Is man inherently good or inherently evil?

dpardo responds to me:

quote:

---

This verse:

1 Peter 1:17: And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear"

​

is the one I am claiming is not referencing salvation.

---

Again:(*blink!)You did not just say that, did you?What do you think that god is doing as he "judgeth according to every man's work"?You can't divorce this verse from the surrounding ones. The entire book of 1 Peter is all about salvation.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

CHRIS PORTEUS jr avoids my question (by deliberately misquoting me, I might add):

quote:

---

So everyone is a sinner, so everyone needs forgiveness from the Most High,the Christ.

---

Non sequitur. Let's try again, shall we?Will an atheist go to heaven if he does good works?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

ramoss responds to me:

quote:

---

Unless, of course, the atheist is right, and there is no god, and no afterlife.

---

Pascal's Wager.I'm so sorry. You didn't think the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you? It is possible that both atheists and Christians are wrong, you know.For all we know, god loves the atheists. The Bible is actually a test, you see. God gave humanity judgement, brains, and maturity (I say that any boob can take and shove a ball in a pocket) and then presented the creation a book that was obviously false in order to see what we would do. Would we reject the book that claimed to be the word of god in order to find our own way through the universe, relying upon the gifts we were given? Or would we blindly follow the book simply because it claimed to be the word of god, talking ourselves into thinking we actually heard god tell us it was true?Perhaps god prefers those who think for themselves, even if they wind up being wrong, over those who play it safe and have their lives pre-digested for them.Heck, what if the Bible is actually the work of the devil, designed to corrupt our souls and turn us from the path of god?The choice is not between "god" and "not-god." There is "not-god" and a whole panoply of mutually exclusive definitions of "god."

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Phatboy writes:

quote:

---

If my belief says that all wisdom and truth originate from me, I can pretty much get away with doing whatever I want and declaring that no evil exists.

---

But the mere existence of atheists proves this concept to be a fallacy.Unless you're claiming that atheists have no morality.Are you?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Phatboy responds to me:

quote:

---

I am only claiming that some atheists, as well as some of every other group of people imaginable, define their own concept of morality and truth.

---

Non sequitur.I asked you if you were saying atheists had no morals.I didn't ask you where those morals came from. I simply asked you if they had them. It is obvious that atheists do not turn to god for their morality seeing as how they are of the opinion that the existence of god is a tenuous claim at best.Therefore, do they have any morals at all? Do they think that a person can get away with anything?Your statement is nothing more than marginalizing atheists to the same dismissable category as sociopaths.Please start treating atheists with the same respect that you wish to be treated with.

quote:

---

Of course, which God are we talking about?

---

Sorry, but that's my question to you.You didn't really think the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

dpardo avoids my question:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What do you think that god is doing as he "judgeth according to every man's work"?

​

You can't divorce this verse from the surrounding ones. The entire book of 1 Peter is all about salvation.

---

​

The verse is a statement about a characteristic of God.

---

Did I or did I not just get finished saying that you cannot divorce this verse from the surrounding ones?Did I or did I not just get finished saying that the book of 1 Peter is all about salvation?Then what are you doing trying to divorce this one verse as some sort of independent statement with absolutely no connection to the rest of the text in which it appears?It's a very simple question. I wish you would answer it directly:What do you think that god is doing as he "judgeth according to every man's work"? WHY is god judging? What is reason that god is making this judgement? What is the outcome of god's judgement? If you were to be before god while he makes his judgement upon you, what will happen to you if god gives the thumbs up or the thumbs down?What, for crying out loud, is the point of god judging?

quote:

---

Namely, that he does not show favoritism to any man simply because of his status, job, title, wealth, etc. Instead, God looks at what a person does to determine what his [God's] response will be to that person.

---

Yes, but answer my question first:What do you think god is doing as he "judgeth according to every man's work"? What is the point? Irrespective of the criteria by which god is judging, why is god judging in the first place? What is going to happen to you based upon the result of the judgement? Do you get a brand new car? Your mortgage paid off? A foot massage? What is the point of god's judgement?

quote:

---

I realize that the use of the term "judgeth" can lead someone to make the association with salvation.

---

What else can it possibly mean? What happens as a result of god's judgement? If god isn't judging you for salvation, what on earth is he judging you for?

quote:

---

But, if we consider that, in the subsequent verses, Peter goes on to say that we are redeemed with the blood of Christ, that interpretation is contradicted.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Wasn't the blood of Christ the payment for salvation? How on earth can you sit there and claim that this isn't a direct indication that Peter is talking about salvation? The entire point behind the blood of Christ is salvation. He gave it in order for us to be able to achieve it. There is no other reason. There is no other meaning in the symbolism of it.What is the point of the blood of Christ if not salvation?

quote:

---

Rrhain, what do you believe Peter means when he says that we are redeemed with the blood of Christ?

---

Salvation.What do you think he means?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

No, Phatboy.The type of point I want is something you wrote. I am not here to talk to somebody else. I am here to talk to you. I can have a discussion with somebody who isn't here. You're here. You defend yourself.Now answer the question: Does an atheist get to heaven if he does good works?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

dpardo avoids my question:

quote:

---

What do you think that god is doing as he "judgeth according to every man's work"?

---

You didn't answer. Instead, you quoted verses that indicates that god does judge. But that isn't the point of contention. Obviously we know that god judges because the verse in question is talking about god judging people.Instead, the question put to you is why is god judging? What is the result of the judgement? Is god going to give you a car? What is the point of the judgement? If god judges you and doesn't find you wanting, what do you get?It's a very simple question. I wish you would answer it directly?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Phatboy responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Now answer the question: Does an atheist get to heaven if he does good works?

---

​

I cannot judge who does and does not "get" to Heaven.

---

You can't read the Bible and determine what it says?If you can't figure out the most essential question from your holy book, what makes you think anything else you have gleaned from that work is of any worth?

quote:

---

BTW I AM suspecting something about you,Rrhain. Let me go out on a limb. You DO believe in God, but you are skeptical of the Bible, and you conceive of a God who judges the heart and the character rather than one who is made by the rules and writings of Man. You will NEVER allow your belief to be defined by scriptures because you do not trust human writings. Despite your different view, I suspect that you know my God in some ways that I have never thought of.

---

I'll never tell. My opinions about the existence or non-existence of god are irrelevant.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Phatboy avoids my question yet again:

quote:

---

'I know men, and Jesus Christ was no man.' Napoleon Bonaparte

---

And a megalomaniacal dyspeptic is a good judge of supernatural characteristics in people he never met because of what, precisely?Of course you're going to find that Christians think highly of Christ. That doesn't tell us anything. What else are they going to think?Two-thirds of the world thinks your "Christ" is not all he's cracked up to be. Why should anybody believe you over them?

quote:

---

quote:

---

You can't read the Bible and determine what it says?

---

​

And yet you chastize me a day or so earlier by saying:

​

The type of point I want is something you wrote. I am not here to talk to somebody else.

---

(*sigh*)You really don't understand how rhetoric and debate work, do you? You will notice that I have not simply said, "1 Peter 1:17," and left it at that the way you did when you linked to that other site. Instead, I gave the verse... [I][B]...and then went on to discuss what I thought it meant in my own words.[/i][/b]While the referent in the discussion was a third-party text, the discussion that [I][B]we[/i][/b] were having was between [I][B]us[/i][/b] and not through a flurry of footnotes.Would you take it as sufficient for me to respond to your bare URL with a bare URL of my own with absolutely no explanation as to why I thought it was important and how it connected to the points raised by your URL?Are you seriously suggesting that we should be reduced to a farcical re-enactment of the Comedians' Joke Club where everybody knows the jokes so well, they simply refer to them by number? You post a URL with no other comment, I rebut your raw URL with one of my own, you respond in kind, and nobody actually says anything but instead the board becomes nothing but a battle of the bibliographies? The one with the most references wins?Is that really what you want?By all means, show us the reference. But you need to do your own work. That URL was not written as a response to my question. Therefore, you need to explain why you think it is an adequate response.You'd never get away with someone else's work in school. What makes you think you can get away with it here?

quote:

---

So, on the one hand, I give you my belief of what God would do in a certain situation,quite honestly, as I don't know.

---

And that's fine.But you then seem to feel no awkwardness in telling other people what to do when it comes to how to interact with god. If you truly don't know, then you need to stick with that attitude.

quote:

---

and then you yell at me for not determining what the Bible says.

---

You're the one who is following the Bible. Why do you follow it if you don't know what it means? Why are you trying to get others to follow it if you don't know what it means?

quote:

---

what His Son has said is relevant.

---

Then why on earth do you care what the authors of Peter or Paul wrote? Neither one of them met Jesus. If what Jesus said is what is relevant, who cares what Peter and Paul said? Why are they even in the Bible if it's supposed to be about Jesus?

quote:

---

If you do not know Gods character, you will not get to Heaven be you Jewish, Christian, atheist, or self defined.

---

I thought you said you didn't know. Now you seem to have some grasp of the situation. Which is it? Do you know or do you not know?

quote:

---

All of the good works on the planet will not earn you or I any points in the "ticket to Heaven" department.

---

That's a direct contradiction of Peter.

quote:

---

quote:

---

My opinions about the existence or non-existence of god are irrelevant.

---

​

And I suspect that you will also label mine as irrelevant. Yes?

---

Nope.Yours are quite relevant because you're the one that is claiming that some people will go to heaven while others won't. Therefore, your criteria of what constitutes heavenly constitution that brings salvation are the most important things in the world.But in order to show you wrong, I don't have to show myself right. In order to prove that 2 + 2 != 5, I don't have to show that 2 + 2 = 4. Oh, that's certainly sufficient, but it isn't necessary:Assume 2 + 2 = 5.
Then (2 + 2) - 2 = 5 - 2.
Rearranging: 2 + (2 - 2) = 5 - 2.
Reducing: 2 + 0 = 5 - 2.
Reducing: 2 = 3But, 2 != 3. Therefore, 2 + 2 != 5.At no point have I ever made an issue of who is going to heaven and who isn't. Oh, I have speculated about all the possible ways god and humans might interact, but I have never claimed that one of them is the actual answer. That's because it isn't important. You're the one making the claim and all I need to do is show you that your claim isn't justified.

quote:

---

Then WHY do you need answers to your questions?

---

Because I want to see if you have the courage of your convictions.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Phatboy responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What do you think god is doing as he "judgeth according to every man's work"? ...What else can it possibly mean?

---

​

Are you telling me that you know what God means?

---

No, I'm telling you that I know what a sentence written in English means. Now yes, I know the Bible wasn't written in English. However, I am working under the assumption that the translation into English is reasonably accurate.If you like, we can go back to the original Greek.Are you telling me that if someone puts a piece of English text in front of me, I am insufficiently trained as a native speaker of English to be able to discern plain meaning from it?

quote:

---

and yet you say that your opinions about god are irrelevant?

---

Yep.I'm not the one making the claim. Burden of proof is always on the claimant. I'm not saying god will or won't do anything. I'm simply pointing out that Peter and Paul contradict each other about what god will do.

quote:

---

You CAN be frustrating at times!

---

I know. It's extremely frustrating to be taken seriously and have one's words analyzed in meticulous detail and synthesized with everything else you've said at the same time.But I'm an academic. There are a lot of letters after my name and I have a habit of treating everything as if it were a thesis under review.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

dpardo responds to me:

quote:

---

Removing the term "judgeth"

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Remove the very term we're discussing and you think you're talking about the same thing? You can't just remove the contentious word and then claim there is nothing to contend.

quote:

---

and paraphrasing

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? You didn't just paraphrase. You did a hatchet job. "Without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work" is in no way paraphraseable to "who is impartial." You're completely missing the second half of the statement:How is god impartial? By what criteria is god being impartial? What is god being impartial about?That's right: Every man's work. The point behind god's action is examination of a person's work.And in the end, you completely avoid the question. It's very simple and I wish you would answer it directly:Why is god judging? What is the result of the judgement? Is god going to give you a car? What is the point of the judgement? If god judges you and doesn't find you wanting, what do you get?

quote:

---

quote:

---

why is God judging?

---

​

God is constantly "judging" because he is constantly evaluating the behavior of people.

---

Non sequitur. That's an answer to "how" and I asked you "why." I don't care about the process god is using. I want to know the purpose of the process.

quote:

---

Again, this judging is not always regarding salvation.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Where in 1 Peter do you find anything except discussion of salvation?A judge in a courtroom can be involved in felonies or misdemeanors, but if the case is regarding murder, then it is necessarily about a felony.That god can do other kinds of judgement is irrelevant. We're talking about the kind of judgement discussed in 1 Peter. Where is there any indication that 1 Peter is talking about something other than salvation?

quote:

---

The people that accepted his offer of grace through Jesus Christ will not be judged to determine their salvation.

---

That's in direct contradiction to what Peter just said. He just said that their salvation is based upon god's judgement of their works:

quote:

---

Psalm 98:9 reads

---

Who cares? We're not talking about Psalms. We're talking about 1 Peter.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Phatboy responds to me:

quote:

---

I know that the Christian one is the one that exists.

---

And two-thirds or the world disagrees with you. Why should anybody believe you over them?

quote:

---

You can't claim to be atheist and then just "make up" a god concept without being challenged to answer the question of where your concept came from.

---

a) I don't claim to be atheist. I also don't claim not be atheist.b) The reason I don't is because it is irrelevant. I am not the one claiming that something will or won't happen to your immortal soul or regarding the existence of such a thing.c) Where is this "god concept" coming from with regard to an atheist? Isn't that defeating the entire purpose of atheism?

quote:

---

My God has been written about, discussed, and experienced by many people throughout History.

---

And so have the gods of the rest of the world. Why should anybody believe you over them? And throughout that history, there have been those who lament the existence of those who do not believe. Atheism is as old as, if not older than, theism.

quote:

---

Even if this in and of itself does not prove my God to you, it explains His origin through humanity.

---

Incorrect.Just because two million people do a dumb thing, it's still a dumb thing.

quote:

---

So what about your "god"? Did you make him up to put me in check?

---

Where was it agreed upon that I had one?And why does it matter if I do or not? Does the validity of any of my statements change depending upon my belief status?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

dpardo responds to me:

quote:

---

Your question of "Why is god judging?", does not follow, logically, from Peter's statement. Peter's statement in 1Peter 1:17:

​

17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?You quote a verse about god judging and it isn't logical to ask why god is judging? Are you seriously saying that we should consider the possibility that god is judging a beauty contest and that such a judgement by god should be taken just as seriously as god's judgement of salvation?

quote:

---

as I have stated before, can be reasonably translated as:

​

"And if you call on God, who is impartial, pass the time of your stay here in fear."

---

Incorrect. You have eliminated the entire point of the passage, in both words and intent.Where is the criteria by which god renders that judgement? It is not simply that god is "impartial." It's that god is "impartial in his estimation of salvation as he examines a person's works."

quote:

---

The reason it is more reasonable than your interpretation is because Peter goes on to say that we are redeemed (saved) through the blood of Jesus in the subsequent verses.

---

You're trying to have it both ways. First you claim that this isn't about salvation, but now you're saying it is.What is the point of Christ's blood? Why was it spilt?And if the effect of Christ's blood isn't universally applicable to all people everywhere, what is the point of god judging?And if there is a point to god's judging, then what criterion is he using?We're back to that phrase you deliberately eliminated:"According to every man's work."Where is that in your "paraphrase"?

quote:

---

Your interpretation results in Peter contradicting himself (and Paul) in the same chapter.

​

Does that seem likely?

---

Of course not.But then again, he isn't contradicting himself. The entire book is about salvation whereupon he directly states that god judges salvation based upon works. The blood of Christ brought people to god, but it does not guarantee them entrance. God judges them "according to every man's work.""According to every man's work."Where is that in your "paraphrase"?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

dpardo responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Notice you pick up two contradictions, but they're essentially variations of the same problem: What is the nature of man. One is saying we're born that way, another is saying we have to do it.

---

​

Can you show me, in your post, where Peter and Paul said these things?

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?You respond to my post where I quote Peter and Paul and you then ask me to quote Peter and Paul?I feel like I'm in a bad Saturday Night Live skit. You remember...the one where they were spoofing the Clinton/Bush debate. Ted Koppel is moderating and Hillary is there and one of the audience members asks Hillary for her recipe for chocolate chip cookies. So she gives it saying you need so much butter, so much flour, so much sugar, etc., cream the butter, add the flour and eggs, blah-blah-blah.Ted: "Now, does that answer your question?"Audience Member: "I'm sorry but no. She didn't say how much butter to use."Ted: "Yes, she did. She said two cups of butter."AM: "No, she didn't."Ted: "Yes, she did. She clearly and distinctly said two cups of butter."AM: "Well, I'm sorry, but I am not satisfied with her non-answer."You can see my frustration. I say the following (Message 39): And you have the audacity to ask me to tell you where Peter and Paul say these things.Did you bother to read my post before responding?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!