Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

So all you need to do is believe in God and Jesus? Doesn't that make every sin, everything the Bible says you shouldn't do, unnecessary?

Ah, but that's where that final verse in the Ephesians passage I cited comes in. While forgiveness of sins is a reality for the Christian, so, also, is the righteousness of Christ at work in them. There is the dying to sin and being alive in Christ that comes from being connected to his crucifixion, death, and resurrection (Rom 6).

I'll put it to you like this: it's a package deal. On one hand, there is the forgiveness of sins, but on the other, the cleansing that comes from belonging to God. This doesn't give the Christian the right to commit any sin, without regard, but rather gives him both the motive and the ability to do right and turn from evil. And even that's not perfect, because until Christ returns and raises us up from the dead, we are still imperfect, fallen human beings. As long as we live as fallen beings in a fallen world, we are apt to make mistakes and fail. But this only demonstrates how much more we are in need of the gift.

I do not believe, as some well-meaning Christians today do, that the gift cannot be lost - a person who neglects or abuses a gift is in danger of losing it. For the person who says to himself that he can merely believe the facts of Christ's atoning death, obstinately clings to his sin, and does not want the life of Christ at work in him - well, let's just say he should be careful.

That is why we Christians believe that we need the Means of Grace (specifically the Word and the Sacraments). These are God's gifts to us as well, to help us cling to the gift he gives us, to renew us and strengthen us.

_________________

So I'm guessing you would believe that it wouldn't work for a person to live all their lives having been aware of Christianity, yet not having accepted the religion and all its rules, living the life they want to live, up until they're on their death bed? I mean, if it could work like that, you'd get to live and do whatever you please (essentially) and then finally get the cleansing of being "saved" the moment before you die...sort of like someone blowing more money than they had and then calling "bankruptcy" to gain amnesty from the payments (bad analogy, I know...but you get what I'm asking).

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Ok, I have no religious beliefs at all, whatsoever. I used to be a Jew, but after doing some soul searching, I came to the belief* that a god does not exist. I find nothing wrong with homosexuality, it isn't a curse, it isn't a sin, it is what happens in your life. I think that if we live a good life, we get no reward from it, we just get remembered as a good person. That's really it.

*Please note I said belief. Not realization. I think that just screams "haha my belief is right and urz is rong!!!!". I don't wanna force my beliefs (or lack thereof) on anyone, I wanna be the good kinda atheist .

_________________
GENGHIS KHAN!!!!!

I think an old saying is "Many people wait till the eleventh hour to turn to God, but most die in the tenth."

If someone would choose to wait till there deathbed, then they run the risk of dying an unexpected death, and paying the consequences. Then again, I dont know.

_________________

Because this is a "Steam valve thread". I'll vent some.

Why are people referencing science fiction movies to support their arguments? Can't you find a better place to help form your arguments? A book perhaps, written by someone who knows what they're talking about? I just find it annoyning is all.

(Note: I've never seen Gattaca, so it may very well be written by someone who has a good understanding of both gentics and the moral issues surrounding it, and may actually be a good thing to reference in a debate. But I doubt it.)

_________________

Since most good science fiction movies are based on books, it doesnt make much of a difference. Also, many movies have a very allegorical meaning, like the matrix, and similar movies. It's the same concept as making an analogy.

To me, quoting lord of the flies could be similar to quoting saw 2.

_________________

This is one area where I disagree with you. I believe that salvation is a permanent gift. I think that when you are saved, you are fully justified for all your sins, and no amount of sin can overcome that justification.

_________________

Exhibit A, I may be going to the extreme with this, but are you saying that someone could be "saved" (by whatever means you feel saves them), then go on and become a very immoral person (even by "secular" standards) and do things like kill, rape, rob, etc. and still be alright?
Forgive me if this is example is more extreme than what you meant, I'm just curious.

Just so you'll all know, I know this is a bit off the topic of "How should religion influence government", and, as such, I should probably tell you guys to get back on topic, but it seems to be a productive line of discussion, so I don't want to end it...

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Well, grace, by definition, is free. I would have absolutely no problem with believing that someone who, in the very last moments of their life, suddenly found themselves desiring that gift, and God giving it to them.

Jesus once told the story of several workers in a vineyard, who were hired by the owner to work for a full day. Later in the day, the owner found some more workers to hire, so he sent them into the vineyard to work. He did this at noon, mid-afternoon, and finally at dusk, when there was only an hour left to work. And after the workday was over, he paid them all the same wage, out of sheer generosity. Such it is with God's generosity: even in the very last hour, he is willing to forgive. I know, it hardly seems fair. But that's the nature of grace: it's not fair. But it's still a good thing for us.


Can you demonstrate that from Scripture? Because from what I read in Hebrews, it is entirely possible (and in fact, does happen) that once devout people renounce the faith. I've actually known people - and perhaps you have, too - who have done just that: basically turned their back on God completely. The idea of "Once saved always saved" is not supported by Scripture.

_________________

I simply believe that permanent salvation stems naturally from the idea of salvation by faith, rather than works. If we are saved, but have to keep up our salvation by being good, then it's not really faith alone that saves us, it's faith and works. If we can lose our salvation, then wouldn't that mean that the justification that it brings isn't complete?

To be honest, I can't cite specific examples from scripture, because I simply don't have enough knowledge of the Bible. I'm sure my pastor could give some supporting passages, he has preached about permanent salvation on several occasions, I just can't remember the specific verses. My pastor is a very intelligent man, and I now for a fact he has great knowledge of the original Greek language texts, and he has made very strong arguments for permanent salvation.

_________________

Just to throw an idea into the fray, is it possible that the idea of "once saved, always saved" comes from the idea that a person who has been truly saved won't do the kinds of things that people would consider bad enough to "lose" their salvation and that anyone who does those things hasn't been truly saved?

*wow, that was a really long sentence*

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

But I'm not talking about losing salvation by failing in good works, but rather losing salvation by losing faith itself. It stands to reason that, if we are saved by grace through faith, and someone loses their faith, then where does that leave them?

_________________

Didy, to be honest, I'd rather not get into this discussion with you. I simply don't have the scriptural knowledge or debating skills you have, so I can't really back up my position as well as you can. I'll just say that's that's what I believe, and no, I'm not completely sure of it, but it's really something that I'm going to have to work out for myself. I'll just pray that God will enable me to find the truth.

_________________

Can someone who is truly saved lose their faith? I've heard a lot of "no", but personal experience seems to suggest otherwise.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I think that if someone is truely saved, then no, they cannot lose their faith. Sort of look at it this way: Jesus said that the world will know his followers by their love for one another, and then also later Paul writes about the fruits of the Spirit, those little things that abound in us when the Spirit resides in our hearts. If a person claims to be a Christian, yet exhibits neither love nor fruits, you can be suspicious of the true condition of their hearts. Likewise, if a person starts to show these, and then falls away, one has to wonder if they ever really truely believed in the first place. And in the case that I can think of, we are still in fact fallen beings, and so it's possible that someone 'relapses' a bit and falls back into sin for a time, but then they remember their new selves (or actually believe for real this time, depending) and come back to living rightly. What I think has been told.

_________________

_________________

Yeah, this is all stuff that just seems to want to come out in a lot of topics so I don't mind sacrificing this topic (for now) to this line of discussion. Especially since I don't have much time right now to put in my two cents anyway

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

Besides, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't this thread originally named something like, "Steam-blowing Thread"?


But we're not talking about whether salvation can be lost due to failure of good works. Good works do not save. We are talking about whether a person can lose salvation by losing or renouncing their faith. Since we are saved by grace through faith (notice I said "by GRACE through faith" - we must remember that it is God's doing, not our own), then what happens when someone renounces that faith?

But I will concede you this: if a Christian finds himself lacking in good works, he should examine himself and consider his own attitude. While good works do not save us, they can at times be symptoms of sinful attitudes.

The problem I have with the whole "once saved always saved" dogma is three-fold:

1. It is not explicitly stated in Scripture (and is, in fact, contradicted in a few places, most notably Hebrews 6 and 12).

2. There are in fact devout people who turn from the faith, so unless you redefine what we mean by "faith," you must concede that they do in fact lose the grace available to them when they do. To say, "They weren't really saved to start with," or "They didn't REALLY believe," is to make a judgment about their previous faith that we are not privy to make. ("Faith", by the way, is simply this: trusting that the Lord Jesus Christ died to pay the price for YOUR sins).

3. It leads Christians into a false sense of security, thinking that they no longer need to concern themselves with examining, confessing, and repenting of their own sins. And yet, the Law still stands to condemn our sins, and the Scriptures tell us that we are to daily take up our cross and deny ourselves - that is, to confess our sins and place ourselves in the care of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 John 1:8-9. The Christian who keeps himself open to God's mercy, forgiveness, and cleansing can have confidence that the Lord will keep him in the faith; but the one who becomes complacent, neglects his faith, or turns away from it completely places himself in danger.

This doesn't mean that he loses the gift entirely; but as I've said before, a gift that is neglected, ignored, or thrown away does no one any good at all.

And faith is not an inanimate object anyway, but rather a living, breathing thing. That being the case, it needs care and nourishment. That is why God gave us the ministry of the Word: to encourage us in faith. And also why he gave us the Sacraments: so that our faith can be fed and nurtured with real spiritual food and drink. Baptism is there to give us life, to make us alive in Christ; and Holy Communion is there to feed us and keep us alive.

And as long as we live in this world, we will always have imperfect faith. People sometimes cite disagreements among Christians as a flaw in The Faith, but the real flaw is in the incompleteness of our faith as individuals. Heck, even with my years of college, seminary training, and ministry experience, even I have to confess my faith is imperfect. In God's economy, there's no such thing as enough faith. As the Scripture lesson for last night's service read, "We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair" (2 Cor 4:8). The term "perplexed" literally means "to doubt." Christians ALWAYS struggle with their faith. Luther speaks of three things needed for faith: oratio (the Word), meditatio (prayerful meditation on that Word), and tentatio (struggle or battle with that Word). In a very real sense, we are Israel,* because we wrestle with God. Even Jesus, the Incarnate Son of God, experienced doubt and fear as he wept in Gethsemane the night he was betrayed. But the good news is that we are not driven to despair. As long as we struggle, we have hope, because Christ is on our side.

*literally, "He wrestles with God."

_________________

Well yeah, but that started to seem too broad. I'm hoping eventually to bring it back to the title, but for now whatever flows from one post to the next is OK, since this section of the forum seems to need to get this line of thought off its collective chest.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

So wait, Dids, I have lived a good life so far. I try to give to charities, I have volunteered at nursing homes, and I am mostly a generous person. I have a few transgressions, small and not so small, but I think it is fair to say I am a good person. But regardless if I was good or not, I am still not saved? If the kindest and most generous person was an atheist, he would not be saved either? I don't really see any logic in that.

Please, correct me if I am wrong. I probably am, but I am just checking.

_________________
GENGHIS KHAN!!!!!

If you haven't accepted Christ as your savior, then no, you aren't saved.
It doesn't matter if you've donated trillions of dollars to charities and given every hour of your life to working for them.

If works could save us, then there would be no need for Christ's sacrifice on the cross. He died for our sins, paying the price for them. We could never pay that debt.

That's what I believe, anyway..

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

There's a difference between feeling inclined to do something and actually doing it. This argument here seems exactly the same as somebody justifying killing someone because their natural instincts of jealously and revenge compelled them to do so. You're still human; you can still control the actions you do.

Of course God won't condemn anybody because they themselves are homosexual; it doesn't even say that anywhere in the Bible. However, in Leviticus 18:22:

You might make me very angry over something you do, and I might naturally have an impulse to harm you, but I would still get thrown in jail for doing that. Can you see the similarity with homosexuality? It's no different than a husband keeping faithful to his wife; he might want to go have an affair with another woman, yet if he follows the way of God's Commandment, he will not.

_________________

Banned because of bad argument.

_________________

Except, HHFOV, homosexuality doesn't have any negative effects on society, so I don't think the analogy to killers being thrown in jail because they act on impulses is a good one. The "impulse" to mate and to have a romantic partnership with another individual, is rooted in everyone. Homosexual "impulses" cannot be construed as being negative by anything other than specific interpretations of specific religions. Secularly, we can derive the immorality of murder (as well as a host of other things), but we cannot derive any immorality to homosexuality. And so for at least the initial purpose of this thread, I see no reason why such a religious argument should hold sway in a political battle.

And Dids: I was talking about if the person on their death bed didn't even really believe in what he was accepting--he was just doing it to be safe, to get the clean slate, even though he still enjoyed every minute of his "immoral" behaviour.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

If I get what you're saying, that person didn't really have a conversion of heart. Intention is what matters. Fear of hell can get you to a true conversion, but fear of hell alone making you say but not really believe something doesn't cut it. Of course, this all takes place internally so no one externally would know any of this. At that point, really, it's up to God to decide and not for people to speculate.

OMG HUGE RANT:

I don't agree with the implicit assumption that many seem to have that people are completely powerless to their sexual desires. This is, in my opinion (tho not an opinion that I'd ever try to legislate from), is a degrading point of view: it assumes people are weak and have no free will and like reptiles or something. There are societies today and have been in the past when people were a lot more controlled than at present. Sure, there was and is a lot of coverup and underreporting, too, and I don't necessarily think a scared, evil-evil-evil approach to sex is at all helpful. I don't think it makes political sense to assume anyone's gonna be abstinent, for example. But people tend to think they have a lot less power over their desires than they really do (and I'm not talking about whether the desires are hetero or homosexual, but whether or not they're acted on).

Now, control can only happen if you want it to and people are only gonna want to be abstinent if there's an especially convincing reason. It's been up to religion or extreme social stigma to provide that in the past. It's a good thing that the social stigma's gone from things like this and religion is chosen, not forced, and even then it's often watered down. So no wonder no one feels like control is necessary, and you know what, that's fine. If you don't think it is necessary, then you should have every right to do what you think is OK and natural to do. Just for some full disclosure: I don't really think it's such a good idea to be as disciplined as some religions would like people to be. But that doesn't mean I can't see that it's not possible for everyone if they would choose it. To say that control isn't possible, individually is wrong.

If, for instance, a homosexual chooses to be Christian, they should remain abstinent. Because when you choose a religion, you choose a whole system of values for yourself. If you don't believe in that system of values for yourself, then that religion isn't for you. Religion, whether Christianity or Hinduism, or whatever, isn't just something you declare and then go about your business, it's something that requires a change of heart and mind that shows itself outwardly in the way you act and the things you choose to do. If you're gay and choose Christianity, you're also choosing celibacy. From the viewpoint of Christian doctrine, homosexuality is a weakness. We all have weak areas, places in our lives that certain temptations just get us really easily. Christians would pray that God would help remove these obstacles.

RELIGION, IN THIS SECULAR SOCIETY, IS A SYSTEM OF BELIEFS AND VALUES THAT YOU CHOOSE FOR YOURSELF, AND THE INTERACTIONS WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE CHOSEN THE SAME BELIEFS AND VALUES. The values you choose have NOTHING to do with the people who haven't chosen the same beliefs and values as you. You can believe that someone is doing something wrong from the standpoint of a religious discipline but not look down on them or write your belief into the law.

I think it's strange that people take other people's religious system's opinion of them so seriously. Like ramrod getting all bent out of shape because some protestant thinks his papist butt's going to hell. So? You don't believe that, so what does it matter what he thinks? I think that kind of response just shows insecurity in your own religious position. Or those who think the Bible doesn't say anything against homosexuality, I'd disagree with you but you know, whatever, you can have a denomination that believes that and as long as the two denominations don't try to legislate their positions (one by requiring religious organizations to accept noncelebate homosexuals and the other by trying to ban homosexual relationships) then whatever. Live and let live, and when we all die we'll all find out what the right way was, or we won't know anything else anymore so it won't matter.

[edit: added something at the beginning]

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

This is what I get for taking a few days off - I've no idea what's going on here.

I'm...... just going to go with the title and say no to all religious influence in law. Kbai.

* flees back home to P side of R&P *

*pummels crap out of bwave*
Oh. Sorry. Thought you were Clan for a second there.


Interesting you should bring this up. I just got a job with a hospice company (the job interview I mentioned a few days back), and it might just happen that I soon find myself facing that situation.

But here, I would say that it's not up to me to decide that. I cannot look into such a person's heart; I can only take at face value what would at least appear to me to be God's mercy at work in the final moments of their life. If such a person wished to be baptized, I would do so with full confidence that, even if their faith is imperfect, Christ's mercy isn't. Heck, I've baptized babies, knowing their faith is not fully formed, yet confident that Christ's mercy was at work on account of his promises.

_________________

Didy just to comment on what you just said: I don't believe in baptizing babies for basically that reason you cited: They don't know God, their faith isn't formed at all. Just wanted to comment, don't be mean (I've had enough of that lately).



Well the perfect world in my eyes would be one were everyone follows God through fear, love, or otherwise as long as it's a willing belief. God doesn't want people to be forced to believe in him, but I do think He wants His morals enforced.

Well anyhow, my religion influences my beliefs so much that if I had different ones I might be a totally different person.

Changing the title doesn't work, Inverse. There are two lines of discussion going on here: Religion and Law, and Homosexuality.


As for those who have explained that it is homosexual acts, not the state of being homosexual that is a sin: If this is true, then why is it always generalized into the all-to-common statement "Homosexuality is a sin"?

_________________