Criteria for salvation; what must we do?

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
achilles12604
Site Supporter
Posts: 3697
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Colorado

Criteria for salvation; what must we do?

Post #1

Post by achilles12604 »

I have researched this myself and created a similar post in the holy huddle room. But I open it up for general discussion.

1) What exactly must be done to be saved?

2) What is the criteria used by God to determine judgement?

3) Who will be saved?

4) Who will NOT be saved?
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.

twobitsmedia

Re: All are "saved"

Post #41

Post by twobitsmedia »

Greatest I Am wrote:
Scripture indicates that God is the creator of all things.
It also indicates that all of God's works are Perfect.
Once again I ask: where does it indicate that all of Gods works are perfect?????? What is the reference for context?
It does not need to mention every works.
So make up a theory for the mssing information?

His works, us never lost Perfection.
One cannot lose what he never had.
That would be ungodly.
It might not adhere to some theologies, but that means little, as 'theology" dos not always mean "godly."

twobitsmedia

Re: God's creation: perfect or imperfect?

Post #42

Post by twobitsmedia »

Greatest I Am wrote:
twobitsmedia wrote:
Rathpig wrote:
Either the creation is perfect or the creation is imperfect. If a perfect creator built a machine that decided on it's own to embrace error, one can not blame the machine: it was designed that way.

Though our motivations for saying so may be different, I will have to say that I agree with your statement. Man was NOT designed perfect. At best, He was described as "good." That is a far cry from perfection. Even "pretty good"" would have been an improvement.
The snake is also called good.

Satan is good??
In what context is satan called evil?

Fisherking

Re: All are "saved"

Post #43

Post by Fisherking »

Rathpig wrote:
Fisherking wrote: How so? Being all powerful does not necessarily mean all power will always be used.
I would say that having "all power" and not using it removes any right to complain.
complain

complain
1 : to express grief, pain, or discontent <complaining about the weather>
2 : to make a formal accusation or charge

So one with all power does not have the power to complain? Earlier you said

" An all powerful, all knowing creator created a semantic loophole. You either have to remove the "all powerful, all knowing creator" part or you have to remove the "free will" part. You can't have both they are mutually exclusive." and I asked you "how so".

Can you show why an all powerful all knowing Creator does not have the power or knowledge to create mankind with free-will?

Rathpig wrote: The doctrine of Abrahamism can be surmised into the observation that God whines often
Maybe it would help if this opinion was supported with scriptural evidence. I am not aware of any passages where God "whines".
whine
1 a: to utter a high-pitched plaintive or distressed cry b: to make a sound similar to such a cry <the wind whined in the chimney>
2: to complain with or as if with a whine <always whining about the weather>
3: to move or proceed with the sound of a whine <the bullet whined…across the ice
Rathpig wrote:If "God" failed to use his "all-power" then that doesn't remove the responsibility for the outcome.
Do you claim to know what this outcome will be?
Fisherking wrote: Again, an all knowing Creator would not have to "realized" anything. "Pitching a tanty" would be an anthropomorphization on your part, which commonly leads to apparent contradictions about the nature of God that do not actually exist.
Rathpig wrote:Anthropomorphization is meaningless if we are discussing the Abrahamic "God". Let us not forget, we were created in his image, so any trait attributed to humanity is actually Yahwehpomorphization.
According to scripture, men are capable of acting on their own apart from God and His will (free-will).
Rathpig wrote: Yes, it is very clear in even a cursory study of history that a clear evolution of superstition follows the time-line of human social evolution with each subsequent culture building a more complex cosmology through adaptation of myth. I had digested many volumes on the subject prior to secondary school, so it is not even a university level topic. The bottom-line is that human build gods from the earliest epoch in response to fear and pursuit of profit.
Fisherking wrote: First, one would have to establish that a belief in God is a superstition --- then, one would have to support the claim that:
--cultural cosmology has greater complexity now than in the past
--superstitions evolve from simplicity to complexity parallel to social evolution.
-- human build gods from the earliest epoch in response to fear and pursuit of
profit.
Rathpig wrote:It is quite convenient to our discussion that Richard Dawkins recently published The God Delusion that covers the topic well, but recent books by Sam Harris, The End of Faith, and Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell, cover any spots that Dawkins may have overlooked.
While it may be convenient for you to site a handfull of atheist's books, it does nothing to support the claims you previously made on superstitions and social evolution.

Rathpig
Sage
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:29 pm
Location: The Animal Farm
Contact:

Re: All are "saved"

Post #44

Post by Rathpig »

Fisherking wrote: So one with all power does not have the power to complain?


I said the all-powerful does not have "the right" to complain. It was within the all-powerful's sphere of influence and they choose not to act.
Fisherking wrote:Can you show why an all powerful all knowing Creator does not have the power or knowledge to create mankind with free-will?


I never said it was not within their power to do this, but it is a silly and sadistic game. The all-powerful all-knowing already knows what will happen and could prevent it, but chooses not to act. Every soul that would be damned is known to be damned from the moment of it's birth if one is to believe the mythology.

"God" is a malevolent and despicable entity by creating an illusion of choice when the outcome is already known. or is "God" ignorant of the outcome?
Fisherking wrote:I am not aware of any passages where God "whines".
1). Garden of Eden
2). Cain and Abel
3). The Flood
4). Constantly throughout the Old Testament
5). Sodom
6). Once "God" got a taste of virgin, he turned the whining over to the kid.

And Jesus whines throughout the New Testament: "Why oh why hast though... Oh, wait a minute. Ummm, why oh why since I am the Son and The Father and the Spirit. Wait, let me start over...."

For something that is supposed to be all-knowing and all-powerful, "God" sure is constantly taken by surprise. I don't think we can really claim "God" is all-knowing unless we accept that "God" whines like a baby about what he should have already known was going to happen and he refused to prevent it.

Or we could just cut the charade and realize that primitive semi-literate people make up silly stories.
Fisherking wrote: Do you claim to know what this outcome will be?
I don't "claim" to know that a Bronze Age mythology is "The Truth".
Fisherking wrote: According to scripture, men are capable of acting on their own apart from God and His will (free-will).
Well, not really. You see you can't have an all-knowing all-powerful all-creator that doesn't already know the outcome before he made the creation and still call that "free". You can call it a malevolent sham. You can call it a cosmic comedy of errors as Heinlein did, but you can't call it "free".
Fisherking wrote: While it may be convenient for you to site a handfull of atheist's books, it does nothing to support the claims you previously made on superstitions and social evolution.
What I cited was documentation of the exact phenomena to which I referred. if you doubt this is the case then these books will provide you will copious details of the specifics, but in the brevity required of a message forum let me restate my point:

In the earliest record history of humanity religious perceptions (ie., superstitions) were extremely primitive. Animist and nature religions evolved into more complex systems when hunter-gatherer subsistence evolved into agrarian lifestyles and these religious perceptions (ie., superstitions) became more complex with codified governments and urbanization in the ancient world. Religion evolved in complexity as society evolved in complexity. Though their had been groups of religious skeptics at the height of the ancient world, once we reach the Renaissance and the Enlightenment humanity begin to evolve away from superstitious world views at an ever increasing rate. We are now at the beginning of a new Enlightenment where humanity is beginning to reject religion completely and focus on humanitarian endeavors. Of course, religion is fighting to retain it's grasp on money and power and this is creating many problems worldwide.

Now please read the documentation for this phenomena so that we can discuss things on an equal basis.

Fisherking

Re: All are "saved"

Post #45

Post by Fisherking »

Rathpig wrote:
Fisherking wrote: So one with all power does not have the power to complain?


I said the all-powerful does not have "the right" to complain.
Sure He does. The Creator of the universe has the right to do whatever He wants.

"Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee(Isa)"
Fisherking wrote:Can you show why an all powerful all knowing Creator does not have the power or knowledge to create mankind with free-will?"

Rathpig wrote:I never said it was not within their power to do this, but it is a silly and sadistic game.
...in your opinion. Remember, your claim was that

"You either have to remove the "all powerful, all knowing creator" part or you have to remove the "free will" part. You can't have both they are mutually exclusive."

I am still interested why you think they are mutually exclusive.
Rathpig wrote:The all-powerful all-knowing already knows what will happen and could prevent it, but chooses not to act.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."(John 3)
Rathpig wrote:"God" is a malevolent and despicable entity
No, the "LORD our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth"(Dan).
Rathpig wrote: by creating an illusion of choice when the outcome is already known or is "God" ignorant of the outcome?
Just because God knows the outcome doesn't mean he has to interfere with the choice.
Fisherking wrote:I am not aware of any passages where God "whines".
Rathpig wrote:1). Garden of Eden
2). Cain and Abel
3). The Flood
4). Constantly throughout the Old Testament
5). Sodom
6). Once "God" got a taste of virgin, he turned the whining over to the kid.
I'm not aware of any whining in these areas, maybe you could quote the passages you think it is occuring?
Rathpig wrote:For something that is supposed to be all-knowing and all-powerful, "God" sure is constantly taken by surprise.
It should be fairly easy then, to point out specific passages where God is constantly taken by supprise.
Rathpig wrote:I don't think we can really claim "God" is all-knowing unless we accept that "God" whines like a baby about what he should have already known was going to happen and he refused to prevent it.
You would first need to know the outcome in order to make a judgement on whether or not someone was preventing that outcome. Do you know the outcome?
Rathpig wrote:I don't "claim" to know that a Bronze Age mythology is "The Truth".
I'll take that as a no?
Fisherking wrote: According to scripture, men are capable of acting on their own apart from God and His will (free-will).
Rathpig wrote:Well, not really. You see you can't have an all-knowing all-powerful all-creator that doesn't already know the outcome before he made the creation and still call that "free".

Sure you can. Claiming you can't over and over ad nauseum doesn't make the opinion any more valid than the first time it was claimed.
Fisherking wrote: While it may be convenient for you to site a handfull of atheist's books, it does nothing to support the claims you previously made on superstitions and social evolution.
Rathpig wrote:In the earliest record history of humanity religious perceptions (ie., superstitions) were extremely primitive. Animist and nature religions evolved into more complex systems when hunter-gatherer subsistence evolved into agrarian lifestyles and these religious perceptions (ie., superstitions) became more complex with codified governments and urbanization in the ancient world. Religion evolved in complexity as society evolved in complexity. Though their had been groups of religious skeptics at the height of the ancient world, once we reach the Renaissance and the Enlightenment humanity begin to evolve away from superstitious world views at an ever increasing rate. We are now at the beginning of a new Enlightenment where humanity is beginning to reject religion completely and focus on humanitarian endeavors. Of course, religion is fighting to retain it's grasp on money and power and this is creating many problems worldwide.
You still haven't established that a belief in God is a superstition --- then, you would have to support the claims that:
--cultural cosmology has greater complexity now than in the past
--superstitions evolve from simplicity to complexity parallel to social evolution.
-- human build gods from the earliest epoch in response to fear and pursuit of
profit.

Once you have supported these claims with evidence, we could then move on to the other claims you have added on above.
Rathpig wrote:Now please read the documentation for this phenomena so that we can discuss things on an equal basis.
You are free to use quotes from the documentation you have. If they are merely unsupported claims like those above though, there would be no need to submit them as evidence.

Rathpig
Sage
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:29 pm
Location: The Animal Farm
Contact:

Re: All are "saved"

Post #46

Post by Rathpig »

Fisherking wrote:Sure He does. The Creator of the universe has the right to do whatever He wants.
Well, "he" has the right to be a petty tyrant with a whine problem.
Fisherking wrote:
I am still interested why you think they are mutually exclusive.
They are mutual exclusive because they self-contradict. An all-knowing creator already knows the choices prior to creation. It isn't "free will". It is an allusion. It is a sham for which the outcome is already known.
Fisherking wrote:
Rathpig wrote:The all-powerful all-knowing already knows what will happen and could prevent it, but chooses not to act.
.....(John 3)
If your answer is "John 3" then "God" is a rather sinister entity and existence is a grand cosmic game. "God" is a fumbling deity.
Rathpig wrote:"God" is a malevolent and despicable entity
No, the "LORD our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth"(Dan).[/quote]

Let the record show, that this is not the case. "God" purposefully kills children and animals (all the first born). "God" purposefully destroys worlds (the flood). "God" tempts men to do evil (kill your son, Abraham). ..... and the list could go on for pages.

The "God" of Hebrew mythology is a pitiful and emotional creation. This is a classic manic-depressive psychology.
Fisherking wrote:
Rathpig wrote: by creating an illusion of choice when the outcome is already known or is "God" ignorant of the outcome?
Just because God knows the outcome doesn't mean he has to interfere with the choice.
There can be NO choice. That is the point. "God" created already knowing the outcome. Choice is an illusion in this circumstance.
Fisherking wrote:I am not aware of any passages where God "whines".
Rathpig wrote:1). Garden of Eden
2). Cain and Abel
3). The Flood
4). Constantly throughout the Old Testament
5). Sodom
6). Once "God" got a taste of virgin, he turned the whining over to the kid.
I'm not aware of any whining in these areas, maybe you could quote the passages you think it is occuring?[/quote]

You are well aware of the passages, and I am sure you would call the exact same behavior "whining" were it not from the Almighty Construct. There is no need to play with the scripture, I made my point.
Fisherking wrote:
Rathpig wrote:For something that is supposed to be all-knowing and all-powerful, "God" sure is constantly taken by surprise.
It should be fairly easy then, to point out specific passages where God is constantly taken by supprise.
Let's start with one just for giggles:
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Genesis 6:5-6
Now there are many others, but Genesis 6:6 is all we need to know, and it is a reference for the "whine" issue also. Poor "God", his little peoples made him sad.

Fisherking wrote: You still haven't established that a belief in God is a superstition --- then, you would have to support the claims that:
--cultural cosmology has greater complexity now than in the past
--superstitions evolve from simplicity to complexity parallel to social evolution.
-- human build gods from the earliest epoch in response to fear and pursuit of
profit.

Once you have supported these claims with evidence, we could then move on to the other claims you have added on above.
I offered documentation that shows each of your points is precisely how the world evolved. You failed to investigate the issue; moreover this is common knowledge for anyone who has received a comprehensive education. What you are asking me to prove is contained every Freshmen World History book, but most people learn this information well before secondary school.

I did you the added service of showing resources that would expand beyond the common knowledge level.

It contradicts your superstition, so you have rejected it out-of-hand. Such is your loss.

I will break the points out and reply/retort/question to them however:

--cultural cosmology has greater complexity now than in the past

Do you in any way dispute that cosmology is not more complex now than in circa 4000 BCE?

--superstitions evolve from simplicity to complexity parallel to social evolution.

This is axiomatic. No sane person accepts demon possession, witchcraft, or sorcery as even a legitimate possibility in 2007. Social evolution has steadily moved away from superstition regardless of the masses that cling to these anachronisms.

Do you believe in witchcraft? Honesty?

-- human build gods from the earliest epoch in response to fear and pursuit of
profit.


Is the Sun a legitimate god?. Is the Moon a legitimate god? Why do no advanced cultures worship these natural bodies as gods? I think that perhaps the fear has disappeared, but also the profit margin is non-existent.

Religions, gods, and all the dogma exists because it makes money for an otherwise idle class of con men. This is true in every world culture. If you want to find the scam artists and the idle lazy, look to religion. Every person that works for the religious businesses are not suspect, but the majority are pimping gods as a source of income. Case in point: Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Bill Graham, the Pope, and on and on and on.

Fisherking

Re: All are "saved"

Post #47

Post by Fisherking »

Rathpig wrote: They are mutual exclusive because they self-contradict. An all-knowing creator already knows the choices prior to creation. It isn't "free will". It is an allusion. It is a sham for which the outcome is already known.
Again, God knowing what men will do does not mean He has interfered with their choice. You had previously admitted you do not know the outcome, so I wonder how you would know whether or not it is a sham?
Fisherking wrote:
Rathpig wrote: by creating an illusion of choice when the outcome is already known or is "God" ignorant of the outcome?
Just because God knows the outcome doesn't mean he has to interfere with the choice.
Rathpig wrote: There can be NO choice. That is the point. "God" created already knowing the outcome. Choice is an illusion in this circumstance.
-God gave men choices
-God knows what choices the men will make
-therefore God interferes with the choices men make

I'm afraid this doesn't follow.

Men make choices every day, if you want to believe they are all illusions that is your prerogative.
Rathpig wrote:The "God" of Hebrew mythology is a pitiful and emotional creation. This is a classic manic-depressive psychology.
---more unsupported claims.
Fisherking wrote:I am not aware of any passages where God "whines".
Rathpig wrote:1). Garden of Eden
2). Cain and Abel
3). The Flood
4). Constantly throughout the Old Testament
5). Sodom
6). Once "God" got a taste of virgin, he turned the whining over to the kid.
I submitted the definition of whining in a previous post. If you choose to make up a different definition to suit your needs, that is your choice....it would help if you let us in on this definition though. O:)

I'm not aware of any whining in these areas, maybe you could quote the passages you think it is occurring?[/quote]
Rathpig wrote:There is no need to play with the scripture
This subforum has "playing with scripture" in mind.
Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma wrote:The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.
Fisherking wrote:
Rathpig wrote:For something that is supposed to be all-knowing and all-powerful, "God" sure is constantly taken by surprise.
It should be fairly easy then, to point out specific passages where God is constantly taken by suprise.
Rathpig wrote:Let's start with one just for giggles:
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Genesis 6:5-6
Could you please show what word you are translating to "suprised"?
Fisherking wrote: You still haven't established that a belief in God is a superstition
Rathpig wrote:I offered documentation that shows each of your points is precisely how the world evolved. You failed to investigate the issue; moreover this is common knowledge for anyone who has received a comprehensive education. What you are asking me to prove is contained every Freshmen World History book, but most people learn this information well before secondary school.

I did you the added service of showing resources that would expand beyond the common knowledge level.

It contradicts your superstition, so you have rejected it out-of-hand. Such is your loss.
Nothing has been offered to substantiate the claim that belief in God is a superstition. If you believe the documentation you offered shows evidence to support your claim, don't be afraid to quote what you think supports your case.

I would suggest taking this issue up in another thread though because the questions for debate in this one are:
1) What exactly must be done to be saved?

2) What is the criteria used by God to determine judgement?

3) Who will be saved?

4) Who will NOT be saved?

Rathpig
Sage
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:29 pm
Location: The Animal Farm
Contact:

Re: All are "saved"

Post #48

Post by Rathpig »

Fisherking wrote: Again, God knowing what men will do does not mean He has interfered with their choice. You had previously admitted you do not know the outcome, so I wonder how you would know whether or not it is a sham?
The "outcome" is a red herring. The stated nature of the creator makes the idea of "free will" a sham. Choice is an illusion because the creator knew the choice prior to the creation. Nothing this choice makes any assumed punishment for making the wrong choice contrived.
Fisherking wrote: Just because God knows the outcome doesn't mean he has to interfere with the choice.
"Interfere" is also a read herring in this instance. "God" created the choice in the first place. Man is just playin along with an already determined script.
Fisherking wrote: -God gave men choices
-God knows what choices the men will make
-therefore God interferes with the choices men make
You inserted "interferes" because you assume this red herring makes your specious case; however this is beyond ridiculous. If your god is the all-creator, then your god created the choice in the first place knowing that only one outcome was possible. If your god can't be "surprised" then choice is an illusion.

You have stated the criteria of choice illusion, yet you insist of supporting a contradiction.
Fisherking wrote:Men make choices every day, if you want to believe they are all illusions that is your prerogative.


The very nature of the god construct makes choice and illusion. It is not my "prerogative". It is what follows logically from the god construct.



Anyway, the very criteria of this thread is invalid because the premise if false.

Man must do nothing "to be saved" because it has yet to be established what man is being saved from. No one has proven the premise, so the conclusion doesn't follow. The burden of proof lies with those who claim "God" and "Hell". Until this is proven with substantial evidence, the premise of salvation is meaningless.

Easyrider

Re: All are "saved"

Post #49

Post by Easyrider »

Rathpig wrote: The stated nature of the creator makes the idea of "free will" a sham. Choice is an illusion because the creator knew the choice prior to the creation.
Foreknowledge is not the same thing as determinism. God can know you're free-will choice and not have determined it for you.

Right now, of your own free will, you can either choose Christ or reject him. YOU make that decision, not God per se. He only knows what decision you will make.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: All are "saved"

Post #50

Post by Goat »

Easyrider wrote:
Rathpig wrote: The stated nature of the creator makes the idea of "free will" a sham. Choice is an illusion because the creator knew the choice prior to the creation.
Foreknowledge is not the same thing as determinism. God can know you're free-will choice and not have determined it for you.

Right now, of your own free will, you can either choose Christ or reject him. YOU make that decision, not God per se. He only knows what decision you will make.
It depends on how accurate the foreknowledge is.

If you say "Easyrider is going to shuffle off this mortal coil" , then, it is not determinism.. because all people will die.

If you KNOW that Easyrider will pass away due to a heart attack on August 3rd, 2015, at 12:05 pm, which occurred when he found out his grandson entered into holy matrimony with another man, then, that is determism.

Right now, of your own free will, you can Choose to follow the FSM.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Post Reply