Timewaster's Guide Archive

I enjoyed the movie, and I agree that it was a superior Potter production. Maybe they left some loose ends dangling that I didn't notice because of my acquaintance with the universe, but this probably won't really be an issue. I think the books are an established part of Western culture by now.

Quote from: Champion Kaz on July 11, 2009, 04:25:26 AM

I have no anger toward the Christan faith just the cults that spawn from it and every other religion... i in some ways envy those with faith but the very concept i for some reason or another can no longer accept i need to know belief was enough for most of my life...but now it isn't... and this will probably surprise you i intend to bring my children up as Christians and i will not teach them the old testament...i don't believe an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth (unless you talk about criminal law and then i do because the crime rate drops)... i will teach them the 4 gospels because hope is a powerful thing and it is something all people need (mine is for the individual and if i have any faith it is in the individual also and yes they let you down more times than not) and mercy is perhaps the salvation of man if only we could understand that and get over ourselves..myself included

This was actually the very thing that caused me to "test out" Christianity, and what led me to faith (which I did not know was faith, because it was based on logic and reason), and, eventually knowledge.

You may one day find yourself in the know, Kaz, if you're not careful.

Ditto.

Reaves, recommending a book, what a novel idea. But the fact is, she is still vague and points to a single source of reference in book form. Other than one particular book, there is NOTHING out there to substantiate her "facts". The fact is, the bible is, if nothing else, an historical document. No archaeologist or scientist would discount the historical aspects of it just becaus ethey were not Christian. thats as ridiculous as disregarding Homer's categorizations of the world just because it was a work of fiction. fiction or fact does not matter here. There are plenty of geographic references in both the bible and the works of homer to know that they both categorized the current geographic world of thier time.

Above your pay grade? Obama used that line when talking about abortion too. without at least attempting to quantify it, you are leaving alot of moral grey areas, which in turn confuses the very people you are trying to "help". By using the term "above my pay grade" you lose the will to challenge your own faith, which weakens it. My faith is challenged daily, which strengthens it, and I never back down from the challenge.

He who commands obedience will judge obedience. Judgment isn't my job. My job is to work out my salvation with fear and trembling and help others to do the same.

Remember, we are judged by faith as well as deeds. The rich man who gives more to charity because he will miss less will in my view probably not be entitled to more than that widow who gave her last two coins. A moral action is judged by three things: 1) intent, 2) essential nature and 3) specific circumstances. No 'guidelines' are possible or necessary beyond the guidelines God has given already. God knows what is in the heart. We know what God commands. God rewards obedience and selflessness. That's all we need to know here. I don't see any grey areas.

Second, the quote you gave merely says that people cannot get married in heaven. It says nothing about those who are already married.

I agree with this spirit of your post but I don't think this bit is right. You have to look at the context:

 23On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him,

 24asking, "Teacher, Moses said, 'IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.'

 25"Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother;

 26so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh.

 27"Last of all, the woman died.

 28"In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her."

 29But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.

 30"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

By your interpretation of Jesus' words, the problem the Sadducees posed is never really addressed, because the problem is not about marrying after death. It is about marriage after death.

Although the man who buried his talents was "cast into the outer darkness (hell, I believe).  There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt. 25:30  This seems to support your view, that good works are necessary for salvation (did I misunderstand you?), at least for the best kind of salvation, but it could still also mean that this man was never saved and showed that by his lack of productivity.  Problem is, my way of thinking often leads to spiritual laziness, but I still believe that spiritual deadness does not keeps a person from all the fullness of heaven if they have truly repented.  They will just go with less treasure, which we are told we can build up while on the earth. 

James 2:17-20:

Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."

You believe that God is one; You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.

But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?

The demons do not have efficacious (effective) faith. Why is that? They do not obey God (duh!). So while faith and obedience might not be the same thing, faith at least implies obedience. James views faith as a good thing ("you do well") but not complete in and of itself. He writes in chapter 2, verse 22:

You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected.

And yet, that last bit (works) is troublesome, because Paul also writes in Romans 4:3:

For what does the Scripture say? 'ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.'

Abraham was credited as righteous even before he had done anything righteous, because he had faith in the Lord. James says of this in chapter 2, verse 21:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

So we have an apparent contradiction, but I don't think it has to be.

What do we know so far? We know that to be pleasing to God and to effect salvation, the faith must be of an active quality. We already know that it is possible to have faith that is of an inactive quality. What does James think of this faith? Well, in his opinion it is dead. He does not dismiss faith out of hand ("you do well") but he does caution that inactive faith will not avail us. In chapter 2, verse 14 he writes:

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?

James does not seem to think so. And as interesting as what he says is, it is almost equally interesting what he does not say. He does not say that these people of dead, workless faith do not have faith. He clearly and categorically states that their faith is ineffective, dead, useless, not pleasing to God. The intellectual assent is right on the mark, but if we do not wish to join the demons in Hell we must do a little better than that.

How does all this match up with what Paul writes? Paul writes that a man is justified by his faith. We see this most clearly in Ephesians 2:8-9:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

So we may safely conclude that our salvation is not a result of what works we perform. Now pair this with what we learned from James. James says it is indeed possible to have faith that is displeasing to God; this faith is faith that does not work. It is a dead and empty faith, and it is not saving faith. So we know the faith Paul speaks of cannot be an intellectual assent. It must be a true commitment to God, and it must produce works. Lack of works is indicative of the faith that does not save.

In verse 10 Paul goes on:

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

So there are works that are pleasing to God; these are works done in faith. They make the faith that justified complete, and they prove the faith an active and robust one.

But here we encounter a dilemma. Works are not necessary justification, as we have established. And yet it is possible to 1) have faith and 2) do no good works. And this faith is displeasing to God. The implication is that it does not save.

But we are not saved by works! Ephesians 2:8-10 makes this abundantly clear.

But let's look at Paul's statement a little more carefully. For by grace you have been saved through faith. We see Abraham was justified his faith, but also that he was later justified by his works, and that his works made his faith complete. So was it his justification that was incomplete beforehand? I doubt it; that sounds rather like 'half-pregnant'. I believe his justification was complete but ongoing, something that was not over in a flash but necessary to continually reaffirm. The works prior to his (or anyone else's) justification (that is, first instance of faith) are displeasing to God, because they treat God like a debtor instead of a beloved Father. Not so works done after. Works done after complete faith, and together with faith, save. James asks if that man's faith will save him, and if it is dead it will not, but if it is alive, surely it will, and if it is alive, it will produce good works. So for our initial justification we need faith that is alive. After that, well...Romans 11:22 reads:

Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

To put this verse in context, Paul is speaking of the Jews falling into apostacy and apparently being abandoned by God. God extends his covenant with them to the Gentiles, and the terms of this new covenant are different from the last. Paul warns, though, that the Jews in abandoning him were also abandoned, cut off from his good graces. Paul warns us to that if we do not continue in his good graces the same will happen to us. I think the verse is pretty clearly talking about being cut off from salvation here, but I've had Christians argue fiercely with me over it, insisting that the context somehow changes the meaning. I don't see that it does. The Jews as a people were cut off; if they are saved, it will not be through Judaism. The Gentiles were 'grafted on'; if they fall into apostacy, the same fate awaits them. But I suggest reading the whole chapter for yourself and making up your own mind.

In conclusion, what I get from all this is while the initial point of justification is faith, the point of coming to faith in Christ, and no works preceding that faith in Christ may merit the justification, afterwards that faith must continually be reaffirmed -- it must stay alive. "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Mt. 24: 13). You must continually be justified; otherwise, your faith is proved incomplete. I think this is why Paul speaks in the past tense. Faith is what initially justifies us apart from any works of our own (which are done outside faith and thus displeasing to God), but faithful cooperation with Christ (i.e. good works) is necessary our whole life after, and it is after that our good works become, not just pleasing, but necessary to God for justification, as a continual reaffirmation of the faith we placed in him when we were first justified.

http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/song/Wavin_Flag/22035944

K'naan's Troubador. K'naan is a Somali hip-hop artist. Very cool.

Figured I'd just throw out the old obligatory Lewis quote:

His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. There is no limit to His power.

If you choose to say, 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words, 'God can.'

"It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

In short, I suspect you gents are overanalyzing the issue. I have difficulty believing that omnipotence is so legalistic as you describe. You make a point, Benvolio, but it's applicable to your position as well: what's to say we have the definition of omnipotence right? In fact, I don't think 'we' do.

It is a  tenet of my faith that God is internally consistent. I find it difficult to believe he would break his own laws or go about doing incomprehensible nonsense. Of course you're free to believe whatever you want, but I think my understanding is rather more consistent with the idea of a perfect being.