Kay17:

I acknowledge there is a difference between knowledge of moral norms and choosing/actions. But I said there was a futility in punishing people that are unable to choose or act out their desires (to be good).

Please explain to me exactly how someone who knows that it is wrong to steal yet chooses to steal but did not desire to steal or was unable to act upon his desire not to steal.

I think you have made a false assumption here which is that sinners don't desire to sin . . . . . or you believe that the bible teaches this and God punishes them for being forced to sin against their desires? Please cite bible references that convinced you of this.

Kay17:
So if we were created to do evil, we'd be justified to do evil??

Evil by definition is that which we ought not to do. Perhaps you can explain to me how it is logically coherent for something to be supposed to do what it isn't supposed to do.

Of course. But remember you said yourself that no one is morally consistent. That all have fallen. The implication of falling includes being unable to consistently adhere to Christian values.

Yes I did, and I also remember saying that "one is saved by repenting from their sins, believing in the Lord Jesus Christ (who forgives and cleanses us from sin), forsaking sin and living righteously (with the help of the Holy Spirit)."

Kay17:

Mr Anony1:

What then was the focus of your post? Please do tell.

I think there are complications in placing a moral responsibility on individuals without the ability to act out their knowledge. There is a futility in that. The punishment has no beneficial end of deterrence.
Also, even if one is a Christian and loves Jesus, the inability to execute still remains despite the constant repentance.

In that case, I think my answer was sufficient. You are welcome to explain to me is very specific terms how my answer isn't sufficient if you like.

thehomer:

I'll ignore the mere assertion that humans were created and the fallacious argument from authority in presenting a random quote in a book. In order to be sure that what is being discussed is the same, how do you know whether or not a certain action or instruction is good?

First of all, I must point out that that which is good is by definition that which we ought to do. For it to be true that there are certain things which we ought to do, then it must be true that there is a purpose for which we exist. If it is true that there is a purpose for which we exist, then it must be true that we are designed for that which occurs by chance and not by design cannot be said to have a purpose for it's existence and as a result it cannot be said it ought to act in a certain way and therefore no action it engages in can possibly be either good or evil.

In the question of that which is good, it is impossible to ignore the existence of a Creator. In other words for good to exist in an objective sense, the Creator must necessarily exist.

Now that said, I know an action or instruction is good based on how well it conforms to the will and the purpose of the Creator (a.k.a God) as revealed to us via His Word.
God has set for us an example to follow in the person of Jesus Christ. Anything that is Christlike is good while anything that is unChristlike is evil.

Now, over to you; how do you know whether or not a certain action or instruction is good?

Kay17:

I didn't say there was no difference between the two, and that wasn't the focus of my post.

What then was the focus of your post? Please do tell.

Kay17:
Now for what end is good for?

Why do good? Because good is what we were created to do. It is the purpose for which we were designed (see Ephesians 2:10)

because there is an alarming rate of Christian hypocrites. . . but that's a topic for a different day.

But this doesn't make Christianity impractical in any way. At best it makes the Christian lifestyle challenging or difficult but definitely not impractical. Unless you are saying that ALL who claim to be Christians are hypocrites for which I will require that you prove it.

Kay17:
Of course, except for impracticality.

How so?

Now for what end is good for? is it advantageous over its alternative to such an extent that God a wise being is needed to follow?

Sorry I don't understand the question especially the second part. Please rephrase if you may.

Kay17:

Just wanted to know if you put your money where your mouth is as a Christian.

Ok I see. . . .and I do put my money where my mouth is as a Christian but even if I was a hypocrite and didn't act according to Christian values, I don't see how they make the Christian lifestyle any less valid. All my hypocrisy would prove is that I am not a Christian and not that Christianity itself is flawed in any way.

yes and God is wise, right? cos if he wasn't wise you wouldn't follow him, right?

He wouldn't be God if He wasn't wise, an unwise being cannot possibly be God. God is necessarily wise.

Martian:

lol, read the above and tell me how I think my position is absolute as this excerpt wasn't part of your initial post

Unless you think that your position is false, then you must think that your position is absolute because truth by it's very nature is absolute and excludes any other possibilities.

It is either true or false that it is morally wrong for ISIS to go about beheading people.

If you think that it is true that ISIS actions are wrong then you are expressing an absolute because you deny the possibility of their actions being right.
....Unless of course you don't think ISIS are wrong in which case you will be directly contradicting yourself when you said the following about ISIS:

Martian: In my opinion, they are worthless scum who deserve all the tomahawk missiles uncle sam can muster.

Martian:
In my opinion, they are worthless scum who deserve all the tomahawk missiles uncle sam can muster.

But you can't say that your opinion is right can you? Hence your opinion is meaningless

In their opinion, they are doing their duty because of the "absolute morality" inspired by their god and their sacred book.

Again based on your worldview, you cannot say that their opinion is right or wrong. All you can say is that it is their opinion. Hence you have effectively said nothing.

They are a lot of people that would agree with me and there are people who would agree with them, which makes morality relative. Morality depends on the proclivity of a person and the zeitgeist of the person's geographical location.

No it doesn't make morality relative. The fact that people disagree over what is the right doesn't in any way render the right relative.

To illustrate this to you;
Consider that some people think that morality is relative and others don't. Does this make morality relatively relative or relatively absolute or relatively absolutely relative etc? To deny the possibility of truth just because people disagree leads us to illogical absurdities.

Moral relativism is self-refuting and hence cannot possibly be true.

We don't have to look too far into the past to see that your cherished faith once wrecked the same type of havoc that ISIS is causing based on absolutism. Sunnis say they are right, and Shias say the same thing. Which is exactly the same as the catholics and the protestants.

Erhm no...you cannot say that ISIS or anyone is wreaking havoc because your opinion about what ISIS is doing cannot be said to be true by your own admission (based on the fact that you think morality is relative). For all you know, ISIS may just be doing the best thing ever for humanity.

A simple example is homosexuality and the christians' insistence on calling it a "sin" while other people see it as normal.

So what? You must agree though that one case must be true. Homosexuality cannot be both normal and abnormal.

Martian:
No matter how long you bury your ostrich head in the sand, this will forever be the reality. It has always been the case and it will always be the case. The product of jewish/roman ignorance and superstition you call god, is just another agent created by man in order to make their version of morality absolute.

I see. So you believe that morality depends on personal opinions of men.

Your absolutism is ignorant, arrogant and myopic. The difference betwen you and run of the mill ISIS militant is that you are not running around cutting off heads in the name of jesus/yahweh.

And what is wrong the ISIS militant who goes around cutting heads? Does morality not depend on his personal opinion too?

You have effectively said nothing.

Interestingly however, you do believe that your position is absolute or else you wouldn't think I or ISIS or anyone else are wrong for not sharing it. Funny how you are so oblivious of this fact.

Kay17: @mranony1

Would you willingly take a bullet for someone unknown?

How often do you stop injustice from occuring?

Where exactly is this line of questioning headed?

Do you think following Jesus' footsteps is because he is divine and wise?

How about because He is God.

mazaje:
You are and i can also play your games very well. . . . . .

Whatever helps you sleep well at night mate.

Right and wrong can not be independent of the opinion of man since morality as a whole is a human construct. . .

I see, so morality is a human construct and therefore right and wrong depend on the personal opinions of men. Ok

Sorry, I agree with you morality is objective. . . .

Good so you have changed your stance....but the statement above still contradicts you. Morality cannot be objective and at the same time not be independent of personal opinion i.e. if Morality is objective, then it cannot be a human construct.

The question is very simple if our morality comes from a higher source as you claim then why why don't ALL moral values come about same way?

Sorry, I still don't get it. Perhaps you could help me understand by naming any two moral values and the different ways that they come about.


I'm afraid I really can't meaningfully respond to you if you can't make up you mind whether morality is independent of man's opinions (objective) or dependent on man's opinions (subjective).

So please which is it? Is morality a human construct or is it objective? (i.e independent of human opinions)

Kay17:

There is an assumption which most people share, that as conscious beings, our knowledge propells our actions. I think there are complications in placing a moral responsibility on individuals without the ability to act out their knowledge. There is a futility in that. The punishment has no beneficial end of deterrence.

Also, even if one is a Christian and loves Jesus, the inability to execute still remains despite the constant repentance.

Knowledge does not propel our actions rather it may influence them. There is a difference between knowing right/wrong actions and choosing right/wrong actions.

For instance, there is a difference between knowing that it is against the law to steal and actually choosing to steal.

This is just so simple and clear that I wonder why you miss it.

Before I proceed to respond, I must say that this was quite interesting to read. That said....

mazaje:
I can play your games very well. . .

Lol...it is funny that you should think I am playing some game because I don't believe I am.

You also hold that Moses, Joshua, Ezekiel etc in the bible have not sinned, when they went around killing innocent people, pillaging and looting their lands, enslaving them, sharing their virgins etc thinking they were right in doing so. . .Why then do you hold that BH have sinned? Their god told them to do it just as your god told his prophets to do same. . .

I could take you up on these claims but so that we stay on track and not go on a tangent, Let us assume for the sake of argument that they did as you say, are you now saying that Moses and co. are not morally upright even if they think that they are doing the right thing? In other words, are you saying that moral right and wrong are independent of the personal opinions of man?

I want to touch on this. . .I used to think that morality is objective but in reality it is not. . .

I see, so you think morality is not objective (i.e. it is not independent of the personal opinions of persons involved)

Even your god which you use as a standard for objective morality fails at it completely. . ..

I thought you just said that there is no objective morality. How can one fail at something for which there is no objective standard?

If morality is from god then why doesn't ALL moral values come about same way?

I don't understand this question. Perhaps you can rephrase?

You keep claiming that god is the higher source of morality, and to you that god is the god of the bible, if that is true then why do so many moral principles in the bible inspire our revulsion today?

Are you suggesting that your revulsion is the standard of morality? Remember that what is repulsive to you may be tasteful to another and since you say that there is no objective morality, I can't see why we must tailor morality according to your particular tastes.

Even if we are to agree that objective moral values exist then the god of the bible is not its source. . .

You haven't made a good enough argument to justify this claim.

I will list 3 objective moral values just for the sake of this debate

Stop contradicting yourself. You just said that there are no objective moral values earlier.

1. it is wrong to kill innocent children
2. It is wrong to enslave other people
3.it is wrong to kill other people for having other religion and believing in other deities. . .

Why are they objectively wrong since according to you there are no objective moral values?

Read the bible and you will see the god of the bible violating these 3 objective moral principles. . .

You really need to make up your mind. Do objective moral values exist or not?

How then can he be the source of objective moral principle when he keeps violating it?

How can someone violate something that doesn't exist? When you find a way to stop contradicting yourself, let me know.

the bible is FILLED with God producing acts and injunctions that strike many of us today christians included as being against our moral intuitions and values. . .

Again, how are those injunctions wrong if there is no objective standard by which to judge them?

It's like saying we all agree that math is valid and objective so there must be a great mathematician from which math flows and then saying "Hey, I've got the best candidate for who that mathematician might be . .here he is described in this old book. . ." But the character in the book is found espousing all manner of "wrong" mathematics, like 2 +2 = 5. Well if you are appealing to the objectivity of mathematical formulations like 2 + 2 = 5 as a starting point for the existence of a great mathematician, it sure as hell invalidates any candidate who isn't getting math right.

But this analogy is unlike your position. Using the analogy, your position is that maths is not objective and hence you have no way of saying that "2+2=5" is wrong or right since according to you, everyone has their own maths and one person's wrong maths is another person's right maths. Therefore "2+2=5" might be right for you and wrong for me.

Remember that I warned you to first grasp the basics of what you are trying to talk about before trying to attack particular concepts but you wouldn't listen.
Your worldview is flawed at it's core therefore it is driving you into all sorts of self-contradiction. That should be your first clue that your position is false. . . .I hope you will heed my warning now but I doubt your stubbornness will let you.

I have done that already but you refused to accept it. . .

LOL....of course you have. By contradicting yourself left, right and center.

Humans are the source of ALL moral principles. . .Morality and ALL moral principles were created by humans and they choose to accept what is moral and what is immoral mostly based on consensus and what they feel will be best for the society

Good, so you believe that morality is based on consensus now and how people feel. I see. Let us now re-examine your "3 objective moral values". Shall we?

1. it is wrong to kill innocent children

....but you believe if we all reach a consensus in our society to kill innocent children, it won't be wrong. In other words, the killing of twins in Calabar was right and it was wrong to abolish it because abolition went against the consensus.

2. It is wrong to enslave other people

.......but you believe if we all reach a consensus in our society to enslave other people, it will be right. therefore the slavetrade of your forefathers was right because it was the consensus opinion of the society at the time and hence abolition was wrong because it went against the consensus of the society and how people felt.

3.it is wrong to kill other people for having other religion and believing in other deities. . .

....but you believe that if we as a society reach a consensus to kill other people for having another religion, it will be right. Therefore the Boko Haram and the Islamic State and the Communist/Atheist states where religion was systematically oppressed were all doing the right thing because it is the consensus for their societies.

, when stealing other people's lands was what was best for your God;s chosen men we have him telling them to go and invade other people and take their lands because it was flowing with milk and honey. . .

I see, so you are saying that it was good. Ok

What is moral today can be immoral tomorrow and vice versa.

Great. So seeking peace instead of war can equally be immoral tomorrow. I wonder why then you spent all that time arguing for something that might change by the time you wake up tomorrow morning.

. .Morality MUST be learned. .

Lol, so not only does morality change from time to time, we must regularly update ourselves about these changes. I see

It started as a result of experimentation. . .Read your bible and you will see how the morality of the people and their God kept evolving. . .Their God started by accepting Inbreeding, accepting the killing other people that are outside the race of his chosen people, tolerating and sanctioning slavery, rejecting sick people from entering his temple , being openly sexist, accepting human sacrifice, having a chosen people, telling them its ok to kill others because they do not worship him. . .People(religious leaders) ALWAYS use God as the central authority back in the days when creating moral principles that they themselves created they use God to make it binding. . .If they wanted to marry 4 wives, then the commandment will always come from God, if they want to stop acts like homos[i]e[/i]xuality then God is the moral law giver. . .All moral laws are created by humans , they vary from place to place and are constantly evolving based on consensus, culture and way of life of the people. . .Dominant cultures most times influence the weaker cultures to accept their moral principles after they have invaded them or colonized them. . . Christianity and Islam are good examples. . .

But surely, you don't have a problem with any of the things you listed above because according to you: What they did was good because it was the consensus of their societies.

My dear friend, You have succeeded in utterly confusing yourself.

Please heed my advice: first go and do your homework, FIRST TRY TO GRASP THE BASICS of what morality entails and how it might relate to the afterlife before trying to argue through particular instances tangential to the issue in the hope of "destroying Anony".

The aim ought to be for us to get closer to the truth and not to play games of who can out-argue the other. The fact that your position is riddled with contradictions at almost every turn should be enough to tell you that your position is very far from the truth.

....He that hath ears, let him hear.

logicboy01:
Thanks for exposing how shallow and ridiculous you are when it comes to morality.

Ad hominem: Calling me shallow and ridiculous doesn't weaken my argument in any way.

So, you didnt feel that these are important reasons not to beat up a 9 year old for no reason;

-injuring the child
-psychologically traumatizing the child
-you wouldnt want the same to happen to your child
-causing pain to the child's parents/guardian (pained that their child was beaten)

Argumentum ex silentio: I never said that any of the above reasons are unimportant.

Like a religious extremist, the only reason you could give not to beat up a 9 year old child was "my God/holy book/messiah/prophet told me so".

Even more ad hominem: calling me a religious extremist doesn't weaken my point in any way.

You will need to actually make a proper argument as to why not beating a child because of the reasons you listed is better than not beating a child because it goes against the nature of Christ.

Goodbye.

Lol...if I had a penny for every time you said goodbye only to show up again, I'd have owned a yacht in Monte Carlo

Kay17:

So you think there is a dichotomy between knowing right and wrong AND choosing right and wrong?

I wouldn't use the word "dichotomy" but I think there is a difference. Yes

logicboy01: Yawn

Lol...I thought so.

It is interesting how you are so quick to make claims and even quicker to run away when asked to defend them.

logicboy01:
Okay, why do you as a christian do good?

See here:
https://www.nairaland.com/946581/what-dont-tell-atheism/7#26006565

To help me answer this question; PLEASE LIST REASONS WHY YOU WOULDN'T BEAT UP A 9 YEAR OLD BOY WANDERING ON YOUR STREET.

The reason I won't beat up a 9 year old on my street for no reason is because it is unChristlike (i.e. opposed to the nature of Christ) and therefore wrong.

logicboy01:



Sorry, but I am not playing your circular game.

There is a difference between "perfectly good" and "morally upright"....you just conflated the two to advance your false argument

Please tell us, what specifically is the difference?

Even if your argument is true...

Before we move onto yet another tangent, do you admit that my argument is true? If not, why exactly do you think it is false?

Kay17:

Apparently from what you are saying the Saviour comes to rescue the man unable to rescue himself by making consistent good deeds, right?

Yes and I must add that there is no man who has done consistent good deeds and never one bad deed. All men have sinned and therefore all require a Saviour.

Kay17:
My accusation was IF man was incapable of being moral upright that is; consciously electing consistently moral right over wrong. If you believe the Bible support that stance, then impliedly it says man is amoral. (Please note the conditionality in my statement.)

I understood you perfectly. My contention is that being incapable of consistently choosing right over wrong does not imply being incapable knowing right from wrong. If you think it does, please explain how so.

logicboy01:


With your comment, you have made it clear that you think no human is morally upright. Being morally upright is impossible.




Who in this world has not made an error? Hasnt done something bad?

Exactly. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That is why we need a Saviour to rescue us from the condemnation of sin. If we were morally upright people, we wouldn't need a Saviour but alas we are not (even you agree that there is no one who hasn't done something bad).

It is actually that simple.

Unless you are saying that there is no condemnation for sin that warrants a saviour. In which case I must point out to you that if there isn't any punishment for sin, then there is no reason to strive for moral uprightness especially if one can derive pleasure from doing evil.

Guy, you are a twister

The fact that you have difficulty understanding something so straightforward and simple does not make me a twister in any way.

logicboy01:
Seriously? Anony? Did you even think before typing the bold in your comment?

Yes I did, what's wrong with it?

jayriginal:

Saying so doesnt make it so. If you wish to address the issues honestly do so and I will respond. I have better things to do than watch you chase your tail.

Lolololol....so I am now being dishonest for pointing out to you that merely saying "I do good because I can" is not a valid reason to choose good over evil just as saying "I do evil because I can" is not a valid reason to choose evil over good. You lot are beginning to amuse me quite a bit these days.

mazaje:

Bottom line is all have sinned according to your world view and Jesus is what is needed to save people from their sins. . .

Very good. You have finally represented it accurately

Those who do not believe in Jesus and his sacrifice regardless of how morally upright they live their lives will still perish. . .

Wait a minute, but all have sinned. Are you now saying that there are morally upright sinners? That's as illogical as saying that there are married bachelors.

Non christians have no reason to live morally upright lives if morality only makes sense because of the afterlife since they deny Jesus and are already domed in the afterlife for denying Jesus. . .

Point of correction, they are already doomed for their sins. Then they rejected Jesus who would have saved them.

You said if they live a life without sin they will be rewarded and then turned around and said no one can live without sin. . .

Yes. What's wrong with that?

The bottom line is that it all boils down to belief and not how morally upright you are. . ..

Wrong. It is important to be morally upright as well as believe in the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

There are many non christians who live exemplary morally upright lives worthy of emulation but deny Jesus

Really, name them. I hope you realize that to be morally upright means that they must never have sinned at all. Not even once. So please name a few of these many people that you are talking about. Are you one of them? Are you morally upright?

if morality only makes sense because of the after life they have no reason to live such morally upright lives because they deny Jesus and have been doomed to eternal perdition. . .

I don't think I need to repeat why you are wrong anymore.

By the way they have not sinned, they have their own religion which they follow which tells them they haven't sinned and are on the right path. . .Your religion is not the only religion and your theology is not the only theology

Lololololol....I see, so you are saying that you have not sinned as long as you think what you are doing is right. Boko Haram and ISIS and all your corrupt politicians and you mazaje included have not sinned as long as you don't think you are wrong.

,

I have just shown you that claiming that morality makes sense only because of the afterlife is a actually senseless because your world view already condmes those that do not accept it to eternal perdition for their unbelief. . .

On the contrary all you have shown is an unwillingness to represent my position honestly even after demonstrating that you have understood it (as shown in your first sentence above)

If you live morally upright lives but deny Jesus you will be doomed in the afterlife, so no need for non christians to live morally upright lives if morality only makes sense because of the after life. . .

Lol...thankfully truth does not increase by the repetition of falsehood.

I wonder what you even mean by "morally upright" now since according to you religious believers like Boko Haram have not sinned even when killing kidnapping innocent people as long as they think they are right in doing so.

The problem you are having results from the fact that you don't have an objective basis for morality from which we may now judge right and wrong. Secondly you don't believe that there is an afterlife by which man will be judged according to his actions whether they be right or wrong.
Since you don't have a basis for properly defining morality or give justifiable reasons why morality ought to be upheld over immorality, you are left in a very confused position where self-contradiction is the inevitable result.

I warned you earlier that there is no point chasing after particular beliefs about the afterlife before establishing basic principles upon which further discourse can be based....but alas you wouldn't listen.

Kay17:
Anony1, the 2 instances you showed are more or less the same. Instance 2 can be broken down to several instance 1. Again instance 1 is the root for instance 2.

No, the two questions are not the same. That's like saying that 2=30 because 30 is 15 instances of 2. Something being several instances of another does not make them the same.

As long as instance 1 is true, it follows that every time a man is faced with a moral question, he can at that moment choose between right and wrong.

Well, technically that's true but practically it isn't. (it is flawed in a similar way as Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise) But that's beside the point.

To bring us back to the point, let me remind you of what you said:

Kay17: If man is incapable of being morally upright; I would rather elaborate, if man is incapable of choosing moral right from moral wrong, then he is not a moral being. Rather an amoral one. So what would be the point of punishing an amoral being?!
Christianity never makes sense.

1. For man to be morally upright, man ought to always choose right repeatedly for the entire duration of his life.
2. For man not to be morally upright, man needs to choose wrong at least once.

Notice that in both cases man can choose and hence can be judged for his choice.

An amoral being cannot choose between right and wrong and hence is in an entirely different category.

Christianity teaches that man on his own without the grace of God cannot be morally upright i.e he would choose sin at least once.

All you now have to do to justify your accusation is to show from the bible that Christianity teaches that man is an amoral being (i.e incapable of choosing between right and wrong)

Where you fail to do this, I will take it as yet another of your many dishonest episodes.

LOL....when I read this two days ago I just couldn't contain my laughter. You are trying so hard to miss the point it is really amusing.

mazaje:

Finally you have answered but you had to lie and throw away what your religion CLEARLY teaches you and says. . .

Lololol did I really? or did you deliberately confuse yourself in order to make that accusation.

Let's examine what you quoted me saying shall we:

Mr Anony:
"Non-Christians should live a morally upright life because they will be judged in the afterlife based on how they lived their lives.
If they are pure and without sin then they will be rewarded but if any sin is found in them, they will be punished.
Furthermore, if they have repented of their sins and accepted Christ's atoning sacrifice, then they will be forgiven of the sins they may have committed
...but if they reject God's forgiveness through Christ then they will have to pay for their sins themselves."

Pls where in the bible is it written that people that do not believe in Jesus will be saved?

Please where did I say that people who do not believe in Jesus Christ will be saved? Are you sure you actually read what you are responding to?

. . .Saying that non believers will be saved if they are found without sin is your own making because the bible clearly says a[b]ll have sinned and come short of the glory of god. . .[/b]

Lololol....If all have come short of God's glory because they have sinned then it only follows that if all hadn't sinned, they wouldn't come short of God's glory. It is so simple and staring you right in the face.

Jesus himself said non is god except his father in heaven, other verses talk about peoples righteous acts being like filthy rags in the eyes of god.

Yes that's true but have you read any of those verses in context?

. .Living morally without accepting Jesus into your life will not give you access into heaven, stop making things up. . .

Lol...the question is if you can indeed live morally without any sin.

From the bible. . .

Yes let's study the bible

Jhn 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Who so ever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life, if you don't believe in him you will perish. .

Yes you will perish because you have sinned and you rejected Christ who came to save you from the wages of your sins. If you hadn't sinned, you wouldn't need a saviour.

John3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Jhn 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Yes of course the phrase "condemned already" signifies that they are already condemned before the question of believing even comes up hence rejecting Christ leaves them in their condemnation. Right in front of your eyes yet you are blind.

This one is very much clear, I see no reason why you keep trying to spin it, no where does it say unbelievers are condemned for their sins any where in this verse, it clearly says that He who believes is not condemned but he who does not believe is condemned already and it gave the reason as to why the unbeliever is condemned , the reason is because he had not believed in the name of the only begotten son of god. . .

Lol "...trying to spin it"? Were you not the one who pointed out that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? Yet here you are trying so hard to pretend that it is not their sins that condemned them. How dishonest do you have to be really?

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12

Exactly! But the question is "Salvation from what?" What is Christ saving us from if not the condemnation brought upon us by our sins. If we had not all sinned and were condemned already, why then would we need salvation?

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me John 14:6

True. But if we were not already lost due to our sins why then would we need a way to the Father?

These are are few biblical verses that clearly state the ONLY through Jesus will eternal happiness and salvation be achieved. . .

Yes Christ is the only way to Salvation because we need to be saved from the damnation brought upon us by our sins. As you rightfully said: "ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

Give me just one biblical verse that says those that do not believe in Jesus will be saved or have access to be with god in the life after death according to the christian religion. . .

I never made any such claim.

The rest of the post is where you parrot the same opinion that you yourself have debunked by showing from scripture that ALL have sinned and Christ is the ONLY way to save them from the bad consequences of their sins.

jayriginal:
Meh. Lost appetite for this merry go round.

That's fine, you never really had anything to say anyway.

Kay17: If man is incapable of being morally upright; I would rather elaborate, if man is incapable of choosing moral right from moral wrong, then he is not a moral being. Rather an amoral one. So what would be the point of punishing an amoral being?!

Christianity never makes sense.

Lol...fallacy of equivocation. I hope you do realize that being morally upright is different from being able to choose between right and wrong.

Christianity DOES NOT teach that man is incapable of choosing between right and wrong. It teaches that no man is capable of choosing the right all the time and never choosing wrong.

Surely you can understand that distinction but to help you understand it I will ask you two questions

1. Are you capable of choosing between right and wrong?

2. Have you always chosen right over wrong?

You are free to pretend not to understand the difference between the two questions if you like.

logicboy01:


Unfortunately, your ad hominems wont change the fact that you dodged

Lololol....."my ad hominem". All because I refuse to choose from three mal-formed options none of which represent what I believe.

If any of you are interested in understanding what my position is, feel free to read my responses to mazaje. I don't have the time anymore these days to treat malicious demands such as is macof's as if they are legitimate. Neither do I have the time to pay attention to empty mockery such as is logicboy's.

logicboy01:


lol......others have pointed out your dodging.

Enjoy

Lol. As I said, you have nothing left in your arsenal. Once you you are done with applying mockery, you are finished. There's nothing else