Religion II

[Buckeye]

I don't know why God forgives, only that we can forgive and thereby He will forgive us.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Buckeye

I don't know why God forgives, only that we can forgive and thereby He will forgive us.

But we can know that his reason most definitely does not have to do with anything meritorious he sees within us. The Gospel of Forgiveness is a glorious, wondrous message of pure grace.

1 John 2:12
12 I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for His name's sake.
NASB

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

I totally agree with what Jesus says here. What you don't get is that God does not give up on his creations who do "bad things". He's not lazy and he has infinite time.

These people who cross others are not taken to Heaven and given a "get out of hell free" card. They do have to "pay for their sins" so to speak. It may be Karma in another lifetime here or it may be "work" they do on the other side.

The bottom line is that God loves unconditionally and that's why he forgives. But its no free lunch. You have to "earn" your "enlightenment".

That's what you got out of Jesus' condemning words about Judas?

See my post that I just sent up in response to Buckeye. The reason God forgives has nothing to do with us. It has to do with God's grace. If we have to "work" our way to heaven and "earn" our enlightenment then that would make God indebted to us. He would owe us in payment for our "work". But this is what the inspired apostle said about such an heretical idea:

Rom 4:1-8
4 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:

7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven,
And whose sins have been covered.
8 "Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account."[/i]
NASB

Even Jesus taught this doctrine, albeit in a different way; for a man is not born again by any act of his own will! I would suggest you revisit Jn 3:1-15 wherein Jesus has his encounter with Nicodemus. The "wind" (Holy Spirit) goes where it wishes!

And one more:

John 1:12-13
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
NASB

You keep insisting that the sons of men get as many chances as it takes to get "enlightened" but that heresy goes against the entire tenor of scripture. Why do you persist in deceiving yourself to the great detriment of your own soul? A one-time physical resurrection is the bible's great doctrine, not reincarnation. Even Jesus did not reincarnate, since he existed in eternity as pure Spirit. But what he did was resurrect physically from the dead to be in a spiritual body forever and ever, and so it will be with his saints to wit:

1 John 3:2-3
2 Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that, when He appears, we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is. 3 And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.
NASB

And,

Phil 3:21
21 who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.
NASB

By contrast, reincarnation is nowhere to be found in all scripture.


2 Sam 14:14a
14 For we shall surely die and are like water spilled on the ground which cannot be gathered up again.
NASB

Ps 89:48
8 What man can live and not see death?
Can he deliver his soul from the power of Sheol?
NASB

Eccl 3:20-21
20 All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust. 21 Who knows that the breath of man ascends upward and the breath of the beast descends downward to the earth?
NASB

Eccl 9:5-6
5 For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. 6 Indeed their love, their hate, and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun.
NASB

Eccl 9:10
10 Whatever your hand finds to do, verily, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going.
NASB

Eccl 12:7
7 then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.
NASB

Now pay very special attention to this central NT text on this subject:

Heb 9:27-28
27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
NASB

If men die multiple deaths to achieve "enlightenment", then Christ must has suffered multiple deaths -- in fact is still suffering! But the text says that Christ offered himself only one time.

And in Jesus' story about the Rich Man and Lazarus, does it sound like the rich man was filled with hope to return to this earth so that he could earn his way to "Abraham's bosom"?

Luke 16:19-31
19 "Now there was a certain rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, gaily living in splendor every day. 20 "And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores,21 and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores.22 "Now it came about that the poor man died and he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.23 "And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom.24 "And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue; for I am in agony in this flame.'25 "But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.26 'And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, in order that those who wish to come over from here to you may not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.'27 "And he said, 'Then I beg you, Father, that you send him to my father's house - 28 for I have five brothers - that he may warn them, lest they also come to this place of torment.'29 "But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them,'30 "But he said, 'No, Father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!"31 "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.'"
NASB

You would do very well to heed Abraham's words at the end, and for once in your life actually listen to God's prophets, to Christ's apostles and to Jesus himself!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

I totally agree with what Jesus says here. What you don't get is that God does not give up on his creations who do "bad things". He's not lazy and he has infinite time.

Since when did sin in your world become acts that are "bad things"? You have always equated sin with pain and suffering, and pain and suffering must ultimately be good things because through these one becomes enlightened. All of a sudden now, you are trying to align yourself with scripture because of what Jesus said about Judas?

Furthermore, in your previous view of "sin" (which you have also said is a very controversial subject, but one which you have obviously mastered), it would appear that Judas paid the price of enlightenment since he was obviously tormented in his soul. In fact, he suffered so much emotional pain over what he did that he returned the price of his act of betrayal to the priests and killed himself. In fact, could it not be said of Judas that he finally came to his senses and and saw the Light!?. One is led wonder, therefore, how Jesus could not have foreseen Judas' remorse and his coming to enlightenment. How could Jesus have spoken so judgmentally of Judas -- in such condemning tones?

Please "enlighten" me.

[Buckeye]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But we can know that his reason most definitely does not have to do with anything meritorious he sees within us. The Gospel of Forgiveness is a glorious, wondrous message of pure grace.

1 John 2:12
12 I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for His name's sake.
NASB

No doubt about it boxcar, I could have been more clear.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Buckeye

No doubt about it boxcar, I could have been more clear.

Praise the Lord that you see this! In fact, since the nature of grace cannot ever change, God told the nation of Israel, also, that he didn't choose to enter into a covenant relationship with them because they were righteous or more powerful than the other nations in the world at the time.

[Actor]

#9157

These are the logical fallacies that apologists most frequently commit. There are hundreds of logical fallacies so the list is not exhaustive.

• Ad hominem – meaning “to the man” this fallacy attacks the apologist’s opponent rather than his argument. My favorite is the Biblical “the fool has said in his heart ‘there is no god’.” The apologist does not even try to address the question at hand but instead simply calls his opponent names. Two things need to be addressed regarding the ad hominem.
  • First is the response “It’s not an ad hominem if it’s true.” That’s false simply because the question at hand is whether there is a god, not whether the apologist’s opponent is a fool.
    
  • Second is the response “You need to grow a tougher skin,” implying that the opponent merely feels insulted. But, insult or not, the ad hominem still does not address the question at hand. The apologist has revealed that he does not have an argument.
• Affirming the consequent – putting the cart before the horse. An example is to observe that some members of a population have a certain trait and then claim that all members of that population share this trait.
  • Eagles are birds
  • Eagles can fly
  • Penguins are birds
  • Ergo, penguins can fly
• Non-testable hypothesis – a.k.a. argument from ignorance. The apologist declares that there are only two possibilities (see false dilemma below). Failure to prove one of the possibilities implies the other must be true. This is fallacious on two counts: First, there may be more than just two possibilities. Second, failure to prove one possibility does not necessarily mean it cannot be proven.
• Ad populum – appeal to the people. Truth is not determined by a vote. This is the flaw in the argument “one third of the world’s population is Christian, ergo, Christianity is the one true religion.” According to the PEW Research Center (founded at least in part by the Templeton Foundation) Islam will be the dominant religion in the world by 2050. Christian apologists would hardly agree that that makes Islam the one true religion.
• False dilemma – closely related to the non-testable hypothesis wherein the apologist declares that there are only two possibilities when in fact there may be many.
• Emotional appeal – often summed up in a statement such as “I wouldn’t want to live in a world where ...” What one wants has no bearing on what is.
• Misunderstanding statistics – often stated as “correlation does not imply causation.” However, correlation can, and often does, suggest causation. Statisticians have methods of dealing with this, one being the chi-squared test which handicappers should be familiar with.
• Straw man – this can take a variety of forms such as citing an example which is a special case and then erroneously expanding it to the general. The ultimate straw man is the …
• Red herring – wherein the apologist simply tries to change the subject.
• Post hoc ergo proctor hoc – the apologist cites two events, claims one caused the other, then expands that to claim that one always causes the other.
• Equivocation – word games. Most words have more than one meaning. The equivocator makes a statement which his opponent accepts as true. The equivocator then applies a different meaning of the word and declares that his opponent must also accept this second statement as true. Example: pain serves a biological function of signaling the brain that some part of the body has been damaged or is in danger of being damaged, e.g., touching something hot causes pain and the person withdraws his hand from the object. This is good. The equivocator then makes the sweeping generality that all pain is good, ergo, torturing someone is good.
• Non-sequitur – meaning it does not follow. Example: 2 + 2 = 4 and 2 x 2 = 4. Then if 3 + 3 = 6 then 3 x 3 = 6. That’s a non-sequitur.

Two other fallacies, the circular argument and the argument from morality, deserve their own posts.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

#9157

These are the logical fallacies that apologists most frequently commit. There are hundreds of logical fallacies so the list is not exhaustive.

• Ad hominem – meaning “to the man” this fallacy attacks the apologist’s opponent rather than his argument. My favorite is the Biblical “the fool has said in his heart ‘there is no god’.” The apologist does not even try to address the question at hand but instead simply calls his opponent names. Two things need to be addressed regarding the ad hominem.
  • First is the response “It’s not an ad hominem if it’s true.” That’s false simply because the question at hand is whether there is a god, not whether the apologist’s opponent is a fool.
    
  • Second is the response “You need to grow a tougher skin,” implying that the opponent merely feels insulted. But, insult or not, the ad hominem still does not address the question at hand. The apologist has revealed that he does not have an argument.
• Affirming the consequent – putting the cart before the horse. An example is to observe that some members of a population have a certain trait and then claim that all members of that population share this trait.
  • Eagles are birds
  • Eagles can fly
  • Penguins are birds
  • Ergo, penguins can fly
• Non-testable hypothesis – a.k.a. argument from ignorance. The apologist declares that there are only two possibilities (see false dilemma below). Failure to prove one of the possibilities implies the other must be true. This is fallacious on two counts: First, there may be more than just two possibilities. Second, failure to prove one possibility does not necessarily mean it cannot be proven.
• Ad populum – appeal to the people. Truth is not determined by a vote. This is the flaw in the argument “one third of the world’s population is Christian, ergo, Christianity is the one true religion.” According to the PEW Research Center (founded at least in part by the Templeton Foundation) Islam will be the dominant religion in the world by 2050. Christian apologists would hardly agree that that makes Islam the one true religion.
• False dilemma – closely related to the non-testable hypothesis wherein the apologist declares that there are only two possibilities when in fact there may be many.
• Emotional appeal – often summed up in a statement such as “I wouldn’t want to live in a world where ...” What one wants has no bearing on what is.
• Misunderstanding statistics – often stated as “correlation does not imply causation.” However, correlation can, and often does, suggest causation. Statisticians have methods of dealing with this, one being the chi-squared test which handicappers should be familiar with.
• Straw man – this can take a variety of forms such as citing an example which is a special case and then erroneously expanding it to the general. The ultimate straw man is the …
• Red herring – wherein the apologist simply tries to change the subject.
• Post hoc ergo proctor hoc – the apologist cites two events, claims one caused the other, then expands that to claim that one always causes the other.
• Equivocation – word games. Most words have more than one meaning. The equivocator makes a statement which his opponent accepts as true. The equivocator then applies a different meaning of the word and declares that his opponent must also accept this second statement as true. Example: pain serves a biological function of signaling the brain that some part of the body has been damaged or is in danger of being damaged, e.g., touching something hot causes pain and the person withdraws his hand from the object. This is good. The equivocator then makes the sweeping generality that all pain is good, ergo, torturing someone is good.
• Non-sequitur – meaning it does not follow. Example: 2 + 2 = 4 and 2 x 2 = 4. Then if 3 + 3 = 6 then 3 x 3 = 6. That’s a non-sequitur.

Two other fallacies, the circular argument and the argument from morality, deserve their own posts.

Slow day today huh?

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If we have to "work" our way to heaven and "earn" our enlightenment then that would make God indebted to us. He would owe us in payment for our "work".

I sometimes forget how shallow you are. That's why you don't understand what I say at times like here. Let me explain the "work" I am talking about.

You can "work" your entire life in the name of God and go to Hell. That's what is illustrated in "Dante's inferno" where Dante visits Hell and sees many of the clergy in Hell, including high ranking ones.

When I say we "work" for "enlightenment", I am not referring to the rewards reaped from physical work. It's not like you put in an 8 hour day for God and collect "points" for Heaven.

The "work" for enlightenment is focused on finding your inner self from the shell of this material body and world to the awareness of God within you not in some Heaven outside you.

The treasure in this world is the priceless Divine Love that God has put within you, which takes a special type of work to find. Many times it is NOT physical work you go out and do but dealing with adversity that comes to you.

The stronger the adversity you can successfully deal with through God the stronger your spiritual foundation becomes. The stronger your connection to God becomes within you.

If you just read the Bible and go to church, that is NOT enough to liberate you from the illusions of this life. You must go deeper within and discover the Divine love and wisdom that cannot be spoken. That is the "work" that needs to be done because that is why we are here. To grow closer to God through that "Divine work" we do here, not "physical work".

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Since when did sin in your world become acts that are "bad things"? You have always equated sin with pain and suffering, and pain and suffering must ultimately be good things because through these one becomes enlightened. All of a sudden now, you are trying to align yourself with scripture because of what Jesus said about Judas?

You are confused. I have explained this before to you. When you betray someone like Judas did, it comes back to you. That why Jesus said "woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed". Jesus understood the law of Karma.

Now please don't be so simple minded to tell me the word Karma is not in the Bible. No it isn't but the law of Karma is the same as what Jesus was talking about. You reap what you sow.

That quote from Jesus is an extension of when he said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” That wasn't a superficial saying, like "lets all be nice to each other". This is much deeper. Jesus is aware of the law of Karma and knows how this Divine principle of energy (spirit) works in a very practical way.

The ensuing pain Judas experienced was not a growing pain from a positive action such as a sacrifice. It was a negative pain from his EGO. That pain as a result of one's ego, does not enhance your spirituality, just because it is "pain". This is where you are confused. This kind of pain kills your spirituality.

Not all pain enhances you.You need to have some discretion rather than accusing me with a blanket statement that I said pain is how we become enlightened.

There is pain that is the result of your Ego (Judas) and there is pain as a result of your heart such as Jesus's sacrifice on the cross. That energy (Karma) travels in opposite directions and that energy comes back to you. In Judas's case it ended his life. In Jesus's case, it enhanced it.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No one ever said that God "cannot" save all. The question becomes: Was it God's intention in eternity to save all, none or many?

Well if God won't save those who cross a certain line then the God of Sin wins. It doesn't matter if God can save them but won't save them because what they did is so bad. That is the equivalent of God not being able to save them at all. The God of Sin becomes more powerful than God, game over. As if God is so weak, he can't take what they did. Like he hasn't seen it all.

Seek to deny and you will be denied. Seek to deprive and you will be deprived. Judge not or you will be judged.

Where is salvation's justice if some errors are unforgivable and warrant vengeance in place of healing? Problem solving cannot be vengeance because all that does is add another problem to the first.

Unless you think that all your brothers and sisters have equal rights to miracles,
you will not claim your rights to them because you were unjust to one with equal rights. To "win" somebody must lose. That may be true at the racetrack but not in God's world,What is God's belongs to everyone.No one can lose and everyone must benefit.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

You are confused. I have explained this before to you. When you betray someone like Judas did, it comes back to you. That why Jesus said "woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed". Jesus understood the law of Karma.

Now please don't be so simple minded to tell me the word Karma is not in the Bible. No it isn't but the law of Karma is the same as what Jesus was talking about. You reap what you sow.

Then since you're such a firm believer in "karma" -- people "reaping what they have sown" in this life -- then you can't logically close the door to wicked people like Judas reaping for all eternity in hell what he has sown here on earth.

Further, you can't possibly be suggesting that the "woe" which Jesus pronounced upon Judas was merely his death by suicide? How is suicide so bad since it relieved Judas of the agony of his soul that he suffered after doing the dastardly deed? How would Jesus equate a mere act of suicide with better than never being born, most especially since there was nothing worse awaiting Judas in the afterlife? After all, if Judas never had been born, how would he get to live a life of attaining to enlightenment through pain and suffering, and through these great experiences get to know God?

That quote from Jesus is an extension of when he said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” That wasn't a superficial saying, like "lets all be nice to each other". This is much deeper. Jesus is aware of the law of Karma and knows how this Divine principle of energy (spirit) works in a very practical way.

Did Jesus ever reveal in scripture "how this Divine principle of energy (spirit works in a very practical way"?

The ensuing pain Judas experienced was not a growing pain from a positive action such as a sacrifice. It was a negative pain from his EGO. That pain as a result of one's ego, does not enhance your spirituality, just because it is "pain". This is where you are confused. This kind of pain kills your spirituality.

Oh but wait a minute -- now you're introducing to us two kinds of "sin", i.e. two kinds of pain, and you're saying one pain is good and the other not so much. But a couple of months ago or so when I wrote about the eternal, visible kingdom of Heaven, wherein there is no more pain, no more suffering, no more misery, no more sorrow, no more death, for in heaven God's people will be in the actual presence of a thrice holy God forever, you nearly freaked out! You categorically rejected the passage's crystal clear teaching I quoted or cited in Revelation on the grounds that in such a spiritually pristine place there could no longer be any spiritual growth because in order for people to grow and attain to enlightenment, they REALLY NEED the kind of pain and suffering this world offers up on a daily basis. So, how is it now, in the context of this Judas discussion, worldly pain and suffering and misery cannot produce spiritual growth and attain to true enlightenment?

And you think I'm confused?

Not all pain enhances you.You need to have some discretion rather than accusing me with a blanket statement that I said pain is how we become enlightened.

But that is exactly what you said when you rejected the teaching in Revelation about the nature of the eternal, visible Kingdom of Heaven. Maybe you need to better explain yourself! Don't YOU rejected the bible's teaching on the visible, eternal kingdom precisely because in such a place karma would become obsolete!!!

There is pain that is the result of your Ego (Judas) and there is pain as a result of your heart such as Jesus's sacrifice on the cross. That energy (Karma) travels in opposite directions and that energy comes back to you. In Judas's case it ended his life. In Jesus's case, it enhanced it.

Explain to us, please, how Jesus' pain on the cross "enhanced" his life. How did Jesus' life increase or improve in value or quality? Did Jesus' life need improvement? After all, scripture says that Jesus was sinless and holy. And Jesus himself even claimed to be without sin. So...if this is all true, then how can a morally perfect being's life possibly be "enhanced"? Or asked from a different perspective: How could someone who was the very God of God do anything to improve or enhance his own life?

Also, Judas repented of his misdeed, didn't he? Don't forget: Judas was a lover of money, but after he betrayed Jesus his sensitive conscience drove him to return the money to the priests.

And Judas was in such deep remorse over his misstep (I don't know what other term to use since you have redefined "sin" for us) that he no longer thought himself to be worthy of life. Could it not be reasonably said that Judas made the ultimate sacrifice by sacrificing his own life to Jesus, as atonement of sorts, for his ill-conceived act toward his Master? And surely, you're not even remotely suggesting that an all-loving God, who loves everyone under the sun without any strings attached whatsoever, would not accept Judas' selfless, supreme sacrifice, are you? Judas certainly did nothing worthy of God's condemnation, right? (I will pursue and expand on this line of argument in a separate post.)

Personally, I really don't see how you can distinguish between Jesus' pain and Judas'. Both went the way of the world. Both suffered the pains and sorrows of this world. And the grave claimed them both, as it does with all in the world.

[Actor]

#9163

Circular reasoning, a.k.a., begging the question, is the logical fallacy where the conclusion is the same as the premise. There is no reason to accept the premise unless one already believes the conclusion.

• The Bible is the word of God.
• How do you know that?
• Because it says so in the Bible.
• Why should we believe the Bible?
• Because the Bible is the word of God.

In an attempt prove that the above is not a circular argument the apologist puts forward the following argument:

The first premise is that the Bible has no contradictions. On the face of it this is simply not true. Attempts to reconcile contradictory passages in the Bible generally come down to equivocation (see previous post). However, for the sake of argument only, let us accept this premise.

The second premise is that the Bible has many authors, say around 50. This premise is acceptable.

The third premise is that the Bible was written over a period of centuries, perhaps even millennia. This premise is in doubt. There is evidence from archeology and textual analysis that most of the Old Testament was written over a span of about one century, a subject which I will cover later. Again, for the sake of argument only, let us accept this premise.

The argument now goes something like this: Since the Bible was written over a period of centuries the latter authors could not have known the earlier authors, i.e., they could not have compared notes. (presumably Methuselah was not one of the authors.) Since they all agree with one another what they have written must be true. Non-sequitur

This argument fails to address one key question: Where did all these ideas come from? They cannot be self-evident, otherwise there would be only one religion and no one would be an atheist. Likewise they cannot be deduced from evidence and scientific inquiry. Someone must have had a conversation with God. We are back to the same argument.

• Someone had a conversation with God.
• How do you know that?
• Because he wrote it down.
• Why should we believe what he wrote?
• Because he had a conversation with God.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Well if God won't save those who cross a certain line then the God of Sin wins. It doesn't matter if God can save them but won't save them because what they did is so bad. That is the equivalent of God not being able to save them at all. The God of Sin becomes more powerful than God, game over. As if God is so weak, he can't take what they did. Like he hasn't seen it all.

Read Romans 8 and 9. God's eternal decrees don't work the way you describe. God doesn't save anyone on the basis of their degrees of goodness -- or their sins being less grievous than others. Your logic misses the bull's eye a biblical theology by a country mile.

Seek to deny and you will be denied. Seek to deprive and you will be deprived. Judge not or you will be judged.

Where is salvation's justice if some errors are unforgivable and warrant vengeance in place of healing? Problem solving cannot be vengeance because all that does is add another problem to the first.

There is no such thing as "salvation's justice"! That's an oxymoron! Salvation saves people from God's wrath, i.e. from the justice they deserve! Salvation saves a sinner from the eternal penalty of sin. God's Grace gives unworthy sinners what they don't deserve, i.e.Mercy. Whereas divine justice gives to sinners what they do deserve -- eternal condemnation.

Rom 5:9
9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
NASB

Unless you think that all your brothers and sisters have equal rights to miracles, you will not claim your rights to them because you were unjust to one with equal rights. To "win" somebody must lose. That may be true at the racetrack but not in God's world,What is God's belongs to everyone.No one can lose and everyone must benefit.

Truly (and not be insulting), I cannot make heads or tails of the above paragraph. It's all childish gibberish to me.

But since you brought up the subject of "what is God's", you should know that nothing in this universe belongs to anyone. God owns all, including our souls. Whatever we have in this world is on loan to us. We are mere stewards in God's creation.

Moreover Natural Revelation (reality in the real world as we all know it) refutes your silly foolishness. God has decreed in eternity plenty of winners and losers in this temporal life! You really think life is fair? Do I need to give you about a dozen examples of how it isn't so? The irrefutable fact is that God, as the Sovereign King of the universe, picks winners and losers. The Potter really does have the right over his lump of clay to do with as he pleases because whatever He does will be just, whether he determines to save or condemn.. In either scenario, justice will be served. Again, see Romans 9.

That's not how God saves

And you know this how: By your exceedingly fallible "logic", totally unfettered from God's Word?

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Light

It doesn't matter if God can save them but won't save them because what they did is so bad. That is the equivalent of God not being able to save them at all.

You're offering a logic here that I don't follow.
Choosing not to do something is not equivalent to not being able to do something, in the world I live in.