Raf

Just one? Not half? ;)

I'm going to have to catch LoT on Netflix, because every episode just seemed odder and odder, and that Tickle Me Gizmo Marshmallow Man moment was nauseating. I gave up trying to keep up with Arrow. I'm only missing the finale on Flash (aired last night here).

"The conditions for salvation appear to be different at certain times..." This is really a roundabout way of saying "the contradictions are so glaring that the only way to resolve them is to assert that they are not talking to or about the same people." Paul and Hebrews are talking about the same people. Jesus was talking about the same people they were talking about. You really need to design a Rube-Goldberg contraption out of the scripture to get them to pretend to be addressing different things. Again, my opinion.

No longer being a believer rids me of the need to find the "correct doctrine" on "once saved, always saved" (or "incorruptible seed," if one were to insist). I don't think the Bible's authors agreed on the matter, to be honest. It's only when one posits that there was "one author, but many writers" that the need for a coherent, consistent, correct doctrine becomes necessary. My advice to you would be, follow the doctrine that inspires you to do the most and greatest good. If you are worried about losing your salvation, don't do anything that would jeopardize it. If you are confident that you're a son of God and nothing, nowhere, nohow can separate you from the love of Christ, then act like it. Don't be a p-grabbing, lying, misogynistic racist boob just because the threat of hell no longer applies to you. Can a Christian lose salvation? That's for Christians to answer. No matter where you land on that question, there are scriptures to support your view and scriptures that conflict with it. I would think that if God preserves His will in His Word, the fact of such contradictions makes it obvious that it is not a vital concern to Him. And that makes sense. Why would God even WANT to reassure those who, like me, decided to chuck it all because it no longer made sense? I'm not listening to Him anymore! What reassurance does he have for me? "Its okay, you're still my son. I won't send you to hell!" That might reassure you guys about me, if you believe in incorruptible seed. Or you think I'm going to hell, if you don't believe in once saved, always saved. But to ME, the threat of hell is on par with the threat of a lump of coal in my stocking on Christmas morn. So from YOUR perspective, I think God is far more concerned with encouraging people to keep on believing and praying and being a part of the One Body, and not at all concerned with letting believers know they have an out if they want to rebel.

From Another STFI split I know that Vince Finnegan reached the same conclusion [that salvation could be lost] after I dropped out of his offshoot in the late 1990s. It seems to me that the Apostle Paul would not warn about using grace as a license to sin if he felt losing your salvation was a possibility. It does appear, obviously, that VPW and TWI did use grace as a license to sin in practice, and to a lesser extent in doctrine. I think many sincere Christians believe salvation cannot be lost, and many other sincere Christians believe it can. That this should be the case with TWI and its offshoots should come as no surprise. Personally (and I'm going slightly off-topic and into doctrinal/questioning faith territory here) I think it's because the New Testament writers were not in agreement with each other. The gospel writers quote Jesus saying he who endures to the end will be saved. Paul at the very least implies once-saved-always-saved. Whoever wrote Hebrews seems to think that salvation can be obtained once and lost once but never regained. Dispensationalism can smooth over the differences between Jesus and Paul, but (to quote Spock) it takes a feat of "linguistic legerdemain" to make the writer of Hebrews say salvation cannot be lost. My opinion NEW MATERIAL NOW: Not exactly new. More of a recap. When you open your mind to the likelihood that the New Testament writers were in frequent, passionate disagreement with each other, a lot of doctrinal questions get resolved right away. There was no single answer to "what did the first century church believe." They argued as much as we do. The insistence that there is one correct answer is what leads to arguments. But it requires each side to ignore passages that obviously prove them wrong. .

I did not, but I know that Vince Finnegan reached the same conclusion after I dropped out of his offshoot in the late 1990s. It seems to me that the Apostle Paul would not warn about using grace as a license to sin if he felt losing your salvation was a possibility. It does appear, obviously, that VPW and TWI did use grace as a license to sin in practice, and to a lesser extent in doctrine. I think many sincere Christians believe salvation cannot be lost, and many other sincere Christians believe it can. That this should be the case with TWI and its offshoots should come as no surprise. Personally (and I'm going slightly off-topic and into doctrinal/questioning faith territory here) I think it's because the New Testament writers were not in agreement with each other. The gospel writers quote Jesus saying he who endures to the end will be saved. Paul at the very least implies once-saved-always-saved. Whoever wrote Hebrews seems to think that salvation can be obtained once and lost once but never regained. Dispensationalism can smooth over the differences between Jesus and Paul, but (to quote Spock) it takes a feat of "linguistic legerdemain" to make the writer of Hebrews say salvation cannot be lost. My opinion.

By your definitions, T-Bone, I agree. I no longer believe in the supernatural (as most commonly defined). And kudos to you for recognizing our approach to so-called "faith." I do recognize that different people define faith differently, so definitions are needed there too. Everybody has "faith," if you define faith the way some of us did. Everybody believes something. But there's an enormous difference between believing the sun will "rise" tomorrow and believing that this has only been happening for thousands of years. Believing the sun will rise is evidence-based. Believing it has only been happening for thousands of years (as opposed to a few billion) is contrary to evidence and requires a belief that an alternative explanation that defies evidence is correct. Define evidence. And away we go! ... But when you define faith as "believing something despite there being 'no proof,'" it gives us one less thing to argue about. Atheism is not a religion because it does not entail belief in the supernatural. Humanism is a worldview and philosophy, not a religion. But if we were to switch gears and talk about these same words as defined by government, I would switch gears and argue that humanism IS a religion. Not that it entails a belief in the supernatural, but that it is entitled to the same protections and privileges as religion when it comes to government recognition. If you're not allowed to deny me a job based on my religious beliefs, but you are allowed to deny me a job based on my being an atheist, that is a violation of my rights. Not because atheism is a religion, but because as far as government is concerned, atheism and humanism should be entitled to the same protections. Government should not be allowed to say "Atheism is not a religion and is therefore atheists are not entitled to freedom from persecution or discrimination." And lest you think that's a trivial argument: not really. Multiple states have constitutional provisions depriving atheists of the right to hold elected office. Those provisions are illegal and unenforceable, but that has not always been the case. They are only unenforceable because atheists stood up for their rights and won.

I am not going to object to going off topic on this thread, seeing as the conversation flowed rather naturally and the topic itself is so narrow that staying on it too strictly would be dull. Explore away.

The truth is, there are a LOT of good questions here. How do you define atheism? How do you define religion? How do you define god? All need answers.

That's not what a logical fallacy is. You're thinking of a conundrum -- in order to prove there's life after death, one would have to die. But once you have died, you can't come back to report your results. A logical fallacy is when you draw a conclusion from premises using a methodology that is flawed. "You can't prove there's no life after death, so it's just as likely to be true as false." This is a logical fallacy. Propositions do not have 50-50 probabilities. So you can make an evidence-based argument that one probability is, in fact, much higher than the other.

I always heard: Philosophy gives you questions that cannot be answered. Religion gives you answers that cannot be questioned.

GoldStar is out of here. And if he tries to log in as someone else, we'll figure it out in no time and he'll be gone again.

I used to think that atheism was an overreaction to leaving The Way. In my case, it was a good long time between leaving TWI and rejecting theism, so I doubt very much that it can be categorized as "the psyche swinging the balance back the other way." I'm not saying that's impossible. I'm saying I don't see where the shoe fits in my particular case. For those reading who think this post may seem a little redundant, please check the time stamps. It's been two YEARS since I posted on this thread, so I'm not going to take for granted that folks are scrolling back. Nor am I particularly concerned about whether I'm consistent in my phrasing. People change in the way in which they articulate their positions. That said, to this day I entertain questions about whether atheism is a religion. Some questioners are benign and genuinely curious. Others are hostile and antagonistic. Most can't seem to grasp the idea that a government can actually be neutral about matters of faith. Neutrality about religion = hostility toward all religions except one, namely atheism. It's just not true, though. For government to embrace atheism, government would have to say flat out there is no God. I do not want agents of the government making such statements in their official capacities. It is not only disrespectful -- it can all too easily lead to depriving people of their constitutional rights. Atheism is a single answer to a single question: do you believe in gods? No. THAT'S LITERALLY IT. From there, an atheist can adopt any of thousands of philosophies or worldviews. They can be humanists, nihilists, anarchists, socialists, capitalists, racists, Buddhists (to a large extent) modernists, postmodernists, dentists, are you still reading this, and if so why. I think when most people make the claim that atheism is a religion, what they really mean is that non-theistic humanism is a religion. They're wrong. But they're not that wrong. Non-theistic humanism is a lot of things: a worldview, a philosophy, an approach to life. But it lacks the key ingredient that makes a religion: a belief in the supernatural. Rambling. Gonna get some sleep and tackle the rest at a later date. Do allow me to say, however, that the above post by chockfull is excellent.

I never got over Macho Grande.

I enjoyed the time loop episode of Legends of Tomorrow. Not feeling Black Panther. I may binge when I get a chance. Not caught up on Punisher or Jessica Jones. I am over Damien Darkh. Enough!

Real Genius!

Mark your calendars, everyone: March 5, 2019 is the Second Annual Chockfull Agreed With Raf Day!

There is nothing in that verse or context that indicates this is a negative trait. Rather, it is included in a list of POSITIVE traits about Job, to show just how devoted he was to God. To turn that into a display of fear on Job's part is a Wierwillian lie. The text does not support that interpretation. You have to inject a negative meaning into what the author of Job was indicating as a positive trait.

The notion that Job was guilty of "negative believing" is Wierwillian fantasy, utterly absent from the Book of Job unless you want to make the wailing cries of a man who lost his family into doctrine.

I thought that was tailor-made for word wolf, but you are correct.

My point, by the way, was not to make an accurate statement about Buddhism but to demonstrate that we tend to treat the claims of other religions with more skepticism than the claims of our own. Elijah ascended to heaven in a chariot of fire. Jesus ascended with no vehicle at all. Mohammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse. Well, that third claim is just silly.

Okeydoke... One of the main characters in this popular, comedic action movie seriously contemplates suicide. The actor did such a good job with that scene that he was offered the role of another classic character who also famously contemplates suicide. He did it. That is, the actor took the role. Neither character committed suicide, but one of them didn't survive until closing credits. The other stayed alive through three sequels. Name the popular, comedic action movie, and the classic character (also the name of the second movie).

Hang on. I think I just had a stroke. j/k

But Moving Right Along is straight up Muppet Movie.