What must I do to be Born Again?

[OingoBoingo]

Still sounds conditional to me, therefore; not a "free gift." What's the big deal? Every other religion on the planet has conditions and provisos.

NORM

I think RBerman already confirmed that there were conditions. You seem hung up on the word "free". I guess it depends on how you define "free" then. Christians probably mean something like, "without merit", and open to all peoples, and not just Jews.

In your version of "free", I imagine a scenario where a stranger tells you he's willing to give you a lottery ticket "FOR FREE", but there are conditions to receiving the prize money from this winning ticket. It involves you getting in your car and driving to your local gas station (or wherever) to redeem it. I can see you grumpily folding your arms and saying something like "I appreciate your gift, but it is NOT free. Hurrumph!"

I imagine most people wouldn't have that same reaction, but who knows.

[whag]

I think RBerman already confirmed that there were conditions. You seem hung up on the word "free". I guess it depends on how you define "free" then. Christians probably mean something like, "without merit", and open to all peoples, and not just Jews.

In your version of "free", I imagine a scenario where a stranger tells you he's willing to give you a lottery ticket "FOR FREE", but there are conditions to receiving the prize money from this winning ticket. It involves you getting in your car and driving to your local gas station (or wherever) to redeem it. I can see you grumpily folding your arms and saying something like "I appreciate your gift, but it is NOT free. Hurrumph!"

I imagine most people wouldn't have that same reaction, but who knows.

I imagine he sees redundancy in religious rhetoric as trying too hard. "Gift" is enough.

Just spitballing here, but he also might also consider the condition too human to be believed, since love isn't usually something people view as "compulsory." I love my mom. I feel no obligation to love her, nor would I know how to actualize it.

I think that's why these lotto and king analogies fail.

[OingoBoingo]

Just spitballing here, but he also might also consider the condition too human to be believed, since love isn't usually something people view as "compulsory." I love my mom. I feel no obligation to love her, nor would I know how to actualize it.

So are you saying that you believe that love is something more than physiological. Maybe something that transcends the human condition? My anthro-biology prof would disagree with this, but I'd like to hear your take.

[NormATive]

I think RBerman already confirmed that there were conditions. You seem hung up on the word "free". I guess it depends on how you define "free" then. Christians probably mean something like, "without merit", and open to all peoples, and not just Jews.

In your version of "free", I imagine a scenario where a stranger tells you he's willing to give you a lottery ticket "FOR FREE", but there are conditions to receiving the prize money from this winning ticket. It involves you getting in your car and driving to your local gas station (or wherever) to redeem it. I can see you grumpily folding your arms and saying something like "I appreciate your gift, but it is NOT free. Hurrumph!"

I imagine most people wouldn't have that same reaction, but who knows.

Actually, the thing you folks continually gloss over is that Christians make a rather big stink about the fact that in THEIR religion, salvation is a "free gift," unlike every other religion that has conditions and is "works" based. That's what makes it unique.

However, as this thread has shown, you are just like everyone else - you must earn the favor of your god. In your case, it is a certain "belief system and acceptance of this as actual fact" in order to be saved. Thus; a works-based religion. By works, we mean that something must be DONE in order to be saved. This is true of every religion, so Christianity is not unique in this sense.

BTW, it's not me who is "hung up" on the whole free gift thing. Christians are the ones who make it such. They use this notion as a way of making their faith superior to all others. And, it simply isn't true.

NORM

[OingoBoingo]

Actually, the thing you folks

What do you mean by "you folks" (cue Tropic Thunder)

continually gloss over is that Christians make a rather big stink about the fact that in THEIR religion, salvation is a "free gift," unlike every other religion that has conditions and is "works" based. That's what makes it unique.

Depends on whether or not you think a state of mind is a work. I think most probably don't. Depends on who you ask, I guess, though.

However, as this thread has shown, you are just like everyone else - you must earn the favor of your god. In your case, it is a certain "belief system and acceptance of this as actual fact" in order to be saved. Thus; a works-based religion. By works, we mean that something must be DONE in order to be saved. This is true of every religion, so Christianity is not unique in this sense.

Again, you're attempting to tell me what my worldview is. I find this highly demeaning. I've not stated my worldview in this thread, I have no idea how you can compare me to "everyone else" in this thread. I believe in accuracy and fairness. That is all. If someone were to misrepresent the ancient or medieval Jewish philosophy or worldview in this thread, I'd correct them as well. I'd prefer you not presume my worldview, thank you very much.

BTW, it's not me who is "hung up" on the whole free gift thing. Christians are the ones who make it such. They use this notion as a way of making their faith superior to all others. And, it simply isn't true.

If you say so.

[NormATive]

Again, you're attempting to tell me what my worldview is.

Sorry, I didn't realize you weren't a believer.

NORM

[NormATive]

Depends on whether or not you think a state of mind is a work.

Is this describing a "state of mind?"

"that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart
that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a
person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he
confesses, resulting in salvation." - Romans 10:9

Unless this doesn't represent your "worldview."

NORM

[OingoBoingo]

Sorry, I didn't realize you weren't a believer.

NORM

Huh? We already went over this in post #69 in the "Papyrus found Jesus married" thread on 4/15. You already forgot?

[OingoBoingo]

Is this describing a "state of mind?"



Unless this doesn't represent your "worldview."

NORM

Sounds like a state of mind to me. Let's hear from RBerman or some other Christian on the subject.

[whag]

So are you saying that you believe that love is something more than physiological. Maybe something that transcends the human condition? My anthro-biology prof would disagree with this, but I'd like to hear your take.

You'll have to explain how you extrapolated that from what I said. I'm not following you.

[OingoBoingo]

You'll have to explain how you extrapolated that from what I said. I'm not following you.

Uh. Okay. You wrote: "Since love isn't usually something people view as "compulsory." I love my mom. I feel no obligation to love her, nor would I know how to actualize it."

Are you saying you believe that love is something more than physiological. Maybe something that transcends the human condition?

Not sure how to simplify that into something...simpler.

[whag]

Uh. Okay. You wrote: "Since love isn't usually something people view as "compulsory." I love my mom. I feel no obligation to love her, nor would I know how to actualize it."

Are you saying you believe that love is something more than physiological. Maybe something that transcends the human condition?

Not sure how to simplify that into something...simpler.

You could start by telling me how you went from non-compulsory love to immaterial love that transcends the human condition. You write English well, so please explain. I didn't ask you to make it simpler.

[OingoBoingo]

You could start by telling me how you went from non-compulsory love to immaterial love that transcends the human condition. You write English well, so please explain. I didn't ask you to make it simpler.

Why don't you start with defining what you think love is.

[whag]

Why don't you start with defining what you think love is.

Because that's not what you asked. You asked me if I believe in love that "transcends the human condition" after I said love isn't obligatory. Transcending the human condition can mean many things. Describe this.

[OingoBoingo]

Because that's not what you asked. You asked me if I believe in love that "transcends the human condition" after I said love isn't obligatory. Transcending the human condition can mean many things. Describe this.

So, you believe that love is obligatory after all? In post #197 you made it sound like there is no obligation to love. If there is no obligation to love, one wonders where this concept of "love" springs from. If not biology, then where? Something transcendent?