05-10-2007, 11:33 PM
What about original sin?
I'm not sure how you are referring to "original sin". It does mean a lot of different things to different people. The protestant (as well as some others) view is that Jesus's death atoned for this. That's where the grace thing comes from. We are sinful by nature, will sin, and nothing we can do would earn us a place in heaven. Only through god's grace...
>>What about someone who believs in God's "grace," but who nevertheless works on a Sunday?
I guess the way it works is that we know god wants us to devote a day to him (the sabbath). Doing so gets us no closer to being in heaven, but ignoring what god wants brings you closer to denying he is your god. That's where repenting, struggling, trying, to do the right thing is what a person with faith would do. How do we know whether someone is really trying? That decision is reserved for god, although people, being imperfect often try to make this judgement. At any rate, no, working on the sabbath does not send you to hell.
>>>You're saying that all Catholics and Protestants and Anglicans and Mormons and Reformists and all of the other Christians can throw away their bibles and forget about all of the rules they are taught because merely accepting god's "grace" is enough to get them into heaven?
No, they shouldn't just throw them out. It tells us more than how to get to heaven. How to live the life God wants, how to strengthen our faith, how to help others with their faith, etc. etc. Being saved isn't necessarily dependent on it all, but if your saved, you want to do good.
>>>Which book says that? Where's God's signature on the affidavit? And why hasn't the Pope said anything about this?
I gave you one quote, and there are lots of others to this effect. I don't know why you tend to speak of things in terms of law, since most people think there are standards or values that transcend law. I have to admit I don't know catholicism well at all. I would be surprised if the Pope doesn't talk about grace. I know Mother Theresa had essentially this view, but that's about it.
> You don't tell god what needs to happen.
>>>That's not what I said. One simply cannot have been said to have made a choice under God's (or anyone's) rules without having first made an informed consent to those rules. No clear rules = no choice.
It is pretty clear. You either accept him as your savior, or you don't. What bothers people is that it isn't directly under our control. People want to be in control of everything, but if you have faith, you turn control over to god.
>>>You seem to be saying that there's only one absolute rule that speaks vaguely about accepting God's "grace." And you imply that all Christians should know this rule and hold it as the one and only absolute rule, thus having a "choice" about whether to follow it or go to hell.
Pretty much.
>>>That doesn't make any sense. Even if one could construct a clear rule from your quote, in order for that rule to offer humans a "choice," infants would need to have the comprehension of a competent adult.
Pragmatically, there's no hard and fast rule that could ever direct every movement a human makes. And if you had enough rules to cover everything, no one could remember them all. So it has to be a bit fuzzy. As far as the infant thing, I can see why a person of faith would want to know where their dead child was going. But in the end, we're not sending the child there, so I don't know why we can't just let god do what he wants, and leave it at that. Personally, I would be satisfied just to believe god wouldn't send a baby to hell. As far as the logical inconsistency, I'm sure god can figure it out.
>>Under your scheme, a newborn infant who worshiped his parents would go to hell and that would be utterly appropriate because he had fair warning that he had to worship God in his grace first and foremost.
I can see what your saying. I guess a newborn can't worship or have fair warning, which is the same as your point as far as informed consent. But at the same time, there's nothing the infant can do, nothing we can help the infant do (I guess baptism is sometimes thought of as a way to take care of the problem), so it isn't really necessary to spell it out. I'm comfortable saying I don't know.
>>That simply defies all logic and observed facts. We are not made with a clear set of rules imprinted on our brains from God.
I guess so, but we aren't talking science here. kj.
I'm not sure how you are referring to "original sin". It does mean a lot of different things to different people. The protestant (as well as some others) view is that Jesus's death atoned for this. That's where the grace thing comes from. We are sinful by nature, will sin, and nothing we can do would earn us a place in heaven. Only through god's grace...
>>What about someone who believs in God's "grace," but who nevertheless works on a Sunday?
I guess the way it works is that we know god wants us to devote a day to him (the sabbath). Doing so gets us no closer to being in heaven, but ignoring what god wants brings you closer to denying he is your god. That's where repenting, struggling, trying, to do the right thing is what a person with faith would do. How do we know whether someone is really trying? That decision is reserved for god, although people, being imperfect often try to make this judgement. At any rate, no, working on the sabbath does not send you to hell.
>>>You're saying that all Catholics and Protestants and Anglicans and Mormons and Reformists and all of the other Christians can throw away their bibles and forget about all of the rules they are taught because merely accepting god's "grace" is enough to get them into heaven?
No, they shouldn't just throw them out. It tells us more than how to get to heaven. How to live the life God wants, how to strengthen our faith, how to help others with their faith, etc. etc. Being saved isn't necessarily dependent on it all, but if your saved, you want to do good.
>>>Which book says that? Where's God's signature on the affidavit? And why hasn't the Pope said anything about this?
I gave you one quote, and there are lots of others to this effect. I don't know why you tend to speak of things in terms of law, since most people think there are standards or values that transcend law. I have to admit I don't know catholicism well at all. I would be surprised if the Pope doesn't talk about grace. I know Mother Theresa had essentially this view, but that's about it.
> You don't tell god what needs to happen.
>>>That's not what I said. One simply cannot have been said to have made a choice under God's (or anyone's) rules without having first made an informed consent to those rules. No clear rules = no choice.
It is pretty clear. You either accept him as your savior, or you don't. What bothers people is that it isn't directly under our control. People want to be in control of everything, but if you have faith, you turn control over to god.
>>>You seem to be saying that there's only one absolute rule that speaks vaguely about accepting God's "grace." And you imply that all Christians should know this rule and hold it as the one and only absolute rule, thus having a "choice" about whether to follow it or go to hell.
Pretty much.
>>>That doesn't make any sense. Even if one could construct a clear rule from your quote, in order for that rule to offer humans a "choice," infants would need to have the comprehension of a competent adult.
Pragmatically, there's no hard and fast rule that could ever direct every movement a human makes. And if you had enough rules to cover everything, no one could remember them all. So it has to be a bit fuzzy. As far as the infant thing, I can see why a person of faith would want to know where their dead child was going. But in the end, we're not sending the child there, so I don't know why we can't just let god do what he wants, and leave it at that. Personally, I would be satisfied just to believe god wouldn't send a baby to hell. As far as the logical inconsistency, I'm sure god can figure it out.
>>Under your scheme, a newborn infant who worshiped his parents would go to hell and that would be utterly appropriate because he had fair warning that he had to worship God in his grace first and foremost.
I can see what your saying. I guess a newborn can't worship or have fair warning, which is the same as your point as far as informed consent. But at the same time, there's nothing the infant can do, nothing we can help the infant do (I guess baptism is sometimes thought of as a way to take care of the problem), so it isn't really necessary to spell it out. I'm comfortable saying I don't know.
>>That simply defies all logic and observed facts. We are not made with a clear set of rules imprinted on our brains from God.
I guess so, but we aren't talking science here. kj.