Posts by Shining One

21

This is it; I'm done!!

by WingCommander in

yes, you heard me correctly.

i was born in jw land.

i didnt do the fade i didnt have to.

>I can only hope and pray that God leads me to the path he wants me to follow.

Feel free to IM me anytime. I have been through it. He will lead you to where you need to go. May God bless you and give you understanding that results in salvation! IN the name of Jesus, amen.
Rex

26

Once saved always saved?

by greendawn in

at one extreme are people like the jws that we criticise for relying too much on works for their salvation and so they have to live through a lot of anxiety day after day out of fear of failing.

at the other extreme are those that say "i am saved by faith alone, once saved always saved, that's why jesus died for us" and seem to ignore completely the good works factor.

obviously the right balance is somewhere between the two but we need more sophisticated thinking to grasp it than just: i need works to be saved or i need only faith to be saved.

Shining One

Terry,
Believing all five facets of t.u.l.i.p. leads to a contradiction. "All have an opportunity to be saved". Man is a creature that can make judgements and decisions. John 3: 18-19 will bear this out. You have to hold the providence of God in hand with the responsibility of man. You may not like it and I am sure even your great brain cannot grasp it completely. Too bad! It happens to be the most believable explanation for the reality that we all face.
Rex

26

Once saved always saved?

by greendawn in

at one extreme are people like the jws that we criticise for relying too much on works for their salvation and so they have to live through a lot of anxiety day after day out of fear of failing.

at the other extreme are those that say "i am saved by faith alone, once saved always saved, that's why jesus died for us" and seem to ignore completely the good works factor.

obviously the right balance is somewhere between the two but we need more sophisticated thinking to grasp it than just: i need works to be saved or i need only faith to be saved.

Shining One

Greendawn,
Read Ephesians 2:8-10. See if you know what I mean when I say, "don't put the cart before the horse".
Rex

4

Scriptures You Won't Hear at the 04-06-06 Church Sermon.

by scout575 in

"in their greed they will exploit you with fabrications, but from of old their condemnation has not been idle, and their destruction does not sleep.

" ( 2 peter 2:3 ).

"the present heavens and earth have been reserved by the same word for fire, kept for the day of judgment and of destruction of the godless.

Shining One

Do you know what is really 'macabre'? Someone who uses a Watchtower trained, single scripture exegesis to demonstrate how little he actually understands and has no clue to what he is doing!
Rex

69

No Absolute Truth

by Shining One in

this one is for the politically correct crowd: .

is there no 'absolute truth'?

do you want to live that one out?

Shining One

Jstalin,
>Please explain. God decided that there was one set of rules in the old covenant, yet all those living in the new covenant were exempt from those rules.

Where did you study theology, the Awake magazine? The Mosaic covenant had a purpose and it was to lead people of that time period (dispensation) until the advent of the Messiah. The Law was a proof to man that he could not reach God by his own righteousness. Study the book of Romans with a good study Bible.

>Seems like a change of mind to me. In addition, god had no problem ordering the slaughter of thousands in the old testament wars.

That's called 'judgement' and in hand with the reality that all of us have an appointed time to die it is entirely irrelevant. Who are you to say, 'wait, that's immoral' when you have no fame of reference to begin with? You declare that there is no god because this cannot be proven empirically yet you believe in a concept (absolute moral wrong) that cannot be proven empirically! Not only that you are a thinking self-aware creature who denies the very proof of your own thought patterns...
Rex

69

No Absolute Truth

by Shining One in

this one is for the politically correct crowd: .

is there no 'absolute truth'?

do you want to live that one out?

Shining One

Kid,
>Even if it was ever empirically proven that your god existed,

You believe in a moral concept, you have one, right? You cannot empirically prove a moral concept yet you believe it exists! Your philosophy is untenable and you are in a argument that is suicidal.

>he would be worthy only of mockery, derision and judgement by the creatures he supposedly created "in his image".

Subjective moralization is also empirically unprovable. You defeat your own argument.

>This tiny god you worship is apparently morally inferior to the majority of human beings on this planet.

More of the same and the usual bluster from someone who typically spews hatred at any who oppose him. Just like the Watchtower taught you. LOL
Rex

69

No Absolute Truth

by Shining One in

this one is for the politically correct crowd: .

is there no 'absolute truth'?

do you want to live that one out?

Shining One

J

69

No Absolute Truth

by Shining One in

this one is for the politically correct crowd: .

is there no 'absolute truth'?

do you want to live that one out?

Shining One

Hi Balsam,
>I still live by standards of basic moral codes, but I do not believe in imposing them on others.

OK, if my moral code allows me to take what I wish from you where does your idea go wrong? What, you say it's wrong to steal? Are you imposing your moral code on me? What right do you have to do that?

>People who clearly see that there is no such thing as absolute truth have no problem living productive lives, happy lives, and making up our minds

Yes and your logic is nonexistant. You are living in a concpt that is a lie. It's a fantasy of your own mind and not consistent with reality. You are insane....Do you see what I mean? It does not work in the real world.
Rex

102

Absolute truths have been admitted....

by Shining One in

i had to wade through a lot of muck to find anyone with any reasonable arguments in my last post.

most were just the usual personal attacks from the fringe and their flock of followers.

instead of dealing with them, i have decided to post one response to those who made some valid points.

Shining One

Thank you Hellrider!
>I disagree with that, because the same could also be said about God. This whole scenario only gets us to the old enigma: The first cause! If someone created the world, then who created this "someone". A higher God? Ok, who created that God then? You know where this leads to...

Remember, the universe does have a beginning point. We cannot think beyond our capacity to understand. I do 'know where this leads'. We cannot grasp eternity as it is too big of a concept, right? This is where faith really comes into play and where people divide. I can add to my faith the personal relationship that I have with the Lord. That exists as a reality for me: I ask for results and confirmation and it is given. One who has not experienced that does not have that frame of reference. I understand completely.

>But why not accept that these objective, eternal ethical standards are there, and why can`t they themselves be God? I know that this is a heretical thought to you, Rex, but this really is, per se, not any more inlogical than the belief in a God, a "first cause".

The apostle John uses the Hellenistic concept of "the Word", as you are aware. God has revealed Himself in the Word of God, who stepped into our timeline from eternity. Here is the crux: can you accept God as revealed in a moral concept and not have to have a Bible that is inerrant? I can and I also see that 'infallible' is a more provable concept in scripture. Many liberal Christians view the O.T. as history, prophecy and poetry that comes from the Jewish people (primarily) yet in Jesus lineage we see Gentiles as well! We also see that Jesus knew His time on the cross had come because the gentiles were asking about Him.

>Believing in God doesn`t really get us any further to "the truth" than accepting these universal ethical values. It really doesn`t, because there is no reason to invent (?) a cause that is equally unexplainable as the phenomena that we are attempting to explain! Always remember Ockhams razor. Do not try to attribute any more reasons to explain a phenomena than necessary...

While you are on that 'razor's edge' please also consider 'Pascal's Wager'. My faith is constructed on the 1) My personal relationship with and the foundation of the historical Jesus, 2) the teachings of the apostles and their perseverance through deadly trials: they knew the God/man and would not have died for a lie (Chuck Colson's book, 'Born Again' cites some good reasoning as does C.S. Lewis, 'Mere Christianity'). 3) My own resulting salvation and the minor miracles that I have seen. 4) We love others and even animals and we appreciate the estetic beauty of our world. I believe that 'irreducible complexity' has absolutely devestated the materialist concepts. 5) People don't want to see it because they do now want to be accountable to anyone besides themselves.

>But I truly enjoyed your post. I have tried many times to explain to people why the subjectivist, nihilist view on morals and ethics not only is repulsive, but also that it simply doesn`t work! You put your finger on something important here.

I do appreciate your intelligent and thoughtful reply. I also thank you for the kind words. May God Bless you and yours.
Rex

102

Absolute truths have been admitted....

by Shining One in

i had to wade through a lot of muck to find anyone with any reasonable arguments in my last post.

most were just the usual personal attacks from the fringe and their flock of followers.

instead of dealing with them, i have decided to post one response to those who made some valid points.

Shining One

I had to wade through a lot of muck to find anyone with any reasonable arguments in my last post. Most were just the usual personal attacks from the fringe and their flock of followers. Instead of dealing with them, I have decided to post one response to those who made some valid points.
Are morals relative or are they absolute? There are just two options.If you believe that some things are personal and some things are absolute, that puts you in an absolutist world view. So it's true to say that most of you hold to some absolute truths. Most of you said that there are some moral rules that exist outside of your own opinions. Let me ask you......

Some of you believe that some moral absolutes exist. Though there may be some things that are individual moral calls, some things aren't, right? You have admitted that some moral absolutes (rules) exist, yet you cannot see or touch this rule, nor will any of your five senses reveal it to you. What kind of thing is it?
You of the agnostic, unbelieving variety said that you believe that something exists somewhere in a realm which you can't see, taste, touch, smell or hear. You believe something exists that you can't prove empirically. This is the very same argument against those who believe in God as a basis for saying "there is no proof of God".
You don't realize that you believe in a lot of things that you can't test in that way, that aren't evident to you. But just because you can't sense it by the five senses doesn't mean that it's unreasonable for you to believe that such a rule exists. In other words, there are other ways to learn about things than just the five senses.
If you believe that it’s wrong to kill, steal or hurt others then that rule applies to everyone. This is a moral absolute! You have just affirmed a belief in something that is immaterial that you don't access by your five senses but you do access with some certainty by some other means.
Either way you can be considered rational in believing that such a rule actually exists. Once you do that, it does a lot of work for you. You've made an admission that has profound implications for many other beliefs. There are a whole bunch of other beliefs are bundled with that computer!.
For example, when you say that some absolute moral laws exist, you're saying that immaterial things, moral laws, certainly do exist. Therefore, materialism as a world view is false. Instead, it is reasonable to believe in things you don't see and can't test with the five senses. Strict empiricism would be false, then! For those that are agnostic or atheistic you have a ‘argument that is suicidal’. It disproves itself!

Now, here are some more questions: Given that this moral rule is out there somewhere, where did it come from? Who made this rule up and why should it apply to everyone? Apply that to our physical reality. Where did it come from? Where do our very mental processes come from and why should we even be alive, much less self-aware?
You are faced with limited options and you don't have the liberty not to believe something. If you contend that we are the result of random chance, that we appeared out of nothing or were formed by accident, then you reject one option. You are asserting an alternate option when all the options are clear.
When you are faced with just a limited number of choices, if you reject one choice you've got to opt for one of those that remains. So the question is, which option makes most sense? Think for a moment about a moral absolute. Where did it come from? Who established the principle? If it just happened into existence, then one could ask, "how is it that an arbitrary thing like a moral rule could have any moral force?"
If it is an accident, if it just comes from nowhere, why would it have any moral force on me (part of your argument is that a moral rule does have moral force)? If it happened by accident then how does an accidental thing have moral force?
Now the third option is that it could be that the moral law was made by a God who lives in eternity. Those are your options. If it doesn't make sense that the moral rule just came into existence and if it doesn't make sense that the moral principle formed itself, if it seems that the moral thing exists and has moral force on our behavior, then it seems to me the most reasonable option is that God made that moral rule and so that moral rule is a rule of God! When you break the moral rule, you offend the Creator Who made the rule!
You can’t sit on the fence on this one. You've got to believe something. If you refuse to believe that God made moral laws (given that you admit that they are there), then you're opting for one of the other two alternatives. And if you say that they just happen to exist or that they happened by chance, you have new problems to solve. Your reasoning is flawed and untenable.
But something like the Christian idea of God has got to be true to account for morality. Hinduism (as an example) simply won't work, because in Hinduism there is no ultimate distinction between good and evil. The kind of morality that we've been talking about just doesn't fit in a Hindu world view, but it does fit into a Christian world view. Those religions that teach that two equal forces battle for our souls just ignore the fact that the forces themselves had to have a creator above them! So if absolute morality is true, then Hinduism can't be true. Atheism is false. Agnosticism is untenable.
Do you see how making a simple observation about the existence of a moral truth does a tremendous amount of philosophical work for us? It takes you much farther than you may care to admit.
Here is the answer to thr question of ‘moral absolutes. My point is to look at what seems to be the obvious existence of moral absolutes and to then look and see where that observation leads you, and it seems to lead you to the existence of a God who makes those moral rules because moral rules are designed kinds of things that don't make themselves. It seems that a very good explanation for their existence is that a God with moral character made a set of moral rules that express His character and those rules then become absolutes which are incumbent upon us. Think about this argument, it has powerful implications for your own beliefs. God has in fact shown Himself to you clearly! The options are obvious. If relativism is not tenable, then some form of absolutism is true. If absolute rules exist, this argues for the existence of an absolute God. It's that simple.

Mankind has an inborn sense of right and wrong that is evident in all cultures in history, even the most primitive. Mankind also has an unlimited capacity to do evil that no social system of form of government can suppress. All of the ideas of the 'age of enlightenment' have been tried and failed miserably. Even representative democracy is a failure that bears the seeds of it's own destruction. It's lasted this long because of the moral fiber ingrained in the laws taken primarily from the Judeo-Christian world view.
The proof is in the results. Would mankind live peaceably is all could live their lives by the radical rules in the Beatitudes? Would mankind be better off if they could indeed live as Jesus exhorts in the Sermon on the Mount? Theistic belief is the only viable alternative and it has some flaws when compared to the Christian world view. That argument will have to come later!

Rex