Is the need for salvation what determines humanity's resonse

[shnarkle]

Is the need for salvation what determines humanity's resonse to the gospel?

And his disciples came to him and asked, why do you speak in parables? He answered, because to you it is given to understand the mysteries of the kingdom, but to them it is not given Matthew 13:10,11

If Christ's goal was to communicate his message clearly to a large audience, then the disciples had a good point. Christ seems to have set them straight by pointing out that he had an elitest message.

For whoever has, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whoever has not, from him shall be taken away even that which he has (vs. 12)

The intent seems quite clear that Christ has no intention of saving those who should perish.

For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them (vs. 15)

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Perhaps the authors are presenting something that is really all too apparant to us in our own theory of evolution. Those who are adapted to prosperity prosper in salvation, while those who are ill adapted, die.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

I do not see from a typical Christian perspective, but I see Jesus' main goal as "fixing" the religion of the day. They were all focused on belief and rituals and Jesus wanted to redirect to good behavior as the key to eternal life. That said, his goal was to engender a desire to be good. By speaking in parables, those who cared about the message would dive in and try to understand. They'd put forth effort and become better for it. For those who disliked him and what he stood for, they'd have a much harder time combatting him because they didn't grasp the parables and they didn't care enough to put in the effort to understand. Jesus did not want to waste time arguing with people who cared nothing for doing what is right.

It would be Jesus' intent that all come to know love, but it's just not in the cards. Some people won't. And for those who have love, they will find all the more love coming their way and overflowing their lives. For those who lacked love, they will find their lives ever-spiralling-downward in frustration and despair. Much of life is a spiral and at any time we can pick a different direction for it. Focus on negativity and self and things go worse causing you to think more negatively and more selfishly. Correct that and start focusing on what little good there is and you'll find more good occurring, etc. A lot of life is about attitude. I think that is what these verses are ultimately referring to.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

I do not see from a typical Christian perspective, but I see Jesus' main goal as "fixing" the religion of the day. They were all focused on belief and rituals and Jesus wanted to redirect to good behavior as the key to eternal life. That said, his goal was to engender a desire to be good. By speaking in parables, those who cared about the message would dive in and try to understand. They'd put forth effort and become better for it. For those who disliked him and what he stood for, they'd have a much harder time combatting him because they didn't grasp the parables and they didn't care enough to put in the effort to understand. Jesus did not want to waste time arguing with people who cared nothing for doing what is right.

I'm not quite sure why you say that they didn't care for doing what was right. They were meticulous in doing what was right. Christ not only points this out, but condemns them for being obsessed with doing what was right for all the wrong reasons. Christ would never have pointed out that to inherit eternal life one's righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, if their righteousness was of no significance. It would be like saying one's righteousness must exceed that of a whore or hopeless drunkard. Not much of a standard there so there would be no point in listening any further to his message as one is already more righteous than them.

It would be Jesus' intent that all come to know love, but it's just not in the cards.

If it was Jesus' intent, he could have spoken plainly to all rather than just his disciples.

Some people won't.

How can they when they are never told the truth to begin with?

And for those who have love, they will find all the more love coming their way and overflowing their lives.

Those who have love already, have no need to repent which Christ explicitly points out is a necessary ingredient for salvation. It is also a gift so no one has it already or prior to Christ's gospel being recieved.

For those who lacked love, they will find their lives ever-spiralling-downward in frustration and despair.

Not when they enjoy their iniquity and wickedness. The elders do not despair of Christ crucifixion, but of his possible disturbing the status quo.

Much of life is a spiral and at any time we can pick a different direction for it.

Not according to the text. One can't choose to accept the gospel message when they don't understand it in the first place. Christ points out that if he told them the good news plainly rather than in telling parables, they would be converted and saved.

Focus on negativity and self and things go worse causing you to think more negatively and more selfishly. Correct that and start focusing on what little good there is and you'll find more good occurring, etc. A lot of life is about attitude. I think that is what these verses are ultimately referring to.

What you're saying makes sense, but it doesn't fit in with any of those verses.

[ElCodeMonkey]

They were meticulous in doing what was right. Christ not only points this out, but condemns them for being obsessed with doing what was right for all the wrong reasons.

If there was room for rebuke then clearly they did not do what was right. For example, "giving to the poor" is not "what is right." What is right is caring for the poor which would lead one to give. So one can give without at all doing what is right but rather doing what they feel obligated to do.

Christ would never have pointed out that to inherit eternal life one's righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, if their righteousness was of no significance.

Sure he would. In fact, he did. He ultimately said they were trash. White-washed tombs. He said prostitutes enter the kingdom before them. They were nothing. He said you'd have to exceed their righteousness because people thought they were righteous by their piousness and this statement would therefore cause a shock.

If it was Jesus' intent, he could have spoken plainly to all rather than just his disciples.

I explained why he didn't though. He wanted people to dig for their own benefit and to help weed people out. How many people have you spoken to plainly on this forum and yet still find that they don't and won't grasp whatever it is you're telling them? Speaking plainly doesn't always work and Jesus was trying to utilize his time wisely by knowing who to talk to, by making it more difficult for his opponents to fight him, and by providing an opportunity and incentive for people to listen. Also, the parables are more memorable and without properly understanding them or being willing to interpret any way you wish, there was less reason for enemies to corrupt them. Many parables could be left standing fully as they were and only those who truly sought after truth and love would be able to comprehend.

How can they when they are never told the truth to begin with?

Our different understanding of Jesus message is leading to this question. For me, you are asking "How can they love without being told to love?" which is fairly easy.

Those who have love already, have no need to repent which Christ explicitly points out is a necessary ingredient for salvation. It is also a gift so no one has it already or prior to Christ's gospel being recieved.

Just because one has love does not mean one is perfect. If it did, then one couldn't possibly gain any more love for any amount of love would already be perfect and complete love. So clearly that's a non-sequitur. As for salvation and the gospel, that's another topic, but I do not hold the commonly held Christian belief regarding that either.

Not when they enjoy their iniquity and wickedness.

Only legit psychopaths enjoy their iniquity and wickedness. For everyone else, there are always consequences that make one's life worse. Being impatient leads to suffering. Being selfish leads to lack of friendships, etc. My definition of iniquity and wickedness would include the very nature I'm referring to. People can enjoy homosexuality, for example, because it's not truly wickeness or iniquity. Yet another topic, of course.

One can't choose to accept the gospel message when they don't understand it in the first place.

With your understanding of the gospel this may be true. With my understanding it is unnecessary.

Christ points out that if he told them the good news plainly rather than in telling parables, they would be converted and saved.

Are you referring to Matthew 13:15? I think he's saying if their hearts weren't hardened they'd be able to truly see and thus repent. And I don't think he's saying he's intentionally hardening their hearts either. He's saying their hearts are already hardened against love and so he speaks in parables so that they can't comprehend what he's saying. If they weren't hardened, they could indeed be saved because they would see and understand. The disciples were given direct interpretations because Jesus had already vetted them directly (albeit perhaps wrongly with Judas) and it ultimately saved time for them in the small group. For large audience, it was preferable not to speak plainly for the previously mentioned reasons.

What you're saying makes sense, but it doesn't fit in with any of those verses.

I think it does, we just have some differences in understanding of terms.

[shnarkle]

If there was room for rebuke then clearly they did not do what was right.

The New Testament authors point out that "the doers of the law shall be justified". Christ doesn't find any fault in placing money into the treasury. This is what the widow does, but the Pharisee does the exact same thing. So they are both doing what is right, but for the wrong reasons.

Of course there's room for rebuke. We all know that their good works will never save them, this is the point. Christ is pointing out that they believe they are the one's producing the good works, when it is only through them that the good works flow. They must repent of their damnable good works in order to see that they have no good works.

For example, "giving to the poor" is not "what is right." What is right is caring for the poor which would lead one to give.

I can play with semantics too. Caring for the poor is not what is right. What is right is the love of God for the poor leading one to care.

So one can give without at all doing what is right but rather doing what they feel obligated to do.

So one can feel obligated to do what is right without the love of God as their motivation. This is the Old Testament method as well as most of modern Christianity.

Christ would never have pointed out that to inherit eternal life one's righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, if their righteousness was of no significance.

Sure he would. In fact, he did. He ultimately said they were trash. White-washed tombs. He said prostitutes enter the kingdom before them. They were nothing. He said you'd have to exceed their righteousness because people thought they were righteous by their piousness and this statement would therefore cause a shock.

The fact is that the reason they thought they were pious was because of the standard set by the Mosaic law itself. A law which Christ upholds as well. Of course it's a shock. Everyone is trying to do the same thing the Pharisees are doing so well, and to then be told that even they will not inherit the kingdom would make it practically impossible to enter.

If it was Jesus' intent, he could have spoken plainly to all rather than just his disciples.

I explained why he didn't though. He wanted people to dig for their own benefit and to help weed people out.

That's your assertion, but the text doesn't indicate Christ struggling to get that idea across. He plainly points out that if he did speak plainly, they would all be saved. He also points out that "my yoke is easy, my burden light". So there's no need to struggle in the first place.

How many people have you spoken to plainly on this forum and yet still find that they don't and won't grasp whatever it is you're telling them?

Apples and oranges. I'm speaking plainly, while Jesus wasn't.

Speaking plainly doesn't always work and Jesus was trying to utilize his time wisely by knowing who to talk to,

This isn't a bad argument, but Jesus isn't trying to do anything. It isn't his time. He's only doing what he sees the father doing and saying what is given to him by the father.

by making it more difficult for his opponents to fight him,

Calling them a brood of vipers, fools, and pointing out that their teachings are an abomination to God isn't exactly making it difficult for his opponents to fight him. He's calling them out for a verbal smackdown and only an idiot would think they weren't going to try and kill him.

and by providing an opportunity and incentive for people to listen.

That's not what the texts state. It is the father who draws or drags them to Christ. Christ walks past a tax collector and does nothing other than tell him, "Follow me". That tax collector has been chosen and drawn by the father to Christ. The rich young ruler isn't chosen or dragged by the father which is why Christ simply points out what has to be done rather than telling him to do it. See the difference?

Also, the parables are more memorable and without properly understanding them or being willing to interpret any way you wish, there was less reason for enemies to corrupt them. Many parables could be left standing fully as they were and only those who truly sought after truth and love would be able to comprehend.

Sounds good, but it flies in the face of Christ's own words which I've already posted for your edification.

How can they when they are never told the truth to begin with?

Our different understanding of Jesus message is leading to this question. For me, you are asking "How can they love without being told to love?" which is fairly easy.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. There is only the love of God, and it can only be seen through Christ. Those who are unaware of their connection to Christ will always assume that they are the origin of their own love, while those who God chooses to reveal the reality will see that all love originates in God and is manifested through Christ.

Those who have love already, have no need to repent which Christ explicitly points out is a necessary ingredient for salvation. It is also a gift so no one has it already or prior to Christ's gospel being recieved.

Just because one has love does not mean one is perfect.

Prior to being given the gift of repentance, the so-called "love" one has is useless for salvation. It is displeasing to God. It is enmity towards God. Afterwards, it is the perfect love of Christ.

then one couldn't possibly gain any more love for any amount of love would already be perfect and complete love.

Yep.

So clearly that's a non-sequitur

Not after one has been spiritually reborn as a new creature in Christ.

As for salvation and the gospel, that's another topic,

Actually it's this topic, but now we see why you're not able to answer the question accurately. You think this isn't about salvation.

but I do not hold the commonly held Christian belief regarding that either.

From what you've posted so far, it appears that you do.

Only legit psychopaths enjoy their iniquity and wickedness.

If people didn't enjoy their sin, there would be no reason for them to sin in the first place. It's odd that you refer to psychopaths as "legit" when all psychotic behavior is in relation to lawlessness rather than lawfulness. Finding a lawful criteria is not the way to determine whether one is a psychopath. One needs to look into one's own heart to see a psychopath.

For everyone else, there are always consequences that make one's life worse.

It sounds like you're saying there are no consequences for a psychopath, or at the very least they don't make the psychopaths life worse.

Being impatient leads to suffering. Being selfish leads to lack of friendships, etc.

Or it leads to the realization that one is impatient and selfish which then causes one to repent, heal, and be welcomed back into a community.

My definition of iniquity and wickedness would include the very nature I'm referring to.

I'm not addressing anyone's private definition of words.

People can enjoy homosexuality, for example, because it's not truly wickeness or iniquity. Yet another topic, of course.

No, it's yet another irrelevant and unsupported claim.

One can't choose to accept the gospel message when they don't understand it in the first place.

With your understanding of the gospel this may be true.

This is an ad hominem. It doesn't matter what my understanding is. It only matters if my arguments are sound, and they clearly are. You have yet to even address them.

With my understanding it is unnecessary.

Your post seems unnecessary as well given that you don't feel any need to explain these vague and ambiguous claims.

Christ points out that if he told them the good news plainly rather than in telling parables, they would be converted and saved.

Are you referring to Matthew 13:15? I think he's saying if their hearts weren't hardened they'd be able to truly see and thus repent.

Correct and we know from Paul's ninth chapter to the Romans that it is God who not only created them that way, but hardened their hearts to prevent them from hearing the gospel.

And I don't think he's saying he's intentionally hardening their hearts either.

Then he's contradicting Paul? Paul is quite clear that it is only by God's mercy that anyone is saved. One's will and effort" are useless, and the Old Testament is a potent testament to this fact.

He's saying their hearts are already hardened against love and so he speaks in parables so that they can't comprehend what he's saying.

Sure, and even his own disciples haven't got a clue what he's talking about, but given that they've been chosen by the Father to receive the message, they will have it explained to them; not because they have the love of God in their hearts, but because they are chosen by God to receive the good news. That's explicitly what Christ tells them. At no time does he ever suggest that they are in anyway deserving of the good news.

If they weren't hardened, they could indeed be saved because they would see and understand. The disciples were given direct interpretations because Jesus had already vetted them directly (albeit perhaps wrongly with Judas) and it ultimately saved time for them in the small group. For large audience, it was preferable not to speak plainly for the previously mentioned reasons.

An interesting theory, but not very compelling given no scriptural support.

What you're saying makes sense, but it doesn't fit in with any of those verses.

I think it does, we just have some differences in understanding of terms.

No, we have no reason to believe what you're suggesting given that you aren't giving anything from the texts to support your claims.

[ElCodeMonkey]

Of course there's room for rebuke. We all know that their good works will never save them, this is the point. Christ is pointing out that they believe they are the one's producing the good works, when it is only through them that the good works flow. They must repent of their damnable good works in order to see that they have no good works.

Odd, because there was no rebuke for the widow who put in one coin. It was never about the coin or the giving. It was about the caring. The heart. That was Jesus point. No room for rebuke of the widow and he was indeed pleased with her "works" as you call them because she did it out of love.

I can play with semantics too. Caring for the poor is not what is right. What is right is the love of God for the poor leading one to care.

This isn't mere semantics. There is a huge difference between an act and actual love. God wants love, not merely acts. This is why Jesus said the entire law and the prophets rests on loving God and others. This has nothing to do with belief in sacrifice of Jesus or otherwise.

So one can feel obligated to do what is right without the love of God as their motivation.

If God is love and love is the motivation then it is a love of God that motivates acts of love without simply knowing it's God one loves. Love is what matters, not names, labels, and beliefs.

The fact is that the reason they thought they were pious was because of the standard set by the Mosaic law itself. A law which Christ upholds as well. Of course it's a shock. Everyone is trying to do the same thing the Pharisees are doing so well, and to then be told that even they will not inherit the kingdom would make it practically impossible to enter.

They thought they were pious because they followed religious sacraments, wore long flowing robes, and stood as pillars in their synagogues. Jesus' rebuke was not a lack of faith but a lack of love.

That's your assertion, but the text doesn't indicate Christ struggling to get that idea across. He plainly points out that if he did speak plainly, they would all be saved. He also points out that "my yoke is easy, my burden light". So there's no need to struggle in the first place.

The yoke of loving others is definitely lighter than the yoke of selfishness. He did not plainly state that all would be saved if he spoke plainly. That is a misinterpretation of the text and I will show this logically a bit farther below.

How many people have you spoken to plainly on this forum and yet still find that they don't and won't grasp whatever it is you're telling them?

Apples and oranges. I'm speaking plainly, while Jesus wasn't.

This is only apples and oranges if you're taking my statements out of context. I was making a point which you then respond to in the following quote. So it's strange that you would not see both statements as belonging together. The point is that speaking plainly does not always work which I tried showing by having you consider your own efforts at speaking plainly. I am speaking plainly now and yet you can still misunderstand my points. So even if Jesus spoke plainly, it wouldn't magically make everyone believe. Even when speaking clearly, there are still a ton of barriers to proper communication.

Calling them a brood of vipers, fools, and pointing out that their teachings are an abomination to God isn't exactly making it difficult for his opponents to fight him. He's calling them out for a verbal smackdown and only an idiot would think they weren't going to try and kill him.

Clearly not all of his teachings were parables. This would prove my point, however. He's speaking plainly here and yet they still don't believe.

and by providing an opportunity and incentive for people to listen.

That's not what the texts state.

The text also doesn't say "and the food they ate was digested by their stomachs" but we can draw conclusions by what is written along with our understanding of life and how the world operates. Much written is wrong and much that is right is not written.

Also, the parables are more memorable and without properly understanding them or being willing to interpret any way you wish, there was less reason for enemies to corrupt them. Many parables could be left standing fully as they were and only those who truly sought after truth and love would be able to comprehend.

Sounds good, but it flies in the face of Christ's own words which I've already posted for your edification.

Except that I have not yet seen any words that fly in the face of this as I have explained an alternative viewpoint. You simply disagree with my viewpoint which is different than there not being one.

How can they when they are never told the truth to begin with?

Our different understanding of Jesus message is leading to this question. For me, you are asking "How can they love without being told to love?" which is fairly easy.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I know it's not. My point is that we have different viewpoints of things and if you continue to see my points with all of your definitions rather than the ones I'm using then you will ultimately fail to see my point and take my meaning the wrong way. For example, if I believe a "kronfig" is blue and you believe a "kronfig" is green and I say that a "kronfig"'s color matches the sky you will laugh at the absurdity of the notion. You have to use my definitions for my points and I have to use your definitions for your points. You don't have to agree that a "kronfig" is blue in order for you to comprehend that I believe it is blue and thus it matches my belief that it matches the sky. I am logically consistent with my own understanding, but I am certainly not logically consistent with your understanding.

Prior to being given the gift of repentance, the so-called "love" one has is useless for salvation. It is displeasing to God. It is enmity towards God. Afterwards, it is the perfect love of Christ.

I wholly disagree. All God ever wanted was repentance and love which is why all the prophets kept getting killed as they rebuked people for sacrificing to false demons instead of simply having a contrite spirit. That's why they were rebuked for having such terrible deeds and not such terrible beliefs.

As for salvation and the gospel, that's another topic,

Actually it's this topic, but now we see why you're not able to answer the question accurately. You think this isn't about salvation.

but I do not hold the commonly held Christian belief regarding that either.

From what you've posted so far, it appears that you do.

lol, you're going to tell me what I believe? Jesus came to save us from ourselves. Salvation is freedom from the tyranny and oppression of religious rulers and their lies. Salvation is knowing how to behave in ways that benefit us most: love and cooperation. So you're telling me that's what all the other Christians believe?

If people didn't enjoy their sin, there would be no reason for them to sin in the first place. It's odd that you refer to psychopaths as "legit" when all psychotic behavior is in relation to lawlessness rather than lawfulness. Finding a lawful criteria is not the way to determine whether one is a psychopath. One needs to look into one's own heart to see a psychopath.

People are simply unskilled and uneducated. If they were skilled and educated, they would not do sinful things because sinful things are harmful to self. If you think people always do things in their own best interests, then there are a lot of studies on psychology and economics you should take a look at. I said a "legit" psychopath because I was trying to use the literal term rather than the colloquial term that you are now using. Actual psychopaths lack the center in the brain that permits empathy so they can tear wings off living birds while they scream in torment and feel nothing themselves. For the average person, such things will bring us pain and suffering as all true sin does.

It sounds like you're saying there are no consequences for a psychopath, or at the very least they don't make the psychopaths life worse.

For some things, sure. If they rob a bank it will obviously effect them like the rest of us, but sins of tormenting others, for example, will not effect them like it does us.

My definition of iniquity and wickedness would include the very nature I'm referring to.

I'm not addressing anyone's private definition of words.

Then you will never be able to comprehend my meaning and we will forever talk past each other. I will not invent new words apart from kronfig....

People can enjoy homosexuality, for example, because it's not truly wickeness or iniquity. Yet another topic, of course.

No, it's yet another irrelevant and unsupported claim.

There's plenty of support, but I'd rather not discuss it in this thread since it is off topic.

One can't choose to accept the gospel message when they don't understand it in the first place.

With your understanding of the gospel this may be true.

This is an ad hominem. It doesn't matter what my understanding is. It only matters if my arguments are sound, and they clearly are. You have yet to even address them.

Ad hominem means attacking the person. I did no such thing. I said that your understanding of the gospel makes your statement logically sound but with my definition of the gospel it does not. We have different definitions and we have to see each other's points from each other's definitions in order to comprehend each other.

With my understanding it is unnecessary.

Your post seems unnecessary as well given that you don't feel any need to explain these vague and ambiguous claims.

I can and will explain anything you have question on, but again you're comparing my statements with your definitions which makes it impossible to understand me. If you want support for any claim in particular, let me know. I can provide verses. You might not like my interpretation of them, of course, but interpretation is indeed what we're debating.

Correct and we know from Paul's ninth chapter to the Romans that it is God who not only created them that way, but hardened their hearts to prevent them from hearing the gospel.

Well if that's the case, then he could have spoken plainly. God can harden people's hearts against plain speaking, too, yes? Just like with Pharaoh? So it is clearly not a sound argument to hold that (A) Jesus spoke in parables for the express purpose of confounding, (B) that they'd otherwise have been saved if he didn't, and (C) that God hardened their hearts from hearing the gospel. B implies not C so you can't have B and C.

Then he's contradicting Paul? Paul is quite clear that it is only by God's mercy that anyone is saved. One's will and effort" are useless, and the Old Testament is a potent testament to this fact.

It's also clear to "Paul" many other contradictory things. Not everything written by "Paul" is actually written by "Paul" and we have no reason to believe that this random Pharisee who was persecuting Christians is suddenly the gold standard on Jesus' teaching whom he never learned from. Paul reintroduced the doctrine of sacrifice and religiosity. He leavened the dough of the kingdom and returned the pig to its vomit.

An interesting theory, but not very compelling given no scriptural support.

Then it's not compelling either that the people digested the loaves and fishes without any scriptural support. The important thing is soundness, not that the Bible spells out every last detail of everything.

What you're saying makes sense, but it doesn't fit in with any of those verses.

I think it does, we just have some differences in understanding of terms.

No, we have no reason to believe what you're suggesting given that you aren't giving anything from the texts to support your claims.

All my claims are supported by scripture including the claim that the scripture is not all Godly. The problem is that you'd have to see all of my points and interpretations simultaneously to see the full picture I'm laying out, and all I can do is show parts at a time. I can show a toe of an elephant and you can say "This is not an elephant because this part over here has hair." And then I can say that part has hair because it's part of the tail of the elephant. And then you can say it's not an elephant because it has a fin. And then I can say that's not a fin because it's the ear of an elephant. And later when discussing the "flap" I'm referring to it as an ear and you're still referring to it as a fin, Etc etc. I have a full picture, but getting it across is difficult if one cannot see points from my perspective to properly analyze them.

Again, all my points are backed up by scripture which I often refer to but don't quote. For example, I referenced the prophets complaining about sacrifice. If you want proof that they did this just let me know and I can show you where it is. But there is no one scripture that will point out my entire viewpoint at once.

[shnarkle]

there was no rebuke for the widow who put in one coin. It was never about the coin or the giving. It was about the caring.

No, it was explicitly showing that she was giving MORE. She was giving all, while the show off was only giving what he could afford. He was completely dependent upon Mammon, while the widow was relying upon the providence of God. She was living in the kingdom. Only those who have discovered the kingdom can give away their last two cents. Luke 12, and 14 provides the prerequisites to follow Christ, and only those who have come to rely upon God's providence can walk away from their lives.

The heart. That was Jesus point. No room for rebuke of the widow and he was indeed pleased with her "works" as you call them because she did it out of love.

No, she was throwing away garbage. There's no love lost in tossing one's garbage in the trash.

There is a huge difference between an act and actual love. God wants love, not merely acts.

God is not lacking. Therefore God is not wanting in anything. God does not want love. God does not want for love. Yes, there is a difference between an act and actual love, but this is beside the point. No one is arguing otherwise. Given that no one is presenting an opposing argument, this is a strawman argument.

This is why Jesus said the entire law and the prophets rests on loving God and others. This has nothing to do with belief in sacrifice of Jesus or otherwise.

Another straw man argument.

Jesus' rebuke was not a lack of faith but a lack of love.

Please elaborate on that one. Where do the Pharisees do anything by faith rather than the works of the law? If this is the case, then it would appear Paul was charging at windmills when he made his accusations, no?

He did not plainly state that all would be saved if he spoke plainly. That is a misinterpretation of the text and I will show this logically a bit farther below.

Here's plenty to refute the fact that he has chosen to speak plainly when it is appropriate, and that is only to those who it is given to know the kingdom.

Why do you speak unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto YOU to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but unto them it is NOT given.� Matt 13:10-11
Jesus said, “You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you.� John 15:16
"but the time comes when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you PLAINLY of the Father.� John 16:25

The point is that speaking plainly does not always work which I tried showing by having you consider your own efforts at speaking plainly.

And again I would point out that when one speaks plainly and what they say is not understood, speaking in mysteries isn't going to make it any easier. In fact, it is going to insure that no one understands. Therefore it makes no difference what the state of one's heart is, it only matters what God has decided, and that's precisely what the texts state over and over again.

I am speaking plainly now and yet you can still misunderstand my points. So even if Jesus spoke plainly, it wouldn't magically make everyone believe. Even when speaking clearly, there are still a ton of barriers to proper communication.

Which only goes to show that it must be by God's own choice. The father must draw them regardless of whether they understand or not. Speaking in riddles or mysteries is not going to make things plain, so to suggest that it must be due to some state of being on the part of the hearer makes no sense as no one understands what he's saying; not even those who are chosen. They can search all they want, and they will never understand. It has to be explained to those who God has chosen.

Calling them a brood of vipers, fools, and pointing out that their teachings are an abomination to God isn't exactly making it difficult for his opponents to fight him. He's calling them out for a verbal smackdown and only an idiot would think they weren't going to try and kill him.

Clearly not all of his teachings were parables. This would prove my point, however. He's speaking plainly here and yet they still don't believe.[/quote]

They're not called or drawn to believe. They're drawn to damnation. This is God's will. Why speak in parables when they are not only not chosen, but most likely not even being called in the first place? The fact is that he has to speak to them that way in order for God's purpose to be fulfilled through him. They are being played.

You simply disagree with my viewpoint which is different than there not being one.

I don't just simply disagree with your viewpoint, I'm pointing out that it lacks any support from the texts. You're welcome to your viewpoint. I just don't see it as being all that compelling. Again, you're free to whatever viewpoint you have. I'm just pointing out that the texts tell a much different story.

You have to use my definitions for my points and I have to use your definitions for your points.

No, I'm not relying upon private definitions of words.

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.�2 Peter 1:20

The bible doesn't suggest that scripture be interpreted any other way either.

All God ever wanted was repentance

Repentance is a gift as is evidenced in Acts 5:31 and 11:18. it was given to Israel and the gentiles.

you're going to tell me what I believe?

I'm simply making an observation. What you're posting is right in line with what most Christians believe.

Jesus came to save us from ourselves. Salvation is freedom from the tyranny and oppression of religious rulers and their lies. Salvation is knowing how to behave in ways that benefit us most: love and cooperation. So you're telling me that's what all the other Christians believe?

Yep, and I heard it in their churches decades ago so you're ideas aren't as original as you may think.

If people didn't enjoy their sin, there would be no reason for them to sin in the first place. It's odd that you refer to psychopaths as "legit" when all psychotic behavior is in relation to lawlessness rather than lawfulness. Finding a lawful criteria is not the way to determine whether one is a psychopath. One needs to look into one's own heart to see a psychopath.

People are simply unskilled and uneducated. If they were skilled and educated, they would not do sinful things because sinful things are harmful to self.

This is the Old Testament methodology, and a dismal failure according to Paul.

If you think people always do things in their own best interests, then there are a lot of studies on psychology and economics you should take a look at.

And I could just as easily refer you to an overwhelming amount of studies to support my position as well. I'm not suggesting people don't act in unselfish ways. I'm merely pointing out that they do those things only because of their connection to Christ.

No, it's yet another irrelevant and unsupported claim.

There's plenty of support, but I'd rather not discuss it in this thread since it is off topic.

There's no point in supporting it as it is irrelevant to this topic.

One can't choose to accept the gospel message when they don't understand it in the first place.

With your understanding of the gospel this may be true.

This is an ad hominem. It doesn't matter what my understanding is. It only matters if my arguments are sound, and they clearly are. You have yet to even address them.

Ad hominem means attacking the person. I did no such thing.

You most certainly did. Again, my understanding is not the topic of this discussion. The ability to understand the gospel isn't even the topic, but you have chosen to bring my inability to understand the gospel into the discussion.

I said that your understanding of the gospel makes your statement logically sound but with my definition of the gospel it does not. We have different definitions and we have to see each other's points from each other's definitions in order to comprehend each other.

Again, it makes no difference what one's understanding is when it is up to God to draw them in the first place. One can try to understand with all the "will and effort" they can muster, but if God has not chosen them, then God will not draw them to Christ. This is exactly what Romans 9 is pointing out. It is only by God's mercy that anyone can be chosen in the first place.

You might not like my interpretation of them, of course, but interpretation is indeed what we're debating.

No, I'm simply pointing out that your interpretation doesn't follow from what the text actually states.

God can harden people's hearts against plain speaking, too, yes?

Sure, and if Christ speaks in parables and explicitly points out that the reason he does this is to point out that the gospel message isn't for them, then it makes no difference what people understand because they aren't supposed to get what isn't given to them.

Just like with Pharaoh? So it is clearly not a sound argument to hold that (A) Jesus spoke in parables for the express purpose of confounding,

I didn't say it was to confound them, but because it wasn't given to them to understand. This is what the texts state. There is no need to pretend a need to redefine what Christ means when he clearly points out that what he's peddling isn't "given to them". What they are not given, they simply do not get.

Not everything written by "Paul" is actually written by "Paul"

Also not pertinent to this topic. Scholars agree that those who were taught by Paul used his name. It was a common practice, and there is nothing to indicate that they wrote anything that contradicted Paul's teachings.

and we have no reason to believe that this random Pharisee who was persecuting Christians is suddenly the gold standard on Jesus' teaching

Sure we do. He wrote most of the New Testament, and it is right in line with Jesus' teachings which are right in line with the Mosaic law.

whom he never learned from.

He says he did, and given that his teachings are right in line with Christ's teachings, there's no reason to suppose otherwise, but again this is all just looking like more attempts to derail this topic.

Paul reintroduced the doctrine of sacrifice and religiosity.

There was no abolition of the sacrifice before Paul wrote his letters. You seem to be attempting to introduce some anachronistic ideas into the topic as well.

An interesting theory, but not very compelling given no scriptural support.

Then it's not compelling either that the people digested the loaves and fishes without any scriptural support.[/quote]

It doesn't matter if they did or not as it was not the point of the passages.

The important thing is soundness, not that the Bible spells out every last detail of everything.

While a sound argument is important, relevance is also something that needs to be looked at.

Again, all my points are backed up by scripture which I often refer to but don't quote.

Which may be a contributing factor to this confusion.

For example, I referenced the prophets complaining about sacrifice.

Yet another example of a lack of relavence to this topic.

If you want proof that they did this just let me know and I can show you where it is.

Being able to show why they were complaining would be more relevant, but then you'd see that the reason isn't that they're offering sacrifice, but in that they're using it to sin with impunity.

But there is no one scripture that will point out my entire viewpoint at once.

And yet it only takes one or two or in this case each and every one you've provided so far to refute this viewpoint.