Sanctification

[luns101]

In for a penny, in for a pound, as we say round these parts. If you decide you believe that a guy got eaten by a giant fish, or that god was actually worried that people were going to build a tower to heaven, or that every paleantologist and geologist is wrong, you may as well buy the virgin birth and the filicide-as-atonement stuff.

it makes me sad that people behave a certain way because they believe in hell. If someone doesn't commit adultery because he thinks he'll burn in hell, and someone else doesn't because he doesn't want to hurt his loved one and believes in the promises he made, well i like the latter guy better, and i hope he's gay.

I think the confusion that we're having is that you possibly believe that we Christians "don't" do certain things because it's considered a sin. Therefore, by not committing these sins we are somehow earning "points" for good behavior (or at least not accumulating negative "points") in the eyes of God.

If we earn enough good "points" we get to enter the pearly gates, if not...then we go to hell. So we go around telling everyone to "do" this or "don't do" that.

In reality, we believe that nobody is good enough to earn God's favor. Only Jesus Christ can justify us and make us worthy. Not because of anything we have done (i.e. - good deeds or not doing bad deeds). Any good deeds that we perform are done out of gratitude for being saved by Jesus Christ, not so we can lord it over others and say, "looky looky, I'm so much better than those 'sinners' over there".

I can understand your skepticism over miracles. My short answer to that is that since mankind normally dismisses God, He sometimes supercedes the laws of science and performs the supernatural to get our attention. However, miracles have a very short lifespan as far as getting people to believe. Probably why Jesus focused more on "love they neighbor" than saying "watch what I can do this time, disciples".

[luns101]

I don't quite believe he existed, so arguing this point is rather moot from a purely factual standpoint.

So he was a fictitious character? An agressively proselytized sect of Judaism sponanteously occurred around him in the first century

...and the fact that the apostles were willing to be murdered, many times tortured for their refusal to deny Him! Only the insane would be willing to lay down their lives for a hoax.

[b.k. barunt]

Like the insane terrorists of 911? In answer to your question on oppression of the poor, have you ever had to raise a family on 6.00 an hour? Every year of Bush's presidency has seen a raise for the fat cats on the hill (senate and house). The minimum wage remains the same. I could go into a few more reasons, but i'll just leave you with one - I'm from New Orleans.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

I don't quite believe he existed, so arguing this point is rather moot from a purely factual standpoint.

So he was a fictitious character?

In short, yes.

An agressively proselytized sect of Judaism sponanteously occurred around him in the first century, and nobody that would benefit from trouncing them (ie. the apostle Paul) called them on the fact that he didn't exist in the first place?

Actually, the first time Christianity or anything like it is ever mentioned is when Paul wrote about it. Admittedly, he wrote nearly 80,000 words about Christianity. However, what you don't really hear about is how he never mentioned the birth, life or ministry of "Jesus". Only the Death, Resurrection, and Ascension, which leaves one wondering "Where did the Gospels get all of the other information from"?

Moreover, no information exists from contemporary sources providing anything described in the Gospels. That's right. Oddly enough, the first historical mention of Jesus by a objective scholar is nearly 50 years after his supposed death.

Now, don't you think with the multitudes that Jesus attracted, at least someone would have mentioned him, even in passing? How about the Roman records of his execution and trial? Why don't we have anything of those sort? In short, this dearth of evidence only points more and more obviously towards the idea that he never existed in the first place.

But you, two thousand years later have the facts? O.K you got me there

Actually, I have the knowledge of the flaws in the "facts". It's precisely the lack of facts and contradictions that leads me to believe that Jesus never existed.

This religion grew quickly from the efforts of the apostles. Many people tried to put it down. Wouldn't someone notice a little thing like the pivitol figure was made up?

Hearsay was a common thing in those days. When most news is passed by word of mouth, it is incredibly difficult to trace the origin of the news/information.

[luns101]

Like the insane terrorists of 911? In answer to your question on oppression of the poor, have you ever had to raise a family on 6.00 an hour? Every year of Bush's presidency has seen a raise for the fat cats on the hill (senate and house). The minimum wage remains the same. I could go into a few more reasons, but i'll just leave you with one - I'm from New Orleans.

Although this thread is supposed to be on the subject of Sanctification, it has somehow changed to a defense of the Bush administration. I'll answer your questions, but I'd like to get back to the original topic.

Have you ever had to raise a family on $6.00 an hour - no, but I hardly see how that is George W. Bush's fault.

What you characterize as a "fat cat" I would call an "employer". An employer is someone who provides jobs for others. Employers take risks in hiring employees and spend $$ by way of benefits on employees. Therefore, tax cuts for employers leads to more capital available for employers to either raise wages, increase benefits, or spend on developing products. I don't expect you to agree with me on this because you have automatically made the employer out to be the bad guy by labeling them as "fat cats".

As far as New Orleans goes, I assume you are blaming Bush for that too. Funny how you fail to mention the inept leadership of Kathleen Blanco and Ray Nagin during that fiasco, but hold Bush accountable.

[2dimes]

You're actually in agreement with one of the things that makes the bible compelling Jesse.

Actually, the first time Christianity or anything like it is ever mentioned is when Paul wrote about it. Admittedly, he wrote nearly 80,000 words about Christianity. However, what you don't really hear about is how he never mentioned the birth, life or ministry of "Jesus". Only the Death, Resurrection, and Ascension, which leaves one wondering "Where did the Gospels get all of the other information from"?

Paul himself even explains the very thing you are talking about. He wrote his parts completly independantly from the other Authors of the Gospels, who in the same manner wrote independant of each other. Then with the exception of some pretty minor details they all tell the same story.

That's why the people that decided what to include in the new testament chose those particular books. They all match up to tell the same thing, again and again. Even though they have different authors and sources.

Paul tells of how he had taught for years before even meeting the people that actually had been around Jesus. He was worried he was going to find out he was teaching things completely different from them. Then he met them and they all agreed. The only thing he was asked to add to what he was allready doing is to remember the poor. He added they were eager to do so.

[b.k. barunt]

You want me to mention Blanco and Nagin? OK they're inept and lazy, but they're not the president. Harry Truman had a plaque on his desk that said "The Buck Stops Here". Funny how the republicans parlayed that into "I Have No Recollection". After Katrina hit, it was way out of Blanco's hands. It was a NATIONAL CRISIS! It took over 5 days for that worthless wanker to send help to a major american port! The very fact that you defend him in this shows your absolute bias in the matter. And right after i make mention of the fact that Bush has not raised the minimum wage, you say it's not his fault that someone should have to support a family on 6.00 an hour. You sound like a stereotypical, smugly comfortable, middle class yuppie. I must confess to a certain amount of bigotry towards your class of people.

[luns101]

You want me to mention Blanco and Nagin? OK they're inept and lazy, but they're not the president. Harry Truman had a plaque on his desk that said "The Buck Stops Here". Funny how the republicans parlayed that into "I Have No Recollection". After Katrina hit, it was way out of Blanco's hands. It was a NATIONAL CRISIS! It took over 5 days for that worthless wanker to send help to a major american port! The very fact that you defend him in this shows your absolute bias in the matter. And right after i make mention of the fact that Bush has not raised the minimum wage, you say it's not his fault that someone should have to support a family on 6.00 an hour. You sound like a stereotypical, smugly comfortable, middle class yuppie. I must confess to a certain amount of bigotry towards your class of people.

At least you admit your bigotry. If you want to stereotype me as a yuppie, that's funny, but feel free. ESL teachers are not rich by any means. It was rewarding to send a team of people down to help displaced citizens of New Orleans last spring from our church.

I originally wanted to talk about Sanctification on this thread. If you would like, please start another thread and we can talk about President Bush or Harry S. Truman.

[s.xkitten]

you guys type way to much

[Hologram]

New Adam?

He's like, now available with no added sugar or something?

lol, but actually New Adam refers to Jesus.

[Skittles!]

Okay, Luns, what part of Christianity are you from?
Seventh Day Adventist? Cahtolic? Protestant? Anglican? United? LDS? Any of the other few that's around?

[jay_a2j]

You want me to mention Blanco and Nagin? OK they're inept and lazy, but they're not the president. Harry Truman had a plaque on his desk that said "The Buck Stops Here". Funny how the republicans parlayed that into "I Have No Recollection". After Katrina hit, it was way out of Blanco's hands. It was a NATIONAL CRISIS! It took over 5 days for that worthless wanker to send help to a major american port! The very fact that you defend him in this shows your absolute bias in the matter. And right after i make mention of the fact that Bush has not raised the minimum wage, you say it's not his fault that someone should have to support a family on 6.00 an hour. You sound like a stereotypical, smugly comfortable, middle class yuppie. I must confess to a certain amount of bigotry towards your class of people.

BEFORE it was a "National Crisis" Nagin decided to not use all those buses that were sitting in New Orleans, unoccupied and only to be flooded. Nagin shouldn't have a job IMO. But he tugs on the heartstrings of the people of NO and got re-elected. And to your last line.... that's ok, because I personally confess to a certain amount of resentment to people who think like you.

[b.k. barunt]

Didn't i just say Blanco and Nagin are lazy and inept? Oh yeah, it's right there on the quote you posted. So busy thinking about what you had to say that you didn't bother to read it. Typical. You have resentments toward me? I wasn't even talking to you dill weed, and i'm afraid i could care less about your personal problems. You evidently have nothing original to say.

[luns101]

Okay, Luns, what part of Christianity are you from?
Seventh Day Adventist? Cahtolic? Protestant? Anglican? United? LDS? Any of the other few that's around?

I was raised as a Baptist. My dad was a hypocritical pastor and the people who were in charge of the private Christian school I attended were a joke. They selectively applied the scriptures when it suited their purposes. I vowed to never become one of them.

At the age of 20, I was in the USMC serving in Okinawa, Japan. The sergeant who was inspecting my room noticed a Bible on my shelf next to all my other books. I really didn't believe the Bible, but I thought it looked cool next to my other books as part of a collection. He challenged me to read it and investigate who Jesus Christ is...who Jesus Christ claimed to be. I told him to go f**** himself.

But I did take him up on his challenge. Over the course of a year, I read Bertrand Russell, C.S. Lewis, David Hume, Josh McDowell to try and get both sides. Then I read the Bible without any commentary from either side. I decided that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and He could change my life...so I became a Christian.

That's a long answer....thanks for taking the time to read it. My theology would line up more with Protestantism.

[heavycola]

I am somehow confused as to how you can throw away all scientific explanation and believe that Jesus was, say, born of a virgin. While I do think that it most likely isn't the stories you're going after as much as the morals in the stories (which IMHO is a very, very smart thing), there are some people, like Jay, who believe that every word is the truth.

The scientific method is not discarded when one becomes a Christian. It is important that we base things on observation and experimentation. However, I also believe that God, who created scientific laws since He is the law-giver, is not bound by those laws and can supercede them any time He chooses.

When I was deciding whether or not to become a Christian, I originally thought the Bible would be full of scientific error...not true at all.

Psalm 19:6 refers to the sun being on a "circuit" or "path". We know today that this is true. Psalms was written mostly between 1000 - 965 BC

The sun appears to be on a circuit, yes. We all know that the earth orbits the sun, however, not something a writer 3,000 yrs ago would have known. Unless he was talking about the sun's rotation around galactic central point every 200 million years, but in this context there is no such thing as being at rest anyway, so it would have been a pointless thing to add.

Isaiah 40:22 describes the earth as a "sphere" or "circle" long before it was generally accepted. Isaiah was written during 740 - 698 BC

Job 26:7 speaks of the earth being "suspended" over nothing. We know now that the earth is suspended on nothing and is in orbit. At the very latest, Job was written around 700 BC

In Job, god talks about grabbing the earth by its edges and shaking the wickedness out. He also thinks it has four corners. Which would seem to contradict Isaiah. And the earth is not a circle. Nor, in fact, is its orbit, although that is moot - you can;t desribe a planet as a 'circle' anyway. It is nonsensical.
And how is the earth 'suspended'? What meaning do words like 'suspended' or 'above' have for a celestial body? What direction in space is upwards? What is the earth 'suspended' by? It makes no sense except as poetry, which is all it is.

Big deal, you might say, this is basic common knowledge. Yes, today it is. But back then it wasn't. How did the authors of those books know those things before they were accepted by scientists. My answer is it was divinely revealed to the writers. The God who created the universe divinely revealed it through His Word before mankind would confirm it through scientific observation.

Science has revealed god's work - unless of course we are talking about paleaontology, or geology, or evolutionary biology, because they are all wrong. And only because the xian creation story - one among many thousands from different cultures all over the world - says otherwsie. Right?

Look - you can't have it both ways. if you accept the bible as the 100% truth, then science flies out of the window. Even if you maintain that certain phrases are metaphorical, then it's not 100% truth - if god talked about the earth's corners knowing it has none, then he was guilty of untruth. And the bible's first readers wouldn't have spotted it as a metaphor - how could they? they believed the earth WAS flat!

There is no getting around this, i'm afraid. I am not attaching a judgment value to this (trying not to) but, like i said, you can't have it both ways.

[MR. Nate]

Look - you can't have it both ways. if you accept the bible as the 100% truth, then science flies out of the window. Even if you maintain that certain phrases are metaphorical, then it's not 100% truth - if god talked about the earth's corners knowing it has none, then he was guilty of untruth. And the bible's first readers wouldn't have spotted it as a metaphor - how could they? they believed the earth WAS flat!

By this argument, when you say "I saw the sun rise" you are lying, because the sun didn't rise, you know the earth just rotated so you could see the sun. Yet, you don't consider it a lie, it's a figure of speach.

Generally, when people say they believe the Bible is literally true, they include something about the plain meaning of the text. So when Paul, for instance, uses sarcasm, we understand what he's doing, and adjust our interpretation accordingly.

[MR. Nate]

Sorry, I got distracted from what I was originally going to add to the discussion, thus, the double post.
From Page 2:

Max Stirner has a good criticism of sanctification. Not sure if I'm exactly behind what he says, but it provides some interesting talking points.

His basic criticism of santification as of most things (such as political parties) is that it destroys the individual.

Essentially sanctification involves sacraficing yourself to some external ideal imposed upon you as being righteous. You become less you and a mere vessel of ideals. You become trapped by them, and cease to be an free individual.

Sanctification is, to a large degree, a destruction of yourself. When you decide to follow Christ, you are essentially chucking your own desires & will out the window, and submitting them to the will of God. Your changing yourself to become more like Christ. The part about freedom, however, I take issue with, because the definition of freedom changes a little. Unregenerate individuals define freedom as the ability to do what you want, and live their lives the way they want, as Paul says, slaves to sin. Once Christ has entered a life, he frees the will of the individual from the power of sin, so that they can truly do what they want, and their desires are turned to being like Christ.

Christ-followers are willing to destroy themselves and become like Christ because they realize they are worthless to the degree they are not like Christ.

[jay_a2j]

Didn't i just say Blanco and Nagin are lazy and inept? Oh yeah, it's right there on the quote you posted. So busy thinking about what you had to say that you didn't bother to read it. Typical. You have resentments toward me? I wasn't even talking to you dill weed, and i'm afraid i could care less about your personal problems. You evidently have nothing original to say.

I don't resent you.... I resent the thought process (or lack thereof) of people like you. If Clinton had been President and your mayor and Governor were Republicans we wouldn't hear you say anything about the President pertaining to Katrina. (Although I'm sure we'd see a lot of you bashing the mayor and governor) New Orleans is the RESPONSIBILITY of its mayor and Governor FIRST. They did nothing...and the loss of life fall on their doorsteps, NOT the President's.

[Backglass]

Why do you cultists insist on starting these new threads?!

Go to your church, pray for days, fall on the floor and babble, perform your rituals, thank all the imaginary magical beings for everything and maybe in the end you will feel better about yourself and life in general. Oh...and don't forget to give a bunch of money!

I find it comical that adults still believe in supernatural fairy tales and yet pathetic at the same time.

New Orleans is the RESPONSIBILITY of its mayor and Governor FIRST. They did nothing...and the loss of life fall on their doorsteps, NOT the President's.

BULLSHIT. Yes, the state is the first in line but when the state fails, it is the responsibility of the federal government to step in and fix the problem. How long to you think Kennebunkport residents would have sat on their rooftops before they were rescued? While bodies ROTTED in the strees, Bush the bufoon went golfing. To say his hands are clean is idiotic, even for you jay.

"Brownie, your doin' a heck of a job" - George W. Bush.

Yup...he sure did.

[heavycola]

Look - you can't have it both ways. if you accept the bible as the 100% truth, then science flies out of the window. Even if you maintain that certain phrases are metaphorical, then it's not 100% truth - if god talked about the earth's corners knowing it has none, then he was guilty of untruth. And the bible's first readers wouldn't have spotted it as a metaphor - how could they? they believed the earth WAS flat!

By this argument, when you say "I saw the sun rise" you are lying, because the sun didn't rise, you know the earth just rotated so you could see the sun. Yet, you don't consider it a lie, it's a figure of speach.

Saying 'the sun rises' is an observation based on our relative position - relative to us, the sun does appear to rise. We KNOW it is a misrepresentation of the truth because Copernicus figured it out for us. The first christians reading Job had no way to separate misrepresentations, such as a flat earth, or an earth 'suspended' over 'nothing' etc. Therefore those statements would have been taken as truth. Which means that, if put there by an omniscient being, they were falsehoods.

i cannot see any doubt here at all.

[MR. Nate]

So if you told a 4 year old that the sun rises, you would lying?

[The1exile]

No, you'd be using a metaphor that even they would understand. But Heavycola never claimed to be an omniscient being, afaik.

[MR. Nate]

So the responsibility to understand figures of speech is on the audience?

[luns101]

Go to your church, pray for days, fall on the floor and babble, perform your rituals, thank all the imaginary magical beings for everything and maybe in the end you will feel better about yourself and life in general. Oh...and don't forget to give a bunch of money!

If you want an existence totally absent from God, then you will have your wish someday. Nobody is forcing you to read our posts.

I don't think an omniscient, all-powerful God needs your $$ or mine. Any church or preacher that tells you it's necessary in order to gain God's approval is full of baloney.

[unriggable]

When I was deciding whether or not to become a Christian, I originally thought the Bible would be full of scientific error...not true at all.

Psalm 19:6 refers to the sun being on a "circuit" or "path". We know today that this is true. Psalms was written mostly between 1000 - 965 BC

Isaiah 40:22 describes the earth as a "sphere" or "circle" long before it was generally accepted. Isaiah was written during 740 - 698 BC

Job 26:7 speaks of the earth being "suspended" over nothing. We know now that the earth is suspended on nothing and is in orbit. At the very latest, Job was written around 700 BC

Big deal, you might say, this is basic common knowledge. Yes, today it is. But back then it wasn't. How did the authors of those books know those things before they were accepted by scientists. My answer is it was divinely revealed to the writers. The God who created the universe divinely revealed it through His Word before mankind would confirm it through scientific observation.

The idea of the Earth being round was around for a long time, with the Mayans and the Egyptians. A lot of people theorized that the world was round by the time that was written (740-700 BC). Besides you are forgetting that the Bible was edited an uncountable amount of times during the process of translation; the people who translated it from Roman to English, for example, could have changed something to more accurately reflect modern scientific thought.

Generally, when people say they believe the Bible is literally true, they include something about the plain meaning of the text. So when Paul, for instance, uses sarcasm, we understand what he's doing, and adjust our interpretation accordingly.

So you are saying that the Bible is true, except when you want it not to be?