Faith vs. Works in Christianity: The Problem of the Book of James

a reply to: Punisher75

Every one in Asia at that time felt that way too.

a reply to: Akragon

you think?

a reply to: lavatrance

Paul said it himself

a reply to: Raggedyman

I never said anything about justice. You did. I just defined unconditional and what it would mean in regards to love being it. You are the one interjecting all these caveats into unconditional, not me. I'm taking the dictionary definition of unconditional and applying it exactly as written. What this means is that if you want your god to be a "god of justice" as you say, then it is a paradox that the god also love unconditionally.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Relax

I never suggested you mentioned justice? I gave you an example, I mentioned it

You defined unconditional love by suggesting it was imposing, or forced.
It can't be, I am surprised you can't understand that

Free will means free choice, you choose

and it's not a paradox, if a judges son is brought before the courts charged with a crime, a crime committed, should the judge let his son off because it's his son.
That's not justice

Shouting only makes you look petulant

a reply to: Raggedyman

I'm not shouting. I used bold to drive my point home and add inflection. If I were to be shouting, I'd have used the caps lock key.

You defined unconditional love by suggesting it was imposing, or forced.
It can't be, I am surprised you can't understand that

Free will means free choice, you choose

Love can be given but not received easily. God can give love unconditionally, but the free will aspect is humans choosing to accept it or not. God, loving unconditionally, still has to give that love out equally even if it isn't accepted on the receiving end.

and it's not a paradox, if a judges son is brought before the courts charged with a crime, a crime committed, should the judge let his son off because it's his son.
That's not justice

A judge is human and therefore has conditions placed on his love. Humans are unable to love unconditionally. We all have biases, likes, and dislikes. So it is impossible to apply your comparison here.

originally posted by: Gnosisisfaith
a reply to: Punisher75

Acts was pretty early, I don't think he figured it out yet. Saul conned him, but the respect was based on Saul misrepresenting himself. My beef aint with Luke or acts, I don't reject it, I just see something most people don't. But I am not alone in this, plenty of people feel exactly as I do about that false prophet Saul

LOL Acts was written shortly before Paul was killed. It is speculated it was written to keep him from being killed, as you can see it was a letter written to a Roman named Theophilus explaining why Paul was not guilty of causing a riots.
It was not early.
And considering that the two of them died pretty darn close to one another I would have thought Peter would have made note of it sometime before he died don't you?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's just such a joy to discuss something with someone who has the comprehension to understand and think through complex issues

I am so impressed by your singular capacity to not understand or even try to understand another's point of view

I don't mind what you choose to believe
It's not my buisness, just a pity you are so mentally myopic

I understand why people hate Christians, why people chose evolution, why Daesh is fighting to Western nations or are gnostics
I totally disagree with them
Though I won't try to deny they have good reasons

I understand why you have issues with my explanation of unconditional love.
What I don't understand is why you can't see another's view and understand it.
Almost like you have been brainwashed into only having the capability of seeing one dimensionally

It's bizzare, like those Wesboro people. If you don't agree we will attack you till you do,agree

Latter

a reply to: Punisher75

Instead of debating me, check out a website I your not scared of evidence. Problemswithpaul. Com and read it with your bible. Youll get it theny

a reply to: Raggedyman

It appears that YOU are the one getting angry, not me. Like I've said from the beginning, I'm just going by the dictionary definition of unconditional. Here it is:
unconditional

not limited by conditions

Here is the definition of condition.

...
5. a restricting, limiting, or modifying circumstance:
It can happen only under certain conditions.
...

I'm sorry that your explanation doesn't align with the dictionary, but that's not my problem. And to go the full monty here is the definition of unconditional love:

noun
affection with no limits or conditions; complete love

There is no opinion to any of this. It is all matter of fact stuff. You either accept it or you don't. Unconditional has only one definition. I understand that you want to rationalize somehow god having unconditional love but he also be able to place conditions on that love, but that is a paradox. You can't have both at the same time.

a reply to: Punisher75

I independently figured this out. The evidence is a mountain. I found many people who saw it too. Christians. You need to read it slowly and from cover to cover, but you will see Saul as he really is. I understand Christianity, you think the bible can't be wrong. But it's telling you about the first false prophet after the resurrection. Jesus taches two laws, love God and love your neighbors as yourself. Saul says only one is necessary. That's a serious problem, Saul is modifying Jesus Commandments. If the teachings of Jesus aren't sufficient, then why did he teach them. Your gonna make an excuse up for how this really means this or he was ju... whatever. Im not distracted by false interpretations. That's one instance, but its condemning on its own. YOU DON'T ALTER, IN THE SLIGHTEST WAY, JESUS TEACHINGS. I got more, but just check ot problemswithpaul.com. if I am full of # then find out where im coming from and then decide.

a reply to: Punisher75

Maybe the Hol spirt doesn't think you can handle the truth. Im happy being of the few who know this. I even provide evidence to try and get you to see what your missing. You ignore it, I can only assume you think you know everything and are incapable of being wrong. Id lose that.It is a part of llearning, aadmitting you are wrong. I once thought saul was an apostle. But I figured out, he wasn't. It's a n esoteric aspect, not for the simple minded

The entire new testment is inspired by God and protected by him, Saul is part of that not an apostate.
Somebody came up with that idea and so many people have latched on to that, Matthew to Revelation is all good.
You can't just say all the books written by Paul are wrong because, I don't like their tone. Omitting his writings from Christian faith is going to lead to something other than first century style Christianity.
And it will be wrong.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Raggedyman

Gods love is unconditional but it must be accepted, deny it and you don't receive it

Then it violates the definition of "unconditional" and is hence not unconditional love. When you start adding "if... then" statements to your love then you are adding conditions. "if... then" statements are known as conditional statements. The definition of unconditional is NO conditions.

Your statement is such:
"if you don't love god and reject him, then god doesn't return love." That is a condition. You can try to rationalize around this all you want, but definitions are definitions. And that's what unconditional means. I know you want to fit a narrative of "justice must be served" where we can rationalize violence into a peace loving philosophy but that is hypocritical. Though only you can come to terms with this. If you don't want to believe me here, there is nothing I can say to make you change your mind since I'm using the dictionary definition of unconditional and all.

As you understand it
God is a God of justice, justice must be carried out

God has unconditional love, if you reject it, unconditional love won't force itself

Your argument is not unconditional love, it's force

I offer you money to pay a debt, you hate me so refuse the help.
Is it unconditional love to impose myself my money on you unconditional love
to leave you alone, accept your bitterness

Your argument is valid to you, just doesn't make it valid to everyone.

You say violence, is hanging a murderer violence or justice?

You chose your own morals

You act as if it is actual love that is given out, love is given out metaphorically. What is given out is good treatment. And no you can't say torturing forever against their will or killing someone against their will is good treatment. And again it is not just the serial killer rapist who will receive such EXTREME punishments, it is even those with far less offensive more simple sins.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Raggedyman

I never said anything about justice. You did. I just defined unconditional and what it would mean in regards to love being it. You are the one interjecting all these caveats into unconditional, not me. I'm taking the dictionary definition of unconditional and applying it exactly as written. What this means is that if you want your god to be a "god of justice" as you say, then it is a paradox that the god also love unconditionally.

And by justice you mean to say that forgiveness for God is unjust and wrong(remember that when you're told to forgive others... or even ask for forgiveness, heheh). Only vicarious redemption is the justice god accepts, punishing an innocent for the wrongdoings of another, and this will only help the wrongdoer if he believes it deep in his heart, if not justice is served through punishment. The justice demands two conditions human sacrifice + belief in human sacrifice as just, to actually cause someone to be saved.


PS

As for free will, that requires a nondivisible agent outside the universe, what we have is a divisible agent, a brain whose components, the activitiy of neurons determine his actions. The moment you realize you have a divisible agent, one composed of components, and it is the interaction of these components that determine the agents actions, that moment you realize you don't have free will.

That is without going into the fact that neither determinism nor randomness allow for free wil, nor does any combination of the two, and the universe only appears to be a combination of deterministic and random events, thus no free will. Though true randomness appears nonsensical, so in truth it may be that it all truly is deterministic deep down.

Also OMNISCIENCE is contradicted by free will, as if such a thing existed there would be things the omniscient entity would not know.

Without free will, it makes no sense for a superintellingent entity to hold people accountable or blame them for their actions. The brains of countless prisoners*(wrongdoers) have been examined, it has been observed abnormal brain activity and brain damage in most cases, iirc, thus their defective brain is causing defective actions. Their components are not working properly.

Take out(surgically remove, or by accident) the frontal lobes of a person, and their behavior will turn to the worse, no fault of their own. There is your imaginary free will, remove one of the components responsible for restraint and proper behavior, and the results are inevitable.

This thread is getting too hard to follow. You guys replying without quotes, could you please start quoting the passage your're replying to?

a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

You do know that when a post says "a reply to: ..." you can click on the screen name (it'll be a green link) and it'll pop up a window with the text of the post that post is responding to correct?

Faith vs works as opposed to faith + works is a Jesus vs Saul the Pharisee topic. I would like to offer to anyone who has strong faith, visit problemswithpaul.com. It is a very thourough analysis of Sauls words and actions compared to Jesus. I don't know how to make links but just go to Google.

But whatever your opinion, Saul is not an apostle, prophet or anything but a Pharisee. I believe the story is about a false prophet trying to corrupt Jesus new chuch and not about a great maIn. His behavior makes it obvious, hes boastful, desires admiration, tells documented blatant lies and doesn't back up his claims. That doesn't make it uninspired. It makes it a test to see who follows Jesus teachings and who follows Saul the Pharisee. Free will. Most follow the crowd but a few actually follow only Jesus and his 12 Apostles.

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith

Heres an idea bro...

Instead of telling people to go to that site, why not make a thread about it?

Be sure to add your opinion of the content and not just a copy and paste Job...

Im sure you'll get a lot of responses here

a reply to: Akragon

I don't actually know how to do that. I think the website is perfectffor what I want. To provide a reason to people why I realize this. Evidence is scripture, but it isn't enough because they have been sold on a view and no amount of arguing will change that. But a detailed presentation, to a rational person might.