need to believe otherwise, for you wish to reject a plan of salvation. That is your choice, but you have no justification for that choice, though you wish to have justification for that choice of beliefs.

"I explained why I thought it didn't make sense. I wish you would stop making these false personal accusations against me."

Its not a false accusation. You have not tested it. You simply rejected it. You rejected it because you thought it didn't make sense. But rejecting something because you thought it didn't make sense is *not* the same as testing it. Therefore, the claim is not false. You have not tested. You have not sought. And you readily admit that you have not, for you made your reason as to why you did not.

"Test what exactly? Why are you assuming that I am rushing to reject everything with the emotion of my soul?"

There is no assumption. Your words and the expression of them proves your rush to reject. Are you unable to notice your demeanor? Would you like me to show you how you would have responded to everything I have said thus far, if you had been searching for understanding rather than rushing to reject?

I can show you. Would you like me to show you? I can set up a pseudo-dialogue with myself, acting as you or a 2nd party in general, responding to my own questions, to show you how *your* responses are vastly different than the responses of one who seeks to know more, rather than to reject everything put in front of him.

Would you like me to show you? That is a serious question. Do not evade it. Please answer it. Yes or No.

"People can choose to not to dwell on their desires, but they can't help but feel biological urges. Calling that a sin is absurd."

So when a man has a biological urge to steal and murder, it is absurd to call it a sin? The fact that the nature of the urge causes damage to other parties is irrelevant to you to such a degree that you are willing to state that biological urge justifies them doing so?

Do you know what that type of rationalizing is called?

It is called, by definition, evil. What you just rationalized...is pure evil in its purest form.

But I guess you didn't have that in mind when you made your statement. You probably had other sins in mind, and did not think of the overlapping consequences of the breadth of your statement. And, well, that is cherry picking.

"I suspect you had at least heard of the concepts. Would you expect a 10th century Native American to seek the Christian concept of salvation from sin?"

Yes. And there is evidence that 10th centurty Native Americans believed in the God of the Bible even though they did not know of the existence of the Bible. In their oral tradition there is lore of the ultimate God of the Spirits who came to Earth for the atonement and redemption of mankind. Not all native Americans accepted it, just as not all middle eastern people accepted it. But the lore is there.

"How did you know there was such a thing as eternal life and requirements for having it? How can it come by nature? Do you see anything that lives eternally in nature?"

I didn't know there was such a thing as eternal life and/or requirements for having it. There is nothing in this world that lives eternally by nature, except that it be supernatural (of which I have seen the supernatural in this world). What I came to know was that I had done wrong to others, and *IF* there was eternal life then I was not worthy of it for I had done wrong to others. *THAT* caused me to search out the *IF*, to see *IF* eternal life and salvation were true. And after more than a decade, it was verified to me that it was true. For I have seen myself and others, in a future setting, partaking of the tree of life. Literally. Not a dream. Not "just a feeling." But in the spirit realm, I have seen it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears and touched it with my own touch.

One does not need to know something exists before they learn to search for it. That is called "expecting something to be served to you on a silver platter."

You cannot justify your beliefs by expecting that God serve things to you on a silver platter before you will believe them.

You can declare that you will define your beliefs by that manner. But you cannot *justify* your beliefs by that manner to such a degree that you can render yourself blameless. Instead, it will justify that you truly choice what you desired to believe, and that you chose to stop seeking based on the information which you already had. That is not justification for blaming God if there was more information you could have known, but chose not to seek, but if you had learned it...would have changed your beliefs. That is only justification for blaming yourself.

"First you claimed that people can choose to be saved. Now you seemed to be saying that some people are good seeds destined for heaven and some are bad and destined for hell. Which is it?"

I never claimed that people can choose to be saved. I claimed that people can choose to believe in Jesus, and that if they believe in Jesus then they are saved. But I never said their choice caused their salvation. That is a misunderstanding on your part, which may still be a misunderstanding even after you read this statement now. But I say it truly...a person must believe in Jesus to be saved, and it is a choice to believe in Jesus, and their choice is not the cause of their salvation...and none of that is logically contradictory. You may desire for it to be logically contradictory, and thus be satisfied in yourself for taking that position. But then you would be, at this moment, refusing to seek further, having been satisfied in yourself and your reasoning.

Let me show you how what I say is true:

Let us say that God caused you, in the creation of who you are, to love the taste of pizza, and the consumption thereof. And let us say that God caused you, in the creation of who you are, to despise the taste of feces, and the consumption thereof.

Then, let us say you find yourself in a box (Representing the world with which you live in..just like a fish in the sea never knows anything but its own environment), with an opening fit enough to deliver food to you on a daily basis. And each and every day you are offered the choice of pizza or feces. No one is forcing you to eat one or the other...you are just simply offered both. And you are given that which you pick.

Is your choice real? Do you really have the choice and free will to pick pizza over feces or feces of pizza?

Yes. You do. Ok then, so your free will and your choice are established.

And after a million days, are you predestined to eat pizza and not feces?

Are you ever going to choose feces? Or are you going to choose pizza?

You are going to choose pizza, to such a degree of certainty based on your highest desire and your free will to choose that which you desire most.

Therefore you are predestined.

Therefore, you are both predestined and you are freely choosing of your own volition. You could have chosen feces any day, but you did not. Nobody forced you to pick one over the other. And, infact, it could easily be determined which choice you would make.

Scripture declares that both free will and predestination exists. You, up until this point, have probably thought that they are contradictory and mutually exclusive. But scripture teaches the exact opposite of your belief, and that they are indeed able to exist together. And I have just shown you, by example, of how that is true.

Now, you will try to counter this argument by saying "But God made me with those desires, so it is his fault." But please notice how that is not a true justification. It is an accusation, and God did not force you to obey your desires. You chose to obey your own desires. It is irrelevant whether your desires were good from the beginning or not (And actually...it can be argued that God gave us good desires but we ourselves manipulated them with our free will to be abused in bad ways). Nonetheless, whether you seek to accuse God or not...you are still guilty of your own choice. Two wrongs do not make a right. You do not get out of jail by accusing the other person of being guilty...if you yourself were still guilty. This is called ownership in your own responsibility. This is something which you wish to escape. And this is why your logic has been the way it has been all along.

The scripture which explicitly proves the mutual existence of free will and predestination is thus:

Proverbs 16

9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps.

Free will...and predestination...both declared in a single verse together.

There are other passages which prove predestination as well, such as Romans 8, but nothing is as clear as putting them both into a single verse like this one.

"Sure, I hope that my life continues somehow after my physical death."

Then why don't you seek the possibility of it being true? Because you have already told yourself that you have seen sufficient knowledge to prove it is not true? Or because you have already told yourself that you have seen sufficient knowledge to believe what you have always wanted to believe since the beginning, which is to say, that you do not wish for it to be true? Please notice your behavior and words reveal the true nature of your heart. Your words reveal that you are lying to yourself. If you *really* hoped for life after death, then you would seek harder to find it to be true, rather than seek to find it to be false. But instead, what you are arguing is not that "You hope your life continues after death" but rather instead "That you will only believe that your life continues after death if someone can serve the proof to you on a silver platter without you making an effort to have to search for such knowledge." Thus, the real truth is...you do not have the hope. For the hope would drive your motive to search. Yet you do not have a motive to search. Your motive...is to crush the search. Your motive is guided by your desires, whatever they may be, and your desire is not based on your hope or lack thereof. You have lied to yourself and you do not even know it.

"It doesn't mean that I have a logical reason to believe that either of those things will actually happen."

You have a false sense of reality. For you demand that you have a logical reason to believe there is a salvation plan or a God. But you have no logical reason for any of the beliefs that you hold even now. You demand higher proof for salvation plan and the existence of God than you demand of the beliefs you have now. The truth is, whatever your beliefs are, you chose to believe them on less proof than you demand as proof for your conversion to believing something else. And the reason you act in this manner is because you already willingly desire to believe what you believe. But you are not unbiased in the choice of your beliefs. You are very biased. You are guided by your desire. Your desire caused you to believe things that had little to no proof....only because you desired to believe them.

Do you remember what I said about my conversion? I became a Christian not because I wanted to...but because the truth was there, against my desire.

You believe there is no God, and no salvation plan. Yet you are unable to prove that there is no God, and unable to prove that there is no salvation plan. (It is very difficult to prove the non-existence of things. And yet that is not an excuse for your pre-disposition. Infact, it is an admittance that you lack the proof for your beliefs). So then, since you cannot prove your beliefs...you should formally acknowledge that the reason you believe them with lack of proof....is because that is exactly what you desired to believe.

"Do really think that this means anything to someone who doesn't even accept the concept of salvation? Just because I reject these superstitious concepts doesn't mean I lack a sense of self worth."

You should be careful to note that you are speaking the phrase "I reject these superstitious concepts" to a man who does not believe them superstitiously, but believes them because he has seen them. Therefore, by nature of what I have seen, your claim that they are superstitious...is revoked. You can make that claim for yourself if you desire, and I cannot force you to alter your desire. But you cannot make the claim that your argument for your beliefs is in any way valid towards a man who has had them verified, those things which you claim are superstitious. You should recognize that your argument is weak because the proof that I have seen is strong. You have not seen it, and therefore your argument appears to be strong to you. But I have seen it, and therefore your argument is weak towards me. Therefore, this should show you how your choices are being guided by your lack of knowledge and lack of experience. And if you have a lack of knowledge and a lack of personal experience...then that means there are things which you should be motivated to seek and find, that your ignorance be filled with the knowledge in that place where you had previously no knowledge. Yet all of your argumentation has been in place to try to argue that you should stop such a process, and not seek. And then, at the same time, you say that you seek knowledge. This is why you lie to yourself. This is why I tell you that you lie to yourself. That you may see.

"You still don't understand where I am coming from. My point is the IF God is real it would be unjust for Him to send people to be tortured forever over not believing something while rewarding those who do believe."

This is where you refuse to acknowledge that I do not believe in the God that you are creating here. I believe in the God who does not send people to be tortured forever for not believing something. It is you who believes that *if* God is real that he is then the God who is unjust for sending people to be tortured forever over not believing.

But I do not believe in that God.

I believe in the God who sends people to eternal torture in Hell *ONLY* if they are guilty of sin. If they are not guilty of sin, and they also do not believe in Christian doctrines...then God will not send them to Hell. If they are guilty of sin, and they believe in Jesus, then they will be saved from the condemnation which they already had. This is called Grace. This is why I said you reject Grace. You believe Grace, by the very definition of what it is, is unJust. For you make your Justice according to comparative analysis. To you, it is about "who got what and who didn't get what." You define Justice according to how one person is rewarded over another. You do not define Justice according to the condemnation of sinful actions.

So, once again, everything that you define of Justice...is the definition of Justice which pure evil would have as their definition. In essence, your beliefs are pure evil, not pure righteousness. For it is Evil which tries to justify its own wrongs by saying another has also done wrongs. It is Evil which tries to say that if one man receives mercy because his heart desires it that it is somehow wrong just because his own heart does not desire mercy. It is Evil which tries to deny Grace to one person just because he himself rejects Grace.

And mark my words: You *will* reap the rewards of your vengeful concept of Justice. For he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. And he who judges another, shall be judged. And you have declared it yourself that you find the concept of Grace despicable for no other reason than because it isn't given to those who willfully reject it. Yet it would be wrong of God to forcefully impose His Grace upon those who do not want it.

So hear me very closely: I understand your position very well. But you are getting angry because you are not able to justify it in a joust with me.

"Enough with the personal comments already. I think you should reread what Jesus said about beams and motes. I can reject the concept of salvation and still search for truth."

I will not stop with the personal comments. Do you feel convicted? Is that why you press for the cessation of personal comments? None of my comments have been oppressive. None of them have been spoken with anger, nor vengeance, nor hate. They have only been insightful, and you do not like what you see, and you do not like it exposed and brought to the light. That is why you wish them to cease.

I never said you cannot search for truth while rejecting the concept of salvation. What I said is you do not wish to search the concept of salvation to seek the possibility that it might be true. You search for truth. You just do not wish to find it where you do not want it to be.

So if truth is where you do not wish it to be, and you do not seek where you do not wish it to be....how can you ever find truth? For you have limited it out of the scope of your search.

If you do not wish to have your personal motives poked and prodded, and brought to the light, then end all your future posts and never come back. No one is forcing you to engage in a discussion which reveals your own heart to yourself. I am not forcing you to debate me. You can always walk away.

And when you do, I will write more posts beneath yours, so that the one who created this thread can have a final comment which is on topic with the thread. And it will be one which shows the abundant graces and mercies of God towards homosexuals.

I am an adulterer who has been forgiven of my sin, and my sin is far worse than homosexuality (for homosexuality does not destroy marriage...but adultery does).

And if divorce is the greatest sin of destruction of marriage, and Jesus and Moses both allowed divorce to occur inspite of them being sins (for the sake of the hardness of the hearts of the people, and thus for them to exercise their own liberty and free will)....

Then he can most certainly forgive homosexuality and adultery, which are lesser than divorce in their destructive nature.