Altering txaq007's Question For Christians. - Page 6

udontknowmickey · #51 09-13-2005, 07:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You mean any Jew pre-Christ-on-earth that believed a Messiah would come?

[/ QUOTE ]

with the acknowledgement that not all of Isreal are really "of Israel" (a la Romans 9) then yes. All those that God had predestined precross believed and looked foward to a Messiah to come.

There was no person that existed that was was going to be saved had he died earlier, then Christ came and he wasn't.

While there are times when God extends his spirit so that non-believers may prophecy and the like (King Saul is an example), there isn't a place (or time) where God had previously extended saving grace and then withdrew it.

sexdrugsmoney · #52 09-13-2005, 07:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You mean any Jew pre-Christ-on-earth that believed a Messiah would come?

[/ QUOTE ]

with the acknowledgement that not all of Isreal are really "of Israel" (a la Romans 9) then yes. All those that God had predestined precross believed and looked foward to a Messiah to come.

There was no person that existed that was was going to be saved had he died earlier, then Christ came and he wasn't.

While there are times when God extends his spirit so that non-believers may prophecy and the like (King Saul is an example), there isn't a place (or time) where God had previously extended saving grace and then withdrew it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I understand the viewpoint you are coming from now; that pre-christ the only saved were the ones God predestined to be saved (grace) and likewise any Jew that accepted Christ when he came on earth was also predestined to be saved, while the rejectors God predestined to be stubborn, the same as some of Israel he had predestined to be stubborn from the beginning of the Israelites?

Does that accurately describe your beliefs?

Cheers,
SDM

udontknowmickey · #53 09-13-2005, 07:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I think I understand the viewpoint you are coming from now; that pre-christ the only saved were the ones God predestined to be saved (grace) and likewise any Jew that accepted Christ when he came on earth was also predestined to be saved, while the rejectors God predestined to be stubborn, the same as some of Israel he had predestined to be stubborn from the beginning of the Israelites?

Does that accurately describe your beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would assent to all that you've said above, but in the interest of preventing people from misinterpreted I will add a few things.

Those that God predestines to be saved, he will call (though the precross or postcross gospel) and they will come to faith in a messiah or in Christ (depending upon when they live). Romans 8:28-30 sums it up fairly well (emphasis placed upon v. 30)

28And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good,[a] for those who are called according to his purpose. 29For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

True to my beliefs in a strict predestination, the condition on being saved isn't strictly on if they come to faith or not, it's on if they are chosen. Those that God chooses He brings to faith.

But yes, that's a pretty good summary

udontknowmickey · #54 09-13-2005, 08:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I view history as salvation is always by grace alone, through faith alone in christ alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm.. What?

This argument will end when the religious types simply assert that their faith is not logical, that it is something that transcends logic. There is no need to prove that your faith (or any faith) is logically correct. You have faith, you "know in your heart" that your faith is good, and it makes you feel good. Isn't that enough?

It doesn't take much of a thinker to conclude that religion is illogical. So what? It has historically kept the great masses of non-thinking people in line. Isn't that enough?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, the statement about faith alone and the like is just repeating the reformer's creed. To clarify:

Scripture alone is our infallible rule for life
Salvation is by God's grace alone
Salvation is through faith alone
Salvation is in Christ alone
To God alone be the glory

You do put forth an accurate criticism of what happens if faith is seen as extra logical or illogical. If it is just some fuzzy feeling, who can say which one is right? But I don't believe that definition of faith is reflective of Scripture, so I deny your initial premise. Rather, to me (and in Scripture), faith is a certainty. And the only way we have certainty in this world is by deductively reasoning from true premises. Thus to me, and I believe to Scripture, faith is rather the clarity of mind to logically reason from true premises to true conclusions.

I could keep going, but those are just some initial thoughts.

kbfc · #55 09-13-2005, 08:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
so my question to sklansky is: why is this yearning for a better understanding of god and spiritual matters such a universal thing; so much so; that it becomes an important part of a poker website.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two points:
1) This is what "Geneology of Morals" is all about. If you're really curious, just read that. It's not a difficult read.

2) Given that, I think your question is flawed, in that it's not really universal. I say that from my own experience. In my life, I've very likely spent (euphemism for 'wasted') more time and effort studying and debating religion than all but a few, if any, posters on this board. The reason for this has nothing to do with spiritual yearning.

I was raised in a non-religious household, and I distinctly remember my first thoughts about the subject being along the lines of, "wow, these people are so strange," when attending a private Episcopalian (spelling?) elementary school for a couple of years.

As years passed, I became more and more interested in the subject. This was because religion plays a huge role in everyday life in our society. I've gone through different phases, such as the "let me debate everyone so they all change their minds" phase, the "let me debate everyone so I can stir up a good flamewar" phase, and the "let me debate everyone to get them off my [censored] back" phase (comes in handy when you live for a few years in the South). These days I'm much more in a "who gives a [censored] what everyone thinks. nothing I do is gonna change anything, so I'll just try to get along with my life and hope the rest of you fools don't screw it up for me" sorta phase. (you won't find me living in a red-state anytime soon.....) I can still jump into a discussion here and there, but I don't get attached anymore, and I spend about 1/100th of the time and effort on it.

spaminator101 · #56 09-13-2005, 09:01 PM

I have to say that i would convert.

But the question is meaningless- the old jewish Bible is different from our Old Testement.

RJT · #57 09-13-2005, 09:13 PM

Have you ever gone through the phase where you say “Let me think about it and maybe I can figure out the why (of course, no one can figure it out) of it all myself? If not, I envy you , having that peace of mind.* If you have and got over it, what is the trick to stop that kind of thinking - cuz it killed the cat, is the only sensible reason, I have found so far, but not reason enough for me to stop the thinking.

* Actually, I would only envy you sometimes. I enjoy the thinking about it, and trying to live my life within the context of what I believe now.

kbfc · #58 09-13-2005, 09:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever gone through the phase where you say “Let me think about it and maybe I can figure out the why (of course, no one can figure it out) of it all myself? If not, I envy you , having that peace of mind.* If you have and got over it, what is the trick to stop that kind of thinking - cuz it killed the cat, is the only sensible reason, I have found so far, but not reason enough for me to stop the thinking.

* Actually, I would only envy you sometimes. I enjoy the thinking about it, and trying to live my life within the context of what I believe now.

[/ QUOTE ]

This response interested me, and I'd like to get into it with a little more detail, but I gotta run to catch a great band play. For now, I'll just say that I don't think I really achieved that "peace of mind," as you say, until the last year or two. It's going to take a little more time to suss out exactly what my mental state was before that, as I think it exists somewhere in between, or maybe perpendicular to, these extremes.

scalf · #59 09-13-2005, 09:49 PM

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] the fact remains it is spiritual values, religion, god, that are consistently important topics throughout the history of man...i think you are evading the question here..

in one of your earlier books; one of the stories was about mankind's minds taking on robots to survive; i felt this showed ; or hinted that you did have some spiritual understanding: by the way; your earlier books should be read and studied; rather than your most recent technical tomes:

one last q: did you ever have a spiritual discussion with luckman at gbc in 1970"s??

just a guess

gl

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

IronUnkind · #60 09-13-2005, 10:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If a lot of pretty smart people were believing in, and trying to make logical cases for levitation, there would be a levitation forum instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was precisely his point -- that this particular question persists because it is significant to our understanding of ourselves.

If we take for granted that archetypal God-images exist within human consciousness (c.f. Jung), then the search for a trancendental reference point is fundamentally important to us. In other words, these discussions are inevitable because human psychology contains the a priori concept of a Creator.