|
DélioPT said: I did say that in a way i resorted to the New Testament because you said it would be better to use it to speak to player1x3 in a way he would best agree. That`s almost what i did. DIdn`t quote the NT, but used Mary that is part of the NT. |
Almost but no cigar.
|
Teaching kids is different because, given their young age and inability to comprehend things, you do make them do things that only later they will understand. The situation we are speaking is different. They, most of them at least, could comprehend. But given that their hearts were hard i understood it as they having clouded hearts to God`s way. And God knew this. He knew that somehow, they wouldn`t or couldn`t follow His ways even if He revealed them. That immorality was actually against Himself and His pure heart. |
If that was the case then Jesus should have repudiated it instead of claiming that he was fulfilling it. Why would he fulfill a law that goes against god and his pure heart?
| This is exactly where we disagree. Heaven or hell is not just a question of morality, or, being good or bad. Heaven and hell are much more than a moral system. |
We are not disagreeing on it being more than a moral system, we are agreein on it but we are disagreeing on it being moral. It is a case where the sum of the part is less than one of the parts themselves. But I will stop arguing with you on this point as we are going in circle. To paraphrase:
You - Heaven is more than just moral
Me - That is why it is not about rewarding morals.
You - Heaven is more than just about moral.
Me - That is why it is not about rewarding morals.
| Any sin is the same as rejecting God in one way or the other and attribtuing those 3 qualities to someone else, to something else or even to themselves. |
So you equate morality with god. In that case let me ask you if you think what the 9/11 terrorists did could possibly be seen as moral? If you really believe that then you cannot unequivocally say that their action are immoral as there is the possibility that there belief is right and that their god exist and told them to do it, which, in your worldview, would make their actions moral as they would then originate from god.
My view is that even if they are believing in the right god and that god told them to do these acts the these are still immoral acts regardless of who told them to do it. When Joshua invaded Jericho it was an immoral act of unprovoked agression even though god told him to do it.
If you start with the hypothesis that somebody defines morality and that his acts are always moral then no matter how outrageously immoral those act would be considered had anybody else done them then they would be seen as moral. If you apply the same moral standard to everyone, god included, then you realise that god is not the highly moral being he claims to be so rejecting him cannot be immoral.
| How do you know that spreading the word of God would be like opening the door to damnation? What if he was a bad person and it actually was the word of God that saved him? |
But if he was good and did not believe then you condemned him. The only safe thing to do is to teach the moral part of the bible without the supernatural part as if they are already moral then they do not risk being damned for having heard but being unconvinced and if they are immoral but realise the morality of the teaching then they can become moral and thus be saved by their newfound morality without the risk of losing said salvation if they find the precepts moral but are not convinced by the supernatural parts.
| Jesus didn`t come for those who are good and love God, He come for those who need His guidance. That`s why it`s so important to spread His word either to save them or to in a broad way, help the rest in their lives. |
And if you only spread the morality principles without spreading the supernatural parts you can still save them without putting them at risk. If your assertions are right it is the logical way to proceed.
"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"







