What must I do to be Born Again?

[OingoBoingo]

The post in question describes the smell/trust relationship as a spiritual faculty. Consider the context of my discussion with RBerman. He posits that all babies rage against god in their hearts,

Was it just babies that were in mind? Looking back through the thread, it looks like he said the Bible posits that all people rebel against God (which would include babies).

meaning that unelect babies get what they deserve for hating god.

Are those RBerman's exact words?

I argue that takes more than smell receptors and trust. Chimps and puppies have smell receptors and trust.

RBerman wasn't arguing that a combination of smell receptors and trust = spiritual faculties. He said, "Babies respond with trust to the sound and smell of their parents." Sound and smell result in trust/faith of parents. I imagine RBerman would have no problem affirming that yes, chimps and puppies also have some form of faith based on the sound and smell of their parents.

[OingoBoingo]

That context has problems if you apply it to the real world. Being a Muslim, Mormon, or atheist doesn't constitute anything like a crime. The former are beliefs that derive from upbringing and/or enculturation; the latter is simply skepticism of religion.

That's your opinion based on your worldview. I'm sure Christians have a differing opinion based on there's.

But anyways, it sounds like you now get the other poster's gift metaphor. You're welcome.

[37818]

There are a lot of "earned" things in that statement. Sounds like a works-based faith to me.

Also, since the premise of being punished for rejecting the gift is incorrect on my part - are you arguing for universalism?

NORM

What we all have earned is death do to sin. And not everyone is going to be saved. So it is not universalism. Some simply do not choose to believe. Others think by believing they can merit a gift, in which case would no longer be a gift. So again, it is not universalism, even though God's grace has appeared for all. There is a correct concept, which you seem to misconstrue.

[whag]

Was it just babies that were in mind? Looking back through the thread, it looks like he said the Bible posits that all people rebel against God (which would include babies).

Yes, he said that includes babies. Obviously, that's the problematic part. Babies having the capacity to trust doesn't translate to having a specific hatred of God that necessitates their being punished, even for a second. Try slapping a baby and see if they comprehend it.

Are those RBerman's exact words?

Yes, he said babies commit rebellion in their hearts. I assume he meant the punishment would be deserved. If not, it would be undeserved.

RBerman wasn't arguing that a combination of smell receptors and trust = spiritual faculties. He said, "Babies respond with trust to the sound and smell of their parents." Sound and smell result in trust/faith of parents.

Context. His next sentence referred to spiritual faculties of babies and was predicated on the smell/trust capacity of babies. What does one have to do with the other?

I imagine RBerman would have no problem affirming that yes, chimps and puppies also have some form of faith based on the sound and smell of their parents.

In that case, chimps and dogs have the same capacity to believe as human babies, making them equally deserving of judgment.

[whag]

That's your opinion based on your worldview. I'm sure Christians have a differing opinion based on there's.

But anyways, it sounds like you now get the other poster's gift metaphor. You're welcome.

Actually, most Christians would be uncomfortable saying that being Muslim is a crime, which is what makes discussions like these helpful.

[OingoBoingo]

Yes, he said that includes babies. Obviously, that's the problematic part.

It doesn't seem to be problematic to him.

Babies having the capacity to trust doesn't translate to having a specific hatred of God that necessitates their being punished, even for a second. Try slapping a baby and see if they comprehend it.

I don't see how RBerman is making that sort of connection. Can you cite him specifically where he states that babies having the capacity to trust translates to them having a specific hatred of God?

Yes, he said babies commit rebellion in their hearts. I assume he meant the punishment would be deserved. If not, it would be undeserved.

No, you said that. He only agreed with you, in that he believes ALL PEOPLE rebel against God.

Context. His next sentence referred to spiritual faculties of babies and was predicated on the smell/trust capacity of babies. What does one have to do with the other?

His next sentence was a question to you.

In that case, chimps and dogs have the same capacity to believe as human babies, making them equally deserving of judgment.

How so? I don't see the connection. In RBerman's Bible-based worldview, every human is deserving of judgment. I don't believe the Bible says anything about the judgment of animals.

[OingoBoingo]

Actually, most Christians would be uncomfortable saying that being Muslim is a crime, which is what makes discussions like these helpful.

Most Christians I know are comfortable with saying that everyone has committed a crime. RBerman seems comfortable saying so in a number of posts here.

[whag]

It doesn't seem to be problematic to him.

I know that eternally punished babies isn't a problem for him.

I don't see how RBerman is making that sort of connection. Can you cite him specifically where he states that babies having the capacity to trust translates to them having a specific hatred of God?

Equating smell/trust to theistic faith is a whole other issue he needs to clarify. The issue seems to be his belief that unelect babies are punished eternally. Saying ALL unelect people get punished doesn't erase the problem of tykes being punished with fire forever. Fetuses know bupkis.

No, you said that. He only agreed with you, in that he believes ALL PEOPLE rebel against God.

Yes, and one of those rebelling groups is babies he said. Clarification on how *babies* can rebel is needed. Babies hate naps and pureed vegetables. They also have no idea what sleep and spinach are.

His next sentence was a question to you.

Non sequitur. Questions don't magically divorce themselves from context.

How so? I don't see the connection. In RBerman's Bible-based worldview, every human is deserving of judgment. I don't believe the Bible says anything about the judgment of animals.

Because he said we know a baby can have theistic faith on the basis of their smell/trust capacity. In the next sentence mentioned the spiritual faculties of babies. At this point, you should just let him clarify, because you're getting it twisted. I never said the bible says anything about judging animals. I'm saying that, if smell/trust indicates capacity for theistic faith, then dogs and chimps have the capacity for faith, too. Better to offer something more distinguishing of faith in babies than simple smell/trust, since the entire mammal kingdom uses that sense. Theistic faith seems to be a much more complex matter, hence my questions to him.

[whag]

Most Christians I know are comfortable with saying that everyone has committed a crime. RBerman seems comfortable saying so in a number of posts here.

Most Christians I know would be uncomfortable with saying babies commit crimes.

[OingoBoingo]

At this point, you should just let him clarify, because you're getting it twisted.

Eh, noooo I'm not getting it twisted. LOL. What I'm doing is getting you to admit that you're doing the twisting. I mean, it goes without saying of course. You do it in just about every thread you post in. But its always interesting to see what sort of cacamame excuse you're going to come up with next for why you've misrepresented the object of your derision.

As you request though, I'll bow out and let RBerman clarify. I know it bugs you when the the microscope is turned on you.

[OingoBoingo]

Most Christians I know would be uncomfortable with saying babies commit crimes.

But you agree about the Muslim thing though, right? Gotta love that ever-moving goal post. LOL.

[whag]

Eh, noooo I'm not getting it twisted. LOL. What I'm doing is getting you to admit that you're doing the twisting. I mean, it goes without saying of course. You do it in just about every thread you post in. But its always interesting to see what sort of cacamame excuse you're going to come up with next for why you've misrepresented the object of your derision.

Asking how babies can hate God isn't derisive. Anyone who's met a baby would ask it, even Christians (the Arminian ones). Women who've lost babies would be particularly interested in how their child could be eternally lost.

As you request though, I'll bow out and let RBerman clarify. I know it bugs you when the the microscope is turned on you.

Bugged hardly. You're keeping the topic alive while RBerman figures out how to explain how babies have the capacity to reject complicated theology. =)

[whag]

But you agree about the Muslim thing though, right? Gotta love that ever-moving goal post. LOL.

Um, no. Many Christians would be uncomfortable to say being a non-Christian is a crime.

[NormATive]

Three times now I have explained the context in which salvation is described as a "free gift," and in contrast to what. If you are going to respond as if your questions have not been addressed, there does not seem to be much point in further interaction.

And three times you've confirmed what you are unwilling to admit.

NORM

[NormATive]

... if only you'll swear loyalty to him.

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