[davidk]

Wayfarer2k,

In its literal context; Christ's sacrifice, provided a way for sin to be dealt with, for salvation, for the freedom of our Spirit, and for our reconciliation with a holy God. I find negligable differences with:

wayfarer2k, on Sep 20 2008, 09:36 AM, said:

IMO, forgiveness is part of a package, not the sole element of salvation. Salvation is about MORE than forgiveness. It is about freedom, it is about return to God, it is about forgiveness. But it is about all of these things that we might be transformed into the kind of people that God has always intended for us to be. Forgiveness is important. But when we make salvation ONLY about the forgiveness of sins, it is like making the life-long experience of marriage only about the wedding ceremony.

However, in the following, there seem to be some form of misunderstandings of my faith.

wayfarer2k, on Sep 20 2008, 09:36 AM, said:

I know from my interactions with you (and from my own background) that your faith is largely shaped by the sin/forgiveness paradigm of God/humanity. I understand that paradigm. But even according to your own theology, Jesus' "payment" was not enough to pay our sin debt -- it must be coupled with personal faith in order for that payment to take. So even those who make much of Jesus' death as a payment for sin admit that what he did was not enough, that God still requires repentance or personal faith in that payment for God to process it and allow it to go through. Even for "atonement theologians", what really makes forgiveness active or effectual is NOT the blood of Christ, but FAITH in that blood. For many Christians, it is not faith in Christ that saves them, it is faith in their FAITH.

A holy God demands payment for (sin) disobedience, otherwise He wouldn't be holy, and all of this would ultimately be meaningless.

The sufficient payment was made. Nothing else is needed to saisfy the debt. So do we acknowledge Jesus as the God Messiah/Christ; thereby accepting His gift of satisfying the debt, setting us free and reconciling us with the personal-infinite God? Or do we refuse by rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ and the ulitimate act of His love; His personally making the payment for sin in our behalf?

If we believe Jesus is not the God Messiah/Christ, the payment would still have been sufficient, but we would be denying Him and alone we would be unable to satisy our debt without eternal separation from God (hell).

Having now completely dealt with sin, Jesus Christ offers this completion to us. We have a choice in the matter. He is not going to force Heaven or Hell on us.

This post has been edited by davidk: 03 October 2008 - 11:14 AM

[billmc]

davidk, on Oct 3 2008, 11:10 AM, said:

[size=3][font=Garamond]A holy God demands payment for (sin) disobedience, otherwise He wouldn't be holy, and all of this would ultimately be meaningless.

This is an a priori argument on your part, David, one that many atonement theologians hold to, but to which the scriptures themselves do not testify. There are numerous accounts in the scriptures (both Old and New Testaments) where sins are simply forgiven by God with no demand of payment necessary. All that was required was repentance, not a payment.

But IF I did hold to the penal, substitutional model of atonement, how would the following scenario work:

John has heard that Jesus died for his sins. But he doesn't believe that Jesus is God (for God is not a man) and he doesn't believe that one person could either take the blame or punishment for the sins of another person. He finds such a theory to be unjust.

If John died, did God accept Jesus' payment for John's sins? If God did accept Jesus' payment for John's sins, why would God send John (a forgiven person because his sin-debt has been paid) to hell?

Does Jesus' payment for sin cover the sin of unbelief in Jesus? If not, why not?

[davidk]

wayfarer2k, on Oct 3 2008, 02:57 PM, said:

This is an a priori argument on your part, David, one that many atonement theologians hold to, but to which the scriptures themselves do not testify. There are numerous accounts in the scriptures (both Old and New Testaments) where sins are simply forgiven by God with no demand of payment necessary. All that was required was repentance, not a payment.

But IF I did hold to the penal, substitutional model of atonement, how would the following scenario work:

John has heard that Jesus died for his sins. But he doesn't believe that Jesus is God (for God is not a man) and he doesn't believe that one person could either take the blame or punishment for the sins of another person. He finds such a theory to be unjust.

If John died, did God accept Jesus' payment for John's sins? If God did accept Jesus' payment for John's sins, why would God send John (a forgiven person because his sin-debt has been paid) to hell?

Does Jesus' payment for sin cover the sin of unbelief in Jesus? If not, why not?

If God forgives sin without payment, then none would be needed and there would be no adverse consequence to being disobedient. And if there is no consequence to being disobedient, there would be no need to repent. As a matter of fact, forgiveness itself would not have any real need to exist, it wouldn't have any meaning. The Scriptures testify pretty clearly on our need of Forgiveness.

As far as your "John" goes, if you held to the "penal, substitutional model of atonement" you'd know the answer. But since you don't, I shall try to explain.
If John did not believe Jesus was God's visible presence, he would be reasonable in thinking that one persons death would never cover the sins of everyone else.

However, individuals do offer themselves for punishment/consequences in the stead of others from time to time. Those are voluntary and could not be considered unjust. I think you see on some level that Jesus' death was voluntary. After all, He said it was going to happen, and went with no resistance.

Jesus' payment for all sin is perfectly acceptable, and would be for John's as well. It would have easily covered John's non-belief, but John refused to accept the offer. Therefore, John has to bear the consequences.

[billmc]

Quote

Jesus' payment for all sin is perfectly acceptable, and would be for John's as well. It would have easily covered John's non-belief, but John refused to accept the offer. Therefore, John has to bear the consequences.

Let's follow this through, David. If I understand the payment that Jesus made for sin, it was a payment made FROM Jesus TO God. It happened 2000 years ago at the cross, right? The payment was from Jesus to God on John's behalf. John was never part of the payment/receipt equation. There might be an "offer" to John of forgiveness, but regardless of John's acceptance or refusal of the offer, John's sin debt would still be paid. Jesus paid for everyone's sins at the cross. This IS what the bible says in 1 John.

If this is true, then how could someone whose sins were paid FROM Jesus TO God ever go to hell? Jesus made the payment without asking us whether we wanted it or not. God accepted Jesus' payment without asking us if the payment was acceptable to us or not.

If John's sins are paid for, how could he go to hell?

[JosephM]

It seems to me, When someone else pays my light bill for me. It is paid. The power company demands nothing else from me. If i try to pay it agian myself they will only issue me a credit. The debt has been paid whether I believe it or not. A true gift has no strings attached else it is not a gift but rather a contract.

Joseph

[October's Autumn]

wayfarer2k, on Oct 4 2008, 02:49 PM, said:

If John's sins are paid for, how could he go to hell?

Isn't it obvious? Jesus' sacrifice actually wasn't enough! That is the logical conclusion.

[billmc]

October, on Oct 6 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

Isn't it obvious? Jesus' sacrifice actually wasn't enough! That is the logical conclusion.

That’s a good observation, OA, that’s exactly what it means. Our more conservative brothers and sisters will tell us that “Jesus has done it all” or that “Jesus paid it all”, but, when it comes right down to it, their theology says that what Jesus did is not “effectual” for us personally UNLESS his ACTIONS are combined with our FAITH. I.e. if we don’t have faith in Jesus’ sacrifice, then his death does us no good whatsoever.

All of this, of course, lies within two very narrow paradigms:

1. The view that salvation is totally about how to get out of the “going to hell line”, about personal destination. In contrast, the bible speaks of salvation primarily as wholeness, about healing, about “being”. It’s not so much about “where we are going” as about “who we are.”

2. The view that God cannot forgive sins. In this view, sins must be paid for, not forgiven. But forgiveness that must be bought is not forgiveness. If I wronged somebody, asked them to forgive me, and they responded, “You must pay for wronging me,” that is not forgiveness. It may be some sort of legal justice, but it isn’t forgiveness. It seems to me that God is a forgiving God, simply because that is his nature and we need it. To say that Jesus purchased God’s forgiveness for us, while perhaps lauding Jesus, says some pretty derogatory things about God’s character.

Personally, I don’t feel that Jesus’ death changed God’s mind about us, not one iota. Instead, I think that it should change our minds about God – drastically. But his death is far too often cast as a legal transaction, making God a god of requirements and rewards. I think Jesus often went against such a view of God – rain falling on the just and unjust, workers getting the same pay, the father welcoming the sinner home while the older son complained that he wasn’t rewarded enough. As long as we see God as a god of requirements and rewards, we will forever wonder if we have met the right requirements. And even if we believe that Jesus somehow did so in our place, we will wonder if we have the right or enough faith in him. There is never any rest with that understanding of God or that interpretation of Jesus’ death.

I believe that we each need a transforming relationship with God, however we define him/her/it. As meaningful as Jesus’ death is, it cannot substitute itself for our own relationship with God. Jesus is, for me, an example, not a substitute.

Jesus’ death wasn’t enough. God doesn’t have an “enough” that he requires in order to love us. He just desires that we reflect and spread his love – just like Jesus did.

[October's Autumn]

wayfarer2k, on Oct 7 2008, 11:05 AM, said:

2. The view that God cannot forgive sins. In this view, sins must be paid for, not forgiven. But forgiveness that must be bought is not forgiveness. If I wronged somebody, asked them to forgive me, and they responded, "You must pay for wronging me," that is not forgiveness. It may be some sort of legal justice, but it isn't forgiveness. It seems to me that God is a forgiving God, simply because that is his nature and we need it. To say that Jesus purchased God's forgiveness for us, while perhaps lauding Jesus, says some pretty derogatory things about God's character.

Never thought of it that way, but you make an excellent point. If God is forgiving, why the need for payment? The god I believe in is able to forgive, no strings attached. Other people's gods may require payment, mine does not.

[davidk]

wayfarer2k , on Oct 4 2008, 03:49 PM, said:

The payment was from Jesus to God on John's behalf. John was never part of the payment/receipt equation. There might be an "offer" to John of forgiveness, but regardless of John's acceptance or refusal of the offer, John's sin debt would still be paid. Jesus paid for everyone's sins at the cross. This IS what the bible says in 1 John.

If this is true, then how could someone whose sins were paid FROM Jesus TO God ever go to hell? Jesus made the payment without asking us whether we wanted it or not. God accepted Jesus' payment without asking us if the payment was acceptable to us or not.

If John's sins are paid for, how could he go to hell?

You've posited good questions, but I'm confused when you said Jesus died for John with John as not part of the deal. I think I know where you're headed, but what I'm not sure of is how you can play that one out.
Anyway, you had rightfully left John in the mix. We all are.

By the way God made man, he left the possibility of man choosing evil. If He had left man without choice, you could speak of man as man and being significant, but it would be meaningless words.

All love is bound up in choice. Without choice love would be meaningless.

God made the possibility of man's choosing wrongly- possible. God did not make evil. He simply made choice. Notice that God's command to Adam and Eve was not an unmotivated command, not a bare unexplained command. The command was accompanied with a warning about the result, a loss that involved their own best interests. A rational, propositional command and a loving warning. The results of their action is recorded.

God's judgement falls against sin. God is holy, and there are moral absolutes, and we live in a moral universe. If God does not hate and judge sin, then He is not a holy God, no moral absolute would exist.

If God made us, we have a responsiblity to obey Him. God owes us nothing but judgement. He made us and we have sinned. Because He loves us He provided us with a way to approach Him, a gift based on His love. Because Jesus Christ worked for us, we can come to God through grace. The finished work is Christ's death. Because Jesus died in substitution, there is a moral absolute, and we do not have to come under His judgement. If we accept Jesus Christ as our Savior and trust Him for our Salvation, if we believe on Him and accept His death for us, then we have eternal life. If we refuse, we are under His condemnation and judgement.
---
Through all the ages, before Jesus Christ and after, there is only one way of salvation. All men have sinned. Salvation is available only through faith on the basis of the Messiah's finished work. (Isaiah 9:6,7) He is also God.

Salvation is obtained by faith in Jesus Christ, plus nothing.

JosephM, on Oct 5 2008, 09:10 AM, said:

It seems to me, When someone else pays my light bill for me. It is paid. The power company demands nothing else from me. If i try to pay it agian myself they will only issue me a credit. The debt has been paid whether I believe it or not. A true gift has no strings attached else it is not a gift but rather a contract.

Joseph

Sounds compelling.
In this, however, our benefactor is doing something we have apparently accepted. For if we did not want to accept the light bill being paid for us by him, we could easily tell the utility not to accept that payment.
If we have no room to decline the generosity of Jesus Christ's payment, our personal responsibility is void. We can now behave in any degenerate manner we wish while suffering no ultimate consequence. Morality would simply cease to exist.

[JosephM]

JosephM @ Oct 5 2008, on 09:10 AM), said:

It seems to me, When someone else pays my light bill for me. It is paid. The power company demands nothing else from me. If i try to pay it agian myself they will only issue me a credit. The debt has been paid whether I believe it or not. A true gift has no strings attached else it is not a gift but rather a contract.

Joseph

davidk, on Oct 8 2008, 05:42 PM, said:

[size=3][font=Garamond]


Sounds compelling.
In this, however, our benefactor is doing something we have apparently accepted. For if we did not want to accept the light bill being paid for us by him, we could easily tell the utility not to accept that payment.
If we have no room to decline the generosity of Jesus Christ's payment, our personal responsibility is void. We can now behave in any degenerate manner we wish while suffering no ultimate consequence. Morality would simply cease to exist.

The fact is the light bill has been paid. There is no nonacceptance. It has already been accepted by the power company as is your original premise, otherwise it would not have been paid. Strings attached to a gift is no longer a gift but a contract instead. Therefor wayfarers premise is solid.

Yes, we can behave in any degenerate manner we wish however we do suffer the consequences. The act and judgement are one and the same though to our mind they appear to have no time relationship. You reap what you sow. Threfore morality exists and there is no escape. You are caught in a conundrum because you believe that the act of Jesus forgives you of your sin. When in fact it is your own actions that determines your sin state. Your premise that morality would cease to exist is unfounded. Even atheists have morals.

Joseph

[davidk]

JosephM, on Oct 8 2008, 07:56 PM, said:

The fact is the light bill has been paid. There is no nonacceptance. It has already been accepted by the power company as is your original premise, otherwise it would not have been paid. Strings attached to a gift is no longer a gift but a contract instead. Therefor wayfarers premise is solid.

There is a contract saying the Co. wants to make a deposit to your personal account and they will deposit this gift immediately upon your acceptance.

JosephM, on Oct 8 2008, 07:56 PM, said:

Yes, we can behave in any degenerate manner we wish however we do suffer the consequences. The act and judgement are one and the same though to our mind they appear to have no time relationship. You reap what you sow. Threfore morality exists and there is no escape. You are caught in a conundrum because you believe that the act of Jesus forgives you of your sin. When in fact it is your own actions that determines your sin state. Your premise that morality would cease to exist is unfounded. Even atheists have morals.

Joseph

Don't skip the "if's" again. It's hindering your responses. "If we have no room to decline the generosity of Jesus Christ's payment, our personal responsibility is void. We can now behave in any degenerate manner we wish while suffering no ultimate consequence. Morality would simply cease to exist." If consequences don't exist, there is no moral choice to be made.

If consequences exist, then choices exist; so then, morality exists.
Likewise the converse is true: If consequences do not exist, then choices would not exist; so then, morality would not exist.

Choose and reap whatever consequence your decision will sow. "...there is no escape." - JosephM

(Aetheists may have moral motions, but they have no logical explanation as to why.)

This post has been edited by davidk: 09 October 2008 - 11:53 AM

[JosephM]

Well Davidk,

I think I'll bow out here. I just can't seem to see your logic and reason. Perhaps it is hidden in your understanding of a book you call the Bible that must be accepted and defended at all costs.
Best Wishes,
Joseph

[soma]

I feel the doctrine that insists that Christ is required as a payment for sin for God, and insists that we must accept this payment in order for it to be effective in preventing damnation is a good selling point for Christianity (for the non thinkers), but a very weak doctrine (for the thinkers). If salvation is acquired by the grace of God through the sacrifice of Christ, then there is nothing we can do to positively or negatively affect this grace. If we can, then our actions are elevated above God's, and are acceptance of Christ is irrelevant, if the payment was already made. If my repentance and acceptance is required, then this payment is dependent on our actions, and it contradicts the idea that there is nothing we can do to satisfy God's justice so we needed Christ death as payment.

[October's Autumn]

soma, on Oct 9 2008, 05:21 PM, said:

I feel the doctrine that insists that Christ is required as a payment for sin for God, and insists that we must accept this payment in order for it to be effective in preventing damnation is a good selling point for Christianity (for the non thinkers), but a very weak doctrine (for the thinkers). If salvation is acquired by the grace of God through the sacrifice of Christ, then there is nothing we can do to positively or negatively affect this grace. If we can, then our actions are elevated above God's, and are acceptance of Christ is irrelevant, if the payment was already made. If my repentance and acceptance is required, then this payment is dependent on our actions, and it contradicts the idea that there is nothing we can do to satisfy God's justice so we needed Christ death as payment.

Well said, Soma.

[billmc]

soma, on Oct 9 2008, 05:21 PM, said:

I feel the doctrine that insists that Christ is required as a payment for sin for God, and insists that we must accept this payment in order for it to be effective in preventing damnation is a good selling point for Christianity (for the non thinkers), but a very weak doctrine (for the thinkers). If salvation is acquired by the grace of God through the sacrifice of Christ, then there is nothing we can do to positively or negatively affect this grace. If we can, then our actions are elevated above God's, and are acceptance of Christ is irrelevant, if the payment was already made. If my repentance and acceptance is required, then this payment is dependent on our actions, and it contradicts the idea that there is nothing we can do to satisfy God's justice so we needed Christ death as payment.

Another amen to Soma's post. Salvation is a transformative way of restoration and healing, not a legal contract about blood transfusions.

[davidk]

soma, on Oct 9 2008, 06:21 PM, said:

I feel the doctrine that insists that Christ is required as a payment for sin for God, and insists that we must accept this payment in order for it to be effective in preventing damnation is a good selling point for Christianity (for the non thinkers), but a very weak doctrine (for the thinkers). If salvation is acquired by the grace of God through the sacrifice of Christ, then there is nothing we can do to positively or negatively affect this grace. If we can, then our actions are elevated above God's, and are acceptance of Christ is irrelevant, if the payment was already made. If my repentance and acceptance is required, then this payment is dependent on our actions, and it contradicts the idea that there is nothing we can do to satisfy God's justice so we needed Christ death as payment.

Well spoken? Perhaps.
I would suggest your belittling comment on non-thinkers vs. thinkers is a bit inappropriate.
---
Be that as it may, I think you are saying; if God's graceful gift of Salvation is given on the basis of Jesus Christ's finished work on the cross, then we don't need faith and repentence is actually useless.

Whether I paraphrased properly or whether I agree with this, doesn't matter. It is simply by saying it that you are acknowledging I can either choose to believe it or not. Now if I understand you correctly, you imply that the "Christian" concept about grace should leave man's choices about salvation without consequence. While the actual Christian position is: Salvation is obtained by faith in Jesus Christ, plus nothing, because God's graceful gift of Salvation is given on the basis of Jesus Christ's finished work on the cross.

Without going into a long diatribe about this, I would simply ask you: If ultimately our choices are not relevant to our outcome, what does it matter what we do or how we think? Is there such thing as salvation to you?

This post has been edited by davidk: 10 October 2008 - 11:54 AM

[soma]

I think the non thinkers say that belief is a mental thing, not to be confused with outward actions. It is simple and many people convert to Christianity because they don't have to do anything to be saved. They don't have to think because thinking is an action. This sets up the stage for others to think for this non thinker. This belief is not something that requires action, but just faith. This kind of faith without action differentiates itself from other actions such as baptism. The Bible says belief is connected with our actions, and that this action is connected to salvation. Romans 10:9-10 we see here belief connected with confession, “with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” In Mark 16:16 we find belief connected to baptism for salvation. When a rich ruler in Matthew 19 came to Jesus and asked what he should do to inherit eternal life. The question implied his belief so Jesus said, “go, sell what you have and give to the poor” (vs. 21). This is action? When the Philippian Jailer in Acts 16 asked Paul “what must I do to be saved?” Paul said (vs. 32), faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17), then he was baptized. The Bible talks about so many actions that bring salvation. James said, “Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead” James 2:17. Everyone of us is doing our best to be saved and our actions are different, but these good actions are leading us to salvation.

Everyone is going through different things at different times so everyone must find out their specifics. A doctrine that usurps power from our individual relationship with God is too narrow. We have different desires and so different actions will free each of us, but we must find out within ourselves. The flames of desire can't be put out without the development of the mind because when we are separated from perfect Wholeness (God), we have a feeling of separation, disorientation and desire. We can choose to go towards that Wholeness or away from it because we have a conscious, self-knowing mind, equipped with opportunity and choice so individuals can do as they choose. Therefore, we should train ourselves to work with the currents of divinity that run through our specific mentality because every person has desires and they need to be understood and controlled with the reins of the mind. We don't need a doctrine that tell us not to think so others can think for us. Requirements and wishes are the motives and the reasons behind our actions, but if we seek to associate with material forces alone, not realizing that there is something greater in God's pure consciousness, we cannot avoid suffering and will become exhausted. As consciousness descends and becomes personalized, pain increases until it reaches its highest level in man. I think it is when we live in conscious union with God's pure consciousness and let it work through us that we avoid pain and truly live in joy. The principal thing that separates us from all other living things is our ability to think so we can cooperate with life or combat it; we can aid or deter the flow of God's pure consciousness. The mind assists us to consciously enter into a partnership with God in happiness, love and serenity.

[davidk]

soma, on Oct 10 2008, 03:29 PM, said:

I think the non thinkers say that belief is a mental thing, not to be confused with outward actions. It is simple and many people convert to Christianity because they don't have to do anything to be saved. They don't have to think because thinking is an action. This sets up the stage for others to think for this non thinker. This belief is not something that requires action, but just faith. This kind of faith without action differentiates itself from other actions such as baptism. The Bible says belief is connected with our actions, and that this action is connected to salvation. Romans 10:9-10 we see here belief connected with confession, “with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” In Mark 16:16 we find belief connected to baptism for salvation. When a rich ruler in Matthew 19 came to Jesus and asked what he should do to inherit eternal life. The question implied his belief so Jesus said, “go, sell what you have and give to the poor” (vs. 21). This is action? When the Philippian Jailer in Acts 16 asked Paul “what must I do to be saved?” Paul said (vs. 32), faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17), then he was baptized. The Bible talks about so many actions that bring salvation. James said, “Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead” James 2:17. Everyone of us is doing our best to be saved and our actions are different, but these good actions are leading us to salvation.

Interesting. You have expressed a very distorted bias of Christianity being a non-thinkers religion. And then you try to support your argument with Christian scripture references to think about.

soma, on Oct 10 2008, 03:29 PM, said:

Everyone is going through different things at different times so everyone must find out their specifics. A doctrine that usurps power from our individual relationship with God is too narrow. We have different desires and so different actions will free each of us, but we must find out within ourselves. The flames of desire can't be put out without the development of the mind because when we are separated from perfect Wholeness (God), we have a feeling of separation, disorientation and desire. We can choose to go towards that Wholeness or away from it because we have a conscious, self-knowing mind, equipped with opportunity and choice so individuals can do as they choose. Therefore, we should train ourselves to work with the currents of divinity that run through our specific mentality because every person has desires and they need to be understood and controlled with the reins of the mind. We don't need a doctrine that tell us not to think so others can think for us. Requirements and wishes are the motives and the reasons behind our actions, but if we seek to associate with material forces alone, not realizing that there is something greater in God's pure consciousness, we cannot avoid suffering and will become exhausted. As consciousness descends and becomes personalized, pain increases until it reaches its highest level in man. I think it is when we live in conscious union with God's pure consciousness and let it work through us that we avoid pain and truly live in joy. The principal thing that separates us from all other living things is our ability to think so we can cooperate with life or combat it; we can aid or deter the flow of God's pure consciousness. The mind assists us to consciously enter into a partnership with God in happiness, love and serenity.

The Christian positon is; a mere profession of faith does not mean a posession of faith. Faith not accompanied by "works" is no faith at all. Action is not faith, but provides evidence for its existence. A body that doesn't breathe is dead. Think about it.

[soma]

I am a Christian and I acknowledge that many leaders and Biblical interpretations are made by non-thinkers. That doesn't make them bad, but it doesn't make me want to follow their words as the words of God either. All Christians have a mind, they just don't use it. Some think to use the mind is against their faith. Some of the greatest thinkers in the world have been Christians. It is too bad that in history the Christian church opposed them and their ideas. They did not believe their faith kept them from using their minds even if the church persecuted and tried to execute them, their faith was strong and their ideas prevailed.

Newton, Robert Boyle, Louis Pasteur, Darwin, Emmerson, Johann Sebastian Bach, Georg Friederich Handel, Rembrandt, Descartes, T. S. Eliot, C.S. Lewis,

John Adams, Daniel Webster and Thomas Jefferson were Unitarians, they would be criticized by James Hagee, James Dobson, D. James Kennedy, Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell today as being less of a Christian than they as they are Unitarians. The Religious Right are disciplined by fear, and moved by superstition and ignorance. The religious right want to control American life, society and all the people. The narrow doctrine they follow shows they are not very deep in thought, gullible and influenced by false prophets. I speak strongly on this matter because this blind ignorant faith causes harm to our nation.

Spain was drained of thinking Christians and free-thinkers at the rate of 1000 persons a year for 30 years in the Inquisition.

[davidk]

Soma, you really have a "spur in your boot" about those whom you consider to be in the Religious Right.
It could just as reasonably be argued that by your own testimony fear, superstition, and ignorance don't reside in just their disciplines.
Christianity requires thought to understand the faith so we can either choose to believe it or not. If we choose to rebel from the faith, Jesus death won't save us.
---
wayfarer2k, if "Salvation is a transformative way of restoration and healing, not a legal contract about blood transfusions." How can there be a healing or restoration without promises from God. I could be mistaken, but I believe that is considered to be a contractual arrangement. I'm just not certain of your meaning of "blood tranfusion".

Salvation is obtained by faith in Jesus Christ, plus nothing. God's graceful gift of Salvation is given on the basis of Jesus Christ's finished work on the cross. Without that basis for our faith we can expect no salvation. If Jesus were not God there would be no salvation by His death. We make the personal choice to believe it or not.
Again, without choice, good and bad would have no meaning, morality would simply cease to exist.

This post has been edited by davidk: 12 October 2008 - 10:59 AM