Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

No there is no reason. Literally.Everything that happened, will happen is predestined. What's the point?

And your god wrote every line in the script, and knows how it will turn out, no matter the illusion of free will given to man.

TJDave said Welcome back TJ.

The point is to test God's imagers' who have free will just as he does.

Also, the point is that God FIXED what Adam broke in the Garden, instead of just condemning the entire human race along with Adam.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Incorrect. The "righteousness" you speak of in God's name is the same as the worst butchers in human history. Pick a despicable ruler in human history and he is the same as your God, wiping out people, destroying hating them with his "righteousness".

That is the lowest form of consciousness. The love I speak of is the highest form of consciousness and that is unconditional Love.



No God doesn't judge people. His own son said so. God administers Love. Your Ego administers YOUR sick interpretation of God's law.



So God is a cop? Take your meds.



Your God is hard hearted and an illusion of Ego. The proof is that you are talking about an anthropomorphic God rather than true God which is a universal energy within us and and surrounding us.



No, the fact that I ignore a fear based God shows that I am not an idiot to believe that God hates his own creation, terrorizes them etc. Only people with hate in their heads believe that.



More idiocy. God does not kill souls because he is the souls.




Moronic.



To YOU it looks that way. God and Jesus knew men would crucify Jesus for spreading Love because men couldn't accept the words of someone preaching love and peace. Just like you want to crucify me for talking of a loving God. Nothing has changed.




I'll give you more ammo. Besides Buddha and Jesus there are other wise men that I have learned from in my life such as Krishna, Mohammad, Lao Tzu and leaders of other religions. Because they all point to the same God.

One day you will learn the secret of life. That as Jesus said, God is within. And he is Love.

The righteousness of God that the bible speaks of is the very righteousness that all sinners require if they hope to see God. Without that kind of righteousness, no one will see God and will be condemned forever. And that Righteousness can only be acquired by having truth faith in Christ, which you don't have.

Rom 10:3-5
3 For not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
NASB

This is you! You have already established your own righteousness, since you're not in need of Christ's salvation.

And notice the last line carefully. It says that Jesus is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes -- not believes in him.

2 Cor 5:21
21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
NASB

And why do you mock and look down your holier-than-thou, sanctimonious, condescending, arrogant snout at the "worst butchers in history" when you have repeatedly told us that God LOVES them as much as you think he loves you! Aren't you supposed to love those "worst butchers in history" as you love yourself!? Aren't you supposed to love your enemies? If God loves them just as much as he loves you, why do you think you are so much better than they are? How often have you told us that God loves EVERYTHING under the son which must including aborted fetuses, sewer rats, cow manure, bacteria in septic tanks -- I mean there isn't a thing in this entire universe, according to you, that God does not love!

Plus you just got through telling that the highest form of love is "unconditional love". God then must love the most despicable people that have ever lived, are now living and ever will live! In fact, sir, "unconditional love" must mean that God doesn't give one flip about a person's sins or wickedness or atrocities. Unconditional love tells me that your god so loves the worst on this planet, that he can be no better than those who actually overtly approve of the actions of those "worst butchers" or those of "despicable rulers'"; for the message of unconditional love clearly sends the signal, at minimum, of tacit approval of their actions. God simply CANNOT stop loving them, no matter what such people do! Your god's love demands that he cannot hate or even dislike or disapprove of anyone's actions. To go even further, your god's "unconditional love" must mean that he (or should I call the energy force an "IT") is in an intimate personal relationship with everything on the planet.

And your god's unconditional love for the worst of the worst would also have to prohibit him from speaking any unkind words about them. So why are you so hard on them and then compare them to your god yet! For if kindness doesn't flow from unconditional love, then what would?

But we're not through yet! You have also told us that sin (which you equate with "pain" is as natural as breathing. And to tried recently to make your case from scripture by alluding to Jn 8:7 -- "let him be the first cast the first stone" -- and this is your fanciful interpretation of these words. Well then...since sin is as natural to human kind as breathing air, eating, drinking and having BMs, then what the big deal with these so called "worst butchers in history" and "despicable rulers' actions (SINS)?

But there's still more! Not only is sin a natural human practice -- but it's a NECESSARY one, according to you. We need to have sin (and all its attending consequences) in our life so that we grow and become enlightened, etc. None of us can live without sin and also hope to grow spiritually, according to you. So, it would seem to me that sin, at the end day, is really a good thing because it's good for us.

Meanwhile...back in the real world, it's no wonder at all that your "best friend" in John chapters 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 taught a very different kind of love -- a conditional love -- a qualified love.

And, no, I'm not surprised at all that you have many "best friends" such as all those you mention in your last paragraph. (You need the rest because they all take up Jesus' slack and correct his ignorance, right?) Talk about a house divided against itself or cognitive dissonance for that matter.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The point is to test God's imagers' who have free will just as he does.

Also, the point is that God FIXED what Adam broke in the Garden, instead of just condemning the entire human race along with Adam.

But he tried and failed to fix Adam with a do-over at global flood time.

It would seem to me an omniscient and omnipotent deity would have got Adam's ability to choose correctly, right the first time. Your deity knew Adan would fail from jump.

So you are right your god cursed man. By ultimately putting man in the unalterable position of failing.

Hint: more do-overs needed. However don't ya think those do-overs might have been done with little less genocide?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I think with continued evolution, we may eventually become a mistake-free species, but none of us will be around to see it.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I think with continued evolution, we may eventually become a mistake-free species, but none of us will be around to see it.

That suggests a goal-oriented process, condemned by moderns since it leads to Final Causes, i.e., You-Know-Who...

https://www.google.com/search?q=evol...hrome&ie=UTF-8

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I think with continued evolution, we may eventually become a mistake-free species...

I hope not...because that will spell doom for the horse-betting game.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I hope not...because that will spell doom for the horse-betting game.

Won't happen anyway....Horse racing IS a religion.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Won't happen anyway....Horse racing IS a religion.

Horse racing is a GODLESS religion.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Horse racing is a GODLESS religion.

More SINCERE prayers have been uttered to God at the race track than at any church, period...

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

More SINCERE prayers have been uttered to God at the race track than at any church, period...

All references to God that I hear at the track, have the word "dammit" affixed to them.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

All references to God that I hear at the track, have the word "dammit" affixed to them.

Don't you live in Chicago?....Enough said...

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I'm not sure there are thousands of "different flavors" to Christianity. Hundreds, perhaps, but I think you greatly exaggerate.

Here's a link to Wikipedia's 35 pages describing Christian denominations. Hundred listed, maybe more. When dissected down to similar levels as you do, which is well beyond superficial groupings, it's rather easy to see there being thousands of flavors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._denominations

Originally Posted by boxcar

The New Covenant Church of Christ is very much like the Old Covenant Nation Israel (a type of church). Even a cursory reading of the OT will bear out that God's "chosen people" were largely apostate and were driven three times from their promised land, as covenant-breakers, for their transgressions. (As the apostle Paul exhorts us (to paraphrase), "those things of former times were written for the Church's instruction today, cf. 1Cor 10:11).

Further, the OT instructs us that God has always saved a remnant of mankind. And so it is today with Christ's church. Nothing has changed. There are numerous professing Christians who profess to believe in Christ, who on the last day will be cast from the Lord's presence for all eternity because they never trusted Him (i.e. believed Him, as Abraham did, as one example). (See the end of Matthew 7.) We have one such person who has often posted in this thread!

So I gather from this you're okay with the view that many of us are doomed to eternal damnation, as part of the Good News that is often how the Bible and Christianity is promoted? This "trust" you speak of sounds a bit heavier than the term "blind faith", but more on that later.

So if part of the deal is that just a fraction of mankind is to be saved, then we get back to free will versus manifest destiny. And to the problem with the souls that were never exposed to Christ in any fashion.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Regarding the bible as the lone source for people's salvation, I seriously doubt you can back up your claim that only a tiny percentage of people can become saved by reading it. While, I would agree that a large percentage don't become saved in that manner, it is because has made his church a "kingdom of priests" for the very purpose of ministering to lost souls (among other things).

I thought I made it clear it was my opinion that the Bible can be the lone source of salvation, based on my limited observations. The point I was trying to make is that a HUMAN is involved in the equation, far more often than not, which the latter portion of your comment appears to agree with.

Originally Posted by boxcar

In my own case, I relied almost solely on the scriptures for my salvation, but in the end I became confused and frustrated until God led me to a godly pastor at a church in my area. After he answered several questions I had, I could no longer resist the conviction of the Holy Spirit, and I broke down and wept bitterly over my sins and asked God to forgive me. God literally saved me after I left the pastor's house and got into my car and started to reflect on things the pastor had told me.

So without the godly pastor, it appears you would not be saved. I will not debate the process, but I would point out this then becomes a tainted "pipeline" to God. We are repeatedly told that all men are sinners. We are repeatedly told that various Satanic forces are at work, influencing us. We are repeatedly told that we must accept Christ, and often through the Holy Spirit, to achieve salvation - but how can we validate the authenticity of the event if it comes to pass with another HUMAN in the process?

Originally Posted by boxcar

I first heard about Jesus in a documentary film I saw -- "The Late Great Planet Earth" that dealt with the doctrine of eschatology. After seeing that movie, I bought the book because I tend to absorb things better through reading than by hearing. After I finished the book, I then went out and bought my first bible and eventually read it from cover to cover.

If there be any "holes" and "contradictions", they would (not?) be in the bible. But you're complaining about God's church. Or are you? If you're complaining about the state of God's church, then I would say that the church is largely apostate today -- but the apostasy isn't due to "holes" or "contradictions" in scripture. It's due to man's self-deceived, sinful nature.

I assume you left out the word not. Yes, my complaint, or criticism rather is with the church and its practices. Funny you should call it God's church, because that appears to blur the lines more. But my criticism is also with the Bible, as there seems to be many questions around its description as the Word of God. Different languages, different translations, large gaps in time, and the limited number of authors sheds a lot of doubt on it. I've mentioned before that in a court of law, the "chain of custody" would not stand up. There are numerous holes, even to a non-scholar such as myself.

Therefore, I see a problem for the regular guy on the street. How's he supposed to know which Bible is the true one? Would that be the Good News, the ancient Greek texts, the King James, the Satanic, the Book of Mormon, or something else? We poor heathens are inundated with so many sources, all of which claim to be the one true path, that it's a major problem. Comparing speed figures for a Saratoga card is trivial compared to the effort needed to dissect the world's religious texts.

Originally Posted by boxcar

As for "confirmation bias", all true believers will get that only from scripture. A Christian constantly examines his life in light of the Word of God. If a professing Christian's his life isn't essentially and substantially line with the Word, then he has no reason to believe he was ever saved to begin with. Conversely, comfort, joy, peace and all the other fruits of the Holy Spirit are confirmed in a true believer's heart when he is walking with God. Having said this, it's also important to understand that no Christian, no matter how devout or pious he/she is will ever attain to perfection in this life. Therefore, the Christian life is one of continual confession, repentance and active seeking of forgiveness.

I would agree with your statement here, as I understand Christianity. However, it does bring up another requirement - that of being literate and being able to read with significant comprehension. As you well know, this ability is beyond many people, many of which claim to be Christians. Which brings us back to the intermediation of another HUMAN in the mix.

So, to sum things up, there appears to be a lack of purity in the Christian faith, tainted in many ways by sinful and imperfect humans. There appears to be no direct pipeline to God. This contradicts the "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" we hear so much about. Trust in that relationship appears to hinge on not only making a leap of faith, but relying on someone else to interpret (or coerce) you to the "right" conclusion. It's been my experience that trust is not coming when engaging with the various people I've known in the area of religion....

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

Here's a link to Wikipedia's 35 pages describing Christian denominations. Hundred listed, maybe more. When dissected down to similar levels as you do, which is well beyond superficial groupings, it's rather easy to see there being thousands of flavors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._denominations




So I gather from this you're okay with the view that many of us are doomed to eternal damnation, as part of the Good News that is often how the Bible and Christianity is promoted? This "trust" you speak of sounds a bit heavier than the term "blind faith", but more on that later.

So if part of the deal is that just a fraction of mankind is to be saved, then we get back to free will versus manifest destiny. And to the problem with the souls that were never exposed to Christ in any fashion.



I thought I made it clear it was my opinion that the Bible can be the lone source of salvation, based on my limited observations. The point I was trying to make is that a HUMAN is involved in the equation, far more often than not, which the latter portion of your comment appears to agree with.



So without the godly pastor, it appears you would not be saved. I will not debate the process, but I would point out this then becomes a tainted "pipeline" to God. We are repeatedly told that all men are sinners. We are repeatedly told that various Satanic forces are at work, influencing us. We are repeatedly told that we must accept Christ, and often through the Holy Spirit, to achieve salvation - but how can we validate the authenticity of the event if it comes to pass with another HUMAN in the process?



I assume you left out the word not. Yes, my complaint, or criticism rather is with the church and its practices. Funny you should call it God's church, because that appears to blur the lines more. But my criticism is also with the Bible, as there seems to be many questions around its description as the Word of God. Different languages, different translations, large gaps in time, and the limited number of authors sheds a lot of doubt on it. I've mentioned before that in a court of law, the "chain of custody" would not stand up. There are numerous holes, even to a non-scholar such as myself.

Therefore, I see a problem for the regular guy on the street. How's he supposed to know which Bible is the true one? Would that be the Good News, the ancient Greek texts, the King James, the Satanic, the Book of Mormon, or something else? We poor heathens are inundated with so many sources, all of which claim to be the one true path, that it's a major problem. Comparing speed figures for a Saratoga card is trivial compared to the effort needed to dissect the world's religious texts.



I would agree with your statement here, as I understand Christianity. However, it does bring up another requirement - that of being literate and being able to read with significant comprehension. As you well know, this ability is beyond many people, many of which claim to be Christians. Which brings us back to the intermediation of another HUMAN in the mix.

So, to sum things up, there appears to be a lack of purity in the Christian faith, tainted in many ways by sinful and imperfect humans. There appears to be no direct pipeline to God. This contradicts the "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" we hear so much about. Trust in that relationship appears to hinge on not only making a leap of faith, but relying on someone else to interpret (or coerce) you to the "right" conclusion. It's been my experience that trust is not coming when engaging with the various people I've known in the area of religion....

For the Christian, that "direct pipeline to God" is the Incarnation. Yet even in that event, God accomplishes the reconciliation of man to Himself within the limitations of the physical--time (a lifespan), space (restricted to ancient Near East), sinful human collaborators as well as adversaries, etc.

And the extension of the Incarnation through time ("Do this in memory of me", etc.) necessarily entails incorporating sinful human instruments as participants in each other's salvation (E.g., "And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on his bed; and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.”)

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

Here's a link to Wikipedia's 35 pages describing Christian denominations. Hundred listed, maybe more. When dissected down to similar levels as you do, which is well beyond superficial groupings, it's rather easy to see there being thousands of flavors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._denominations

But even with the 100 or so denominations, in many cases the differences in doctrine are relatively minor. For example, Baptists believe in baptism by immersion; whereas, Presbyterians believe in baptism by sprinkling. Or again, Baptists believe in believer's only baptism once someone comes to saving faith; whereas Presbyterians, because of the views they have of the relationship between the Old and New Covenants, hold to covenantal baptism of infants which to their mind is analogous to Old Covenant circumcision of male babies, etc., etc.
None of these differences, in my opinion, are serious; for they do not impact the Gospel or any Rule for Living. (Just as a personal aside, I hold to the traditional Baptist view of baptism, but I attend a conservative Presbyterian church.)

So I gather from this you're okay with the view that many of us are doomed to eternal damnation, as part of the Good News that is often how the Bible and Christianity is promoted? This "trust" you speak of sounds a bit heavier than the term "blind faith", but more on that later.

This is like asking, "How often do I beat my wife"? This is a non-issue because I didn't write the bible. I just believe what the Word of God says. But if you meant to ask, am I comfortable with the teaching, then, yes, most assuredly I am because I implicitly trust in God's righteous judgments. At the same time, however, all God's adopted sons and daughters here on earth are charged with preaching and teaching and sharing the Gospel with the lost of this world, as we find opportunity to do so. All Christians have been tasked with that great privilege of sharing the Message of Life with sinners who are hell-bound, so that perhaps like Paul, we'll be able to "save some" (1Cor 9:22).

Even Jesus taught that many are those who travel the broad path to destruction, and few are those travel the straight and narrow path to life. Also, this Remnant doctrine certainly has a way of humbling a soul because every day, I can't help but think, "Why me, Lord?" "Why did you seek me out, Lord?".

So if part of the deal is that just a fraction of mankind is to be saved, then we get back to free will versus manifest destiny. And to the problem with the souls that were never exposed to Christ in any fashion.

Since every man comes into this world in a state of spiritual death (separated and alienated from the Creator), no man naturally wants anything to do with the theistic God of Divine Revelation. All souls who come into this world will eventually gain the knowledge of good and evil, rebel against the Creator and become his enemy. This enmity is the natural state of every man; for all men come into this world in Adam, inheriting his sinful nature.

Also, I'm going to throw a thought out there which might be worth discussing down the road, but not now because I don't have time. But here it is in kernel form: When Adam sinned, one of the profound and evil consequences of his sin was that his body was profoundly impacted physiologically. We can know this because the process of physical death set in immediately after he sinned. As soon as he sinned, Adam started to die physically. So, since this must be the case (if we are to believe the Genesis record), then what other profound affects did his sin have on his body? Could his sin have also affected his sex organs, generally, or even more specifically his sperm? Was Adam's "sin" (i.e. his sin nature) really passed on to Cain, then to Abel, and trough all their male descendants and the male descendants of those descendants, etc., etc.? And why were Adam and Eve ashamed of their nakedness after they sinned!? Why did they cover themselves up afterward? Or why is it that flesh and blood cannot inherit [the realized] Kingdom of God? So...the point to going down this path is that all men come into the world "running and hiding" from God (in all kinds of carnally inventive ways), just as Adam and Eve, after they sinned, ran and hid (i.e. separated themselves) from God. God, therefore, is just when he decides to leave someone in their natural, fallen state, in which every sinner is very content to remain, by the way. I have never encountered any sinner kicking and screaming to get into the Kingdom of God. Their state of spiritual death makes God dead to them!

Having said this, however, Paul also teaches that every man can know a great deal about the Creator through his creation; yet, again, the natural man tends to reject what he sees and learns by this creation by suppressing that truth in unrighteousness. Further, all men come into this world with the Law of God written on their hearts. I would heartily recommend that you read Romans 1 and 2.

I thought I made it clear it was my opinion that the Bible can be the lone source of salvation, based on my limited observations. The point I was trying to make is that a HUMAN is involved in the equation, far more often than not, which the latter portion of your comment appears to agree with.

So without the godly pastor, it appears you would not be saved. I will not debate the process, but I would point out this then becomes a tainted "pipeline" to God. We are repeatedly told that all men are sinners. We are repeatedly told that various Satanic forces are at work, influencing us. We are repeatedly told that we must accept Christ, and often through the Holy Spirit, to achieve salvation - but how can we validate the authenticity of the event if it comes to pass with another HUMAN in the process?

You're partly right about "humans" being involved in the equation. But if they're true disciples of Christ, then those are regenerated humans who have the Spirit of Christ indwelling them.

Also, God designed (or ordained for) his church to be very "involved in the [salvific] equation". God's church is an organic body of believers, so much so that the bible describes His church as Christ being the Head and his disciples being his Body. The message of salvation then is taught and directed by the Head through the Holy Spirit to the Body for the glory of the Father. So...just as our head directs the movements of the various parts of our physical body, likewise the Spirit of Christ directs his body [of saints] to make use of their spiritual gifts by ministering one to another, by sharing the gospel, by preaching the Word, by teaching the Word, by being hospitable, by being helpful to others, etc., etc. In short, by investing themselves in other people's lives -- forsaking their own pursuits for the sake of others, etc. God ordains the ends as well as the means; and very often the means is His church. It is actually through ministry, to a large extent, that his church is enabled to grow spiritually because God's people are acting out in faith.

And how a person can know (or validate) that he's born again is by the indwelling Holy Spirit and by the new heart that God gives to his people upon conversion. From this new heart flows all kinds of new desires heretofore unknown to the sinner. A changed heart, a different lifestyle and the Holy Spirit bearing witness to the spirit of God's people is how a born again Christian knows he's a child of God. The gift of faith which God gives to each of his own must issue forth in loyal faithfulness to God -- faithfulness that is real and substantial but will never be perfect in this life. But if it doesn't, then one's professed faith is spurious.

As far as the "pipeline" being "tainted" -- again, God always has had his true remnant of believers -- believers who are true to his Word. Not just "believers" who say they "believe in" God. Again, all believers are still "tainted" by sin. The Christian life is a life of continual confession and repentance.

[quote]I assume you left out the word not. Yes, my complaint, or criticism rather is with the church and its practices. Funny you should call it God's church, because that appears to blur the lines more. But my criticism is also with the Bible, as there seems to be many questions around its description as the Word of God. Different languages, different translations, large gaps in time, and the limited number of authors sheds a lot of doubt on it. I've mentioned before that in a court of law, the "chain of custody" would not stand up. There are numerous holes, even to a non-scholar such as myself.

Therefore, I see a problem for the regular guy on the street. How's he supposed to know which Bible is the true one? Would that be the Good News, the ancient Greek texts, the King James, the Satanic, the Book of Mormon, or something else? We poor heathens are inundated with so many sources, all of which claim to be the one true path, that it's a major problem. Comparing speed figures for a Saratoga card is trivial compared to the effort needed to dissect the world's religious texts.[/b]

As recently stated, the bible teaches the Perspicuity of Scripture. Those things that areessential to the Gospel and for the Rule of Life for the purpose of Salvation are actually quite clear, in spite of your perceived drawbacks to divine revelation.

Also, if you really want to avoid the hard effort required to "dissect the world's religious texts", I would heartily recommend that go with the Best and ditch the Rest. The Best (the bible) did not originate from the mind of men, but from the mind of God (2Pet 1:20-21). This would be your first huge step in the right direction. But it's only the first.

Next, you should not assume that the bible is like any other literature in the world. You really will need divine help in order to understand it. Therefore, if you truly want to understand its content, you must humble yourself and constantly ask for God's help -- to open your understanding. You might even do as I did a whole bunch of years ago, and ask Him to lead you to a bible-believing church -- as opposed to a church filled with pew-warmers who merely "believe in" God and go through their religious rituals and motions. Again, just as a personal aside, I actually had the audacity in the beginning of my spiritual journey to tell God that I refuse to go church-hunting to find Him or his truth. For me, I figured if there was a God up there hearing my prayer, he would know the sincerity of my heart, understand my complaint and know who his people are down here on earth. So, I felt very comfortable with that prayer. God eventually answered it! He was truly gracious even to this arrogant sinner!

I would agree with your statement here, as I understand Christianity. However, it does bring up another requirement - that of being literate and being able to read with significant comprehension. As you well know, this ability is beyond many people, many of which claim to be Christians. Which brings us back to the intermediation of another HUMAN in the mix.

So, to sum things up, there appears to be a lack of purity in the Christian faith, tainted in many ways by sinful and imperfect humans. There appears to be no direct pipeline to God. This contradicts the "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" we hear so much about. Trust in that relationship appears to hinge on not only making a leap of faith, but relying on someone else to interpret (or coerce) you to the "right" conclusion. It's been my experience that trust is not coming when engaging with the various people I've known in the area of religion....

First of all, I don't think there too many illiterate people in this county -- or actually any modern country. Most of the illiterates of the world will likely be found in poor, third world countries. And its from these kinds of nations, the vast majority of missionaries conduct their gospel ministries.

Furthermore, even in this country, there are several very decent English translations in today's vernacular. The NIV being one of these. This is a very popular translation. And the newer ESV has caught on fire, etc. With these kinds of translations, I think most 4th graders would be able to digest the content for the most part -- well at least the ones who are home-schooled, are in private schools or are fortunate enough to be in good public school district.

In this life, you will not find anyone whose faith is "pure" because a pure faith would result in perfect faithfulness/obedience. All saints in this life still battle with sin! The sin nature of the saint is not obliterated, not destroyed but rather the nature has been "put to death" by faith in Christ and his work. In fact, Christians are commanded to "mortify" the "flesh" (sin nature). The battle with sin ceases and perfection (i.e. glorification) comes at the Resurrection when Christ returns. Scripture tells us that the last enemy of God to be conquered is death, so it stands to reason that at the Resurrection, when death is finally conquered and eternal life becomes a physical reality for all God's people, all that was responsible for the law of death in the first place must also cease to exist, e.g. sin. Of course, we're not left to just logically infer this from scripture; for there are many explicit passages in the bible that teach this.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

But he tried and failed to fix Adam with a do-over at global flood time.

It would seem to me an omniscient and omnipotent deity would have got Adam's ability to choose correctly, right the first time. Your deity knew Adan would fail from jump.

So you are right your god cursed man. By ultimately putting man in the unalterable position of failing.

Hint: more do-overs needed. However don't ya think those do-overs might have been done with little less genocide?

Adam wasn't around at the Flood, so God wasn't trying to fix him.

All God did at the Flood was implement another stage of his eternal redemptive plan for mankind. The story of Redemption is a multi-act play on the world stage. Since scripture tells us that we're in "the last days" (and have been since the advent of Christ), I have to think that the last curtain is looming very close.

What you don't understand is that Adam had that ability from the git go! All his parts were in good working order. Again, all the holy angels got it right the first time, as did Jesus.

Also, the curse came after the Fall.

God "allowed" the Fall to occur for all the reasons I've stated over the course of these many years. Or to sum it up as Augustine did: "God thought it better for man to have the knowledge of good and evil, rather than not to have it." I have expanded on this thought in this past as to why I think it was better. In short: Man gets to see all the aspects to the gracious side of God that we would never get to see otherwise.