Salvation from what?

[Peter]

Christians are always going on about salvation and how I should want it. Exactly what threat do I want salvation from and who or what is the source of this threat? Is this threat real or imagined? Can I talk to someone who has suffered by ignoring this threat? Maybe I'm atheist simply because nobody has been able to convince me a real threat exists. So convince me.

[Peter]

...

I always wondered why a god would create something that would need a means of saving anyway.

...

GOD's goal was heaven, a place or state of love and holiness.

A forced love, forced by creating them capable of 'love' only is not true love.
A forced holiness, limiting their ability to be bad, may be un-sinful but it is not true holiness.

To fulfill HIS goal, GOD had to create us with the ability to make free will decisions which had to allow for some (or all) to reject HIM and HIS goals either in part or completely.

Since HIS ways are perfectly loving and holy then to go against them is to become evil. Even the ability to choose to become perfectly, that is, eternally evil, had to be possible. Therefore a method of salvation from the state of evil had to be put in place and also a method of separating the self chosen eternally evil from the rest of polite society so the love and holiness of the heavenly state would not be contaminated.

Peace, Ted

What about earned love Ted? Why can't a god earn our love? Why play games?

[ttruscott]

...
What about earned love Ted? Why can't a god earn our love? Why play games?

To tell you the truth, I think that is the way it is even though I use short hand to keep things simple sometime.

First we are brought to accept our evilness (our eyes are opened) and then we are brought to repentance by our guilt. I think this may be where our addiction to sin is broken but we still have our bad habits and lack of faith. Then we are sanctified, that is brought to a commitment to follow GOD and only HIM in all things so as to avoid sin and suffering, a holiness which we learn by trial and error.

Once we are free from evil, then can we learn to love which will indeed be by HIM loving us and our understanding of that fully. In fact it is written; 1 John 4:19 We love because he first loved us. which speaks to me of HIM earning our love by loving us first.

Peace, Ted

[Peter]

...
What about earned love Ted? Why can't a god earn our love? Why play games?

To tell you the truth, I think that is the way it is even though I use short hand to keep things simple sometime.

First we are brought to accept our evilness (our eyes are opened)

I surely hope you are speaking for yourself because I'm not evil.

and then we are brought to repentance by our guilt.

I have nothing to feel guilty about

I think this may be where our addiction to sin

I'm not addicted to sin.

is broken but we still have our bad habits and lack of faith. Then we are sanctified, that is brought to a commitment to follow GOD and only HIM in all things so as to avoid sin and suffering, a holiness which we learn by trial and error.

Once we are free from evil, then can we learn to love which will indeed be by HIM loving us and our understanding of that fully. In fact it is written; 1 John 4:19 We love because he first loved us. which speaks to me of HIM earning our love by loving us first.

Peace, Ted

I'm sorry Ted but that sounds like white noise to me from a church pamphlet. I'm sure you believe all that with all your heart because somehow it makes you feel good or secure about life. Not to get too personal but you can't show any of those beliefs are true.

[Zzyzx]

.

First we are brought to accept our evilness (our eyes are opened)

Does this assume that all people are "evil?"

and then we are brought to repentance by our guilt.

Making people feel guilty seems to be a major selling point of Christianity.

I think this may be where our addiction to sin is broken

Who, exactly, is "addicted to sin?" What is the form of the addiction, how is it determined and how is it measured?

but we still have our bad habits

What exactly are the bad habits to which you refer?

and lack of faith.

Is there any evidence that "lack of faith" is a disadvantage?

Then we are sanctified, that is brought to a commitment to follow GOD and only HIM in all things so as to avoid sin and suffering, a holiness which we learn by trial and error.

Does "faith" prevent bad habits? Do religious people have fewer bad habits than non-religious people?

Once we are free from evil,

Who, exactly, is "free from evil?" Are religious people "free from evil?"

then can we learn to love which will indeed be by HIM loving us and our understanding of that fully.

Are non-religious people capable of love?

Are worshipers of competing "gods" capable of loving their chosen "god"

[Zzyzx]

.

I'm sorry Ted but that sounds like white noise to me from a church pamphlet.

Actually, it sounds to me like a sermon by a preacher in a church talking to his customers.

It does not sound at all like debate (which is supposedly what one does here)

Not to get too personal but you can't show any of those beliefs are true.

Sermons are assumed to be true and preachers are not expected to be able to verify that what they say is truthful and accurate. Quoting scripture substitutes for substantiation.

[myth-one.com]

So if death is what you're supposed to be saved from (Exactly what threat do I want salvation from . . . ? Death. ) but human life always end in death (Human life always ends in death.) then there is no salvation at all based on your own explanation?

According to the Bible, two separate and distinct deaths can befall man. The first and most obvious death ends our short one hundred and twenty year maximum life which we are presently living on the earth.

Our second possible physical death is described in the book of Revelation:

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:14-15)

It is important to notice that this death is actually labeled as a death! That is, it is final and eternal.

Whenever the first "death" of any man is discussed in the Bible, the words used to describe that event are sleep or rest. Only man, among all the animals is said to sleep, slumber, or rest when he dies. When Jesus raised people from the dead, He often stated they were not dead, but simply asleep:

Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. (John 11:11)

And when he was come in, he saith unto them, Why make ye this ado, and weep? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn... (Mark 5:39-40)

If true death is final, then our first death is not death at all -- as all (believers and nonbelievers) will be resurrected.

Thus, there is only one true death -- the second death.

It is this death which believers are saved from.

All mankind, including believers, are appointed to suffer their "first" death:

And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (Hebrews 9:27)

[ttruscott]

...

I surely hope you are speaking for yourself because I'm not evil.

...

Please understand I do not speak about people but for theological purposes only - no real people are pointed out for any theological purpose. I work for a logical fluent expression of the Christian religion for the Bible, not to accuse...except myself.

You've always been polite to me I think and that means a lot,

Peace, Ted

[myth-one.com]

Christians are always going on about salvation and how I should want it. Exactly what threat do I want salvation from . . . ?

Death.

So, in your opinion, were all religions invented to supply answers so that people did not have to cope with the fact of death? Or was that only Christianities purpose?

IMO, that seems the purpose of almost all religions we have to pick from. On that I agree with you 100%

Man fears things which he does not understand, the unknown. Mankind's most obvious fear is death. Death is the one thing we cannot try out on a test basis.


Many who post here seem to associate theism with ignorance. Can such a case be made? Perhaps.

Long ago there were many gods. There was a Moon God, Sun God, God of War, God of Love, God of Fire, a God of This, and a God of That. But as knowledge progressed and we came to understand these mysteries, the associated gods vanished and the number of gods steadily decreased.

If it is the case that the number of gods decreases as knowledge increases, and knowledge continually increases, then the number of gods should eventually approach zero -- and the atheists will have prevailed.

On the other hand, if it can be shown that mankind will never understand everything, will mankind always require at least one God? If so, the number of gods will approach one -- and the debate on God's existence will never end -- (until the Second Coming, of course).

Let me suggest some things which man may never understand: infinity in time and space, the origin of life, and consciousness.

[ttruscott]

...

I'm sorry Ted but that sounds like white noise to me from a church pamphlet. I'm sure you believe all that with all your heart because somehow it makes you feel good or secure about life. Not to get too personal but you can't show any of those beliefs are true.

Yes, it is fairly orthodox isn't it, not like my usual fare...

I've been clear from day one, 2.5 yrs ago when I joined, that I rejected the whole premise that anything about spirituality can be proven or shown to be true because in my reality we must live by faith, an unproven hope.

Somehow I survived and have made some friends and got to say my thing until now some people actually remember very well where I stand.

Peace, Ted

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to post 87 by ttruscott]

there is more than one reason a person cannot see something while it indeed does exist.

There is more than one reason a person can see or believe in something that doesn't exist as well. So where does that leave us? I prefer to accept what I can see and experience, not what a book or some internet dude tells me.

My assertion was that the bible teaches us that heaven exists, not that it proves it exists and it is the Christian authority, not you.

Again you miss the point. THE BIBLE TEACHES NOTHING. It's just a book. YOU, the reader, accepts what is written. Isn't it odd to you that a book verifies itself and you accept that? If not, there are many other religious works you can read and blindly accept that are far better than the bible.

no one has taught you about remote viewing or alien abduction?

How do you knon no one has? There is much more evidence of these things than any super bearded guy sitting on a cloud striking down nonbelievers because he's cheesseed off or they don't bow to him.

Wooops... You follow your god I follow mine.

That much is obvious. But don't come into a place where s debate goes on and rely on this out.

Self created "disposable people"...cool, a new one.

No 'self' about it - it's all your God my friend

I've been told not to express my opinion of the nature of WBC's spirituality so, I'll pass on commenting.

Oh really? Who told you this? Or are you trying to avoid the question because it hits too close to home, hm?

They do not define who is a tare or not. Nor do I.

Oh but they do. And so do YOU based off your own comment. Don't make a claim like that then try to run and hide behind your God

Are you comfortable defining that for us?

I don't need to - your God has already done that. Are you prepared to follow it like the WBBC group does?