Heh, sometimes it seems like we make two steps forward and one step back, TitL, but that's still net progress, so let's keep on rollin'. :)



Do you consider it just?  I intentionally picked an example that I figured we could both agree was unjust.  Are you saying the soviets were just when they punishment people by sending them to work camps in siberia for practicing christianity?

To answer your question, though, I'd say it's not just for two main reasons:  First, there is the issue of whether the "crime" is something that deserves punishment at all.  Is it just to punish people for practicing their religion?  I would argue no (so long as their religion harms no one else, at least.  Some crazy cult that kidnapped people and killed them would be a different issue).  Second is the fact that the punishment is unproportional to the crime.  It's too harsh a punishment for the crime.  Do you disagree with these?  Do you think it's just to punish people for being christians, and that sending them to siberia is a just punishment?


I disagree, and think we can agree the same crime can have different punishments, and still be fair.</quote>
Wait, you're actually saying that you think it'd be fair (or more to the point, just) if a cop pulled you over for going one mph over the limit, and the punishment was that your whole family got executed?!  Is there any punishment that you DON'T think is just?  Could you please give an example of an unjust punishment for me, because clearly the extreme examples I'm coming up with aren't working!


I can agree that different crimes can this.  Different crimes can carry the same punishment.  Independent of that, it's also possible for different crimes to deserve the same punishment.  For clarity, that's NOT to say that all crimes deserve the same punishment.


Actually, not stating that. You do seem to switch meanings back and forth here. I am only stating Fred is aware he is not following scripture from the bible. Not a big deal, lots of people do not follow the bible and still claim christian. But it seems reasonable that to follow christianity, you would follow the bible and not a football magazine, regardless of how faithful you believe it is to do so.</quote>
It seems reasonable, but I don't view Fred Phelps as all that reasonable.  I think he's probably convinced himself of some pretty kooky (to you and me) interpretations of scripture.  I think he believes he's following scripture, and has come up with interpretations of scripture that he follows that would seem very bizarre to you and me, but he really believes them.


To me, that's what christianity is, a belief system.  If someone believes that Jesus is the son of God, and has died for their sins, that is what makes them a christian, in my view.  Their actions don't determine if they're a christian to me, their faith does (and "faith" to me means belief).  Some people are better than others at acting the way their holy book tells them to act, but the beliefs are what make them a christian, in my view.

This is particularly important in a "faith vs. works" discussion.  The "works" are their actions.  It's what they do.  Their "faith" is what they believe.  I think Fred Phelps has a lot of faith, but his works are pretty lousy.  If faith is what gets you salvation, then Fred Phelps should get salvation.  If works matter, then he shouldn't.



I think we have different meanings of some terms here, so we're not understanding what each other is saying.  I know I'm not understanding what you're saying here, and it sounds like you're not understanding me.  Can leave at that if you like, or you can try to clarify.  Not too fussed either way myself.  For what it's worthy, I'm NOT saying "I don't believe it, so it can't be true."  I don't believe that that follows.



I think this is a major point of disagreement for us.  It sounds like you view something as "just" if it's done by someone who "is just".  For me it's the opposite.  Someone is just if their actions are just.  Sounds like we view the causation as going in opposite directions.  Out of curiosity, is it only God that you feel this applies to, or does it work the same for humans as well?  Do you consider a human being's action to be just if they're a just person, or do you consider the person to be a just person if their actions are just?







Results in the greatest punishment, or deserves the greatest punishment?  They're not the same thing, in my view.  The former depends on who's dishing out the punishment.  In some places it's not against the law to beat your child or wife.  In other places it is.  In some places boxing is illegal (and thus carries a punishment), in other places it's not (so doesn't).  In the US I'd guess punching the president would result in the worst punishment, but I'd say punching a 2 year old as hard as you can deserves a worse punishment.







Guess we're using the same terms to mean very different things here.  Not really sure where to go from here.  To you "it's arbitrary" seems to mean "I don't like it because it doesn't match my view point" which isn't what it means to me.  As you say, probably best to agree to disagree here.




Fair enough.  I think it comes back to our differing understanding of what "just" means.


I disagree.  I think they're not disregarding scripture, but interpreting it in a way that seems strange to you and me.  I don't think they believe they're disregarding scripture.  That doesn't make them correct, but the question is about whether they have faith, not whether they're doing what's right.


But I'm not asking whether they're following Jesus, I'm asking whether they believe that Jesus is the son of God and has died for their sins.  We agree their actions (ie, their works) are bad.  The question of whether their beliefs (ie, their faith) is there or not.  To me it looks like they've got plenty of faith (too much, if anything!).  What you keep talking about is what I would call "works."



Except "reasonable and possible" are somewhat subjective.  You believe some things that I consider unreasonable and impossible, but to you they're reasonable and possible.  I imagine some of the stuff I believe seems unreasonable and impossible to you, but I assure they seem reasonable and possible to me (I wouldn't believe them if they didn't, obviously).  Likewise with Fred Phelps.  What he beliefs seems unreasonable and impossible to you and me, but I have to assume that it seems reasonable and possible to him.  If we assume that anyone who claims to believe something that we find unreasonable and impossible also think its unreasonable and impossible, then we reach a conclusion that they don't actually believe what they say they do, and are just pretending to do so for some reason.  It's easier for me to believe that Fred Phelps really believes all the kooky ideas he has than it is for me to believe that he's just pretending to believe them for some unknown reason.  I find his beliefs and interpretations as unreasonable and impossible, but it really looks to me like he considers them reasonable and possible.  People seem pretty good at believing things that are unreasonable and impossible (in my view).  Sometimes it seems more common than people believing reasonable and possible things!  ...but that may be because I spend as much time in this particular forum as I do! ;)






Two points on this:  When I say your position "is based on assumption" I mean "you've just assert it as the premise."  There's no difference between the two for me.  So if "you're asserting your conclusion as the premise" makes more sense to you, that's all I meant by it.
As for the not considering it worth thinking about, what I meant was that it sounded to me like you didn't want to discuss anything other than the premise you were asserting.  When I said something different, you kept say "but we're talking about this premise here..."  Which seemed to me like you we're trying to steer us away from a different conversation.  I assumed that was because you didn't feel the other conversations were worth having.  Didn't mean it to be offensive, just meant that it seemed to me like you weren't interested in discussions that didn't start with the premise you were asserting.





That's all I meant by it.  You were saying "this is the premise" and not trying to prove that premise.  That's what I mean when I talk about the argument being based on assumption.  In formal logic contexts, I mean the exact same thing when I say "make an assumption" and "assert a premise."  Both just mean we're saying "let's accept X is true without proof and see where it leads us."  "Assumptions," "axioms," "premises," "priors," and the like all mean the same thing in this context.



I think I'll take this bit to another thread, as it's an important issue for me, but sort of takes us off the track of this thread.

What I am establishing here, is what basis do you consider something just? Your opinion? A majority of people's opinion? Would your view of just change as more people change their views?

In my use, I would feel that it's not just to ban christianity, and punish them, or other religions for that matter. My opinion here, but our views of just are based on different reasons. Mine being from God, and yours on social construct. (Just a guess here on your basis anyway.)




Not what I was saying, I was disagreeing with the concept in general. That punishment being fair was not based on the action, but rather the intent, and who is being harmed.




I think we're talking over each other.


Yes, ok, then we mean different things when we say the words. We're talking over each other or something. I'm going to drop this, or redefine the statements, or something. I think we're spending too much time on something I think we both already agree on, but use different terms.

I disagree. I don't think faith in Jesus the Martian is going to get you to heaven. If your faith is based on something not true, then we have a problem here.

Some people reject the real Jesus in favor of their own versions.



I consider humans to be faulty and selfish. They can do just actions, but I would consider it just when compared to what God says is just.
This is kind of the important part here. Establishing punishment is based not on the action, but on the party who was offended. I suspect you're right, the president of the USA would have resulted in the most severe punishment for the same action done to another person even though they are both people.

Now if your offense is against God, then the punishment would be even greater. Since God is infinite, and even in more control.






In the old testament, it says not to wear clothes of two cloths. Guess what I'm wearing? I am aware I am disregarding that scripture. I have reason to do so, but I am aware of what I am disregarding. I accept and assume that the Westboro Baptists are capable of reading, and have been told of the issues present. Now it's possible no one has ever told them otherwise, but I don't give it much credit, after all, even you, someone who doesn't read a bible daily recognized the problem and that's why we're discussing them. Their obvious shockingly different view of scripture. If you and I recognize it, why can't other people?

Gotcha, thank you. That addresses my concern of what I was reading.

What I am establishing here, is what basis do you consider something just? Your opinion? A majority of people's opinion? Would your view of just change as more people change their views?</quote>
My view of just might be influenced by others changing their views (I would wonder why their views changed, and look into it), but I wouldn't say "well, everyone else says this is just, so it must be."  Nor would I say "person X says this is just, so it must be."  So yes, to a degree, it's just my opinion (though I think phrasing it that way tends to imply there's no reasoning behind it, which is not what I'm meaning to imply here).  Your version is just God's opinion (and in this case I DO mean without reason behind it--because if there is some reason behind it, then we could conceivably discover that reason without God).  We can disagree on what is just or not, but in most cases that don't involve God, I think we'd probably agree.  For me "God says so," isn't a convincing reason for saying something is just, any more than "all these other people say so" is.


Okay, good.  So we can agree that an entity can have the power to dish out punishment, without being just.  So it's possible for people sent to siberia to feel their punishment is unjust, even as they are locked up and led away.  Being subject to the penalty doesn't force use to accept that the penalty is just.  Likewise, I assert, with being punished by God.  Just because we're there, and have no way to escape the punishment (eternity in hell!) we aren't bound to feel the punishment is just.  You've asserted as a premise that if we're before God, then we'll feel the punishment is just.  I've given an example of someone standing before a judge that had power to deliver punishment, and the punishee doesn't feel the punishment is just.  That seems to call the premise into question.





The standard "faith alone" doctrine means that the only thing necessary to get into heaven is that you believe Jesus is the son of God and has died for your sins (okay, you also have to "accept" the forgiveness, but that's the only logical action if you believe the first bit).  That it's.  You don't have to know everything about him, or really anything else about him.  You don't have to be clever, or moral, or upright, or smart, or well-informed, or anything.  You just need to believe he died for your sins.  The faith-alone doctrine says that forgiveness is for absolutely everyone, sinners, kooks, conspiracy-theorists, weirdos, and everyone, so long as they accept that Jesus died for their sins.  Being a biblical scholar has nothing to do with it, knowing all the bible verses has nothing to do with it, being correct about everything you believe about Jesus has nothing to do with it.  It all comes down to that one question: do you accept that Jesus has died for your sins?  If you assert there's more to it than that, you're going beyond the typical protestant view that Luther broke away from Catholic church over.

Many people in the US envision Jesus as having blonde hair and blue eyes, when it's almost certain he didn't look like that.  Doesn't matter to the faith-alone doctrine.  Some people even think that Jesus spoke english.  Doesn't matter to the faith alone doctrine.  Some people think Jesus wants us to be meek and humble and love one another, others think Jesus wanted us to be like him and kick over money-changer's booths and chase them with scourges.  Doesn't matter who's right according to the faith alone doctrine, so long as they believe he died for their sins.  Some people believe Jesus was a pacifist that never advocated violence, others believe that he came to bring the sword and turn brother against brother.  Again, they all get into heaven if they accept Jesus died for their sins, according to the faith-alone doctrine.  Many people think Jesus' name was actually "Jesus," when it reality that's a translation of the name.  Doesn't matter, you can still get saved if you think that guy, whatever his name, was the son of God and died for your sins.  Believing any number of wrong things doesn't keep you out of heaven, so long as you believe Jesus died for your sins.

And Fred Phelps and company believe that very strongly, it seems to me.  They get full marks for believing that Jesus is the son of God and died for the sins of humanity.  They're completely nuts and hateful and not at all christ-like, but the faith-alone doctrine is the Jesus died for crazy, hateful, un-christ-like people too.  You don't have to be sane, or nice, or good, or christ-like to get into heaven under this position, you just have to believe the Jesus died for your sins.

On the other hand, if you think it's not just believing the right thing, but taking the correct actions in response to your beliefs, then you're not in the faith-alone camp.  That would put you in the faith AND works side of things.  That's the position that says in addition to believing the right thing, you also need to act on that believe, and do some good works.

We can agree, I think, that Fred Phelp's works aren't the kind of thing that Jesus is likely to be looking for if the faith AND works folks are right.  But if the faith-alone folks are right, then I'd say he's pretty safe.  Faith he's got, in spades, it seems to me.

I consider humans to be faulty and selfish. They can do just actions, but I would consider it just when compared to what God says is just.</quote>
So if God says raping innocent baby's is the thing to do, then that makes it just to do so?  Or would it make God unjust if he said to do that?  I argue the latter, you seem be implying the former.  Can we take it any further than that, or are we stuck there?





You're talking about the punishment, I'm talking about justice, they're not always the same.  As I pointed out, what is punished most severely and what should be punished most severely are not always the same thing.  I'm not arguing that God couldn't punish me if He exists.  I'm saying that the fact that He's capable of punishing me doesn't make the punishment just.  Yes, he's bigger than me.  Yes, he's more powerful.  But he could be bigger, greater, more powerful, AND evil and unjust.  Or simply bigger, more powerful, and just capricious.  Cliche though it may be, might does not make right, even for God.








Great example.  You 'disregard' part of scripture...but you have reason to do so.  You don't think you're going against God's will by doing so.  You feel that verse doesn't apply to you.  It's not that you believe in some different Jesus than the one in the bible because you're wearing clothes made of two different types of cloth, it's that your interpretation of the bible leads you to believe that that particular verse doesn't apply to you right now.  You may be right, you may be wrong, but you're acting in good faith, to the best of your understanding.  It's not that you can't read the bible, or that no one's ever told you about it, you just confidently believe that Jesus is okay with you wearing those clothes.  Even though the bible says specifically not to do so, and the bible is perfect, and never wrong, you feel confident that other parts of the bible make it clear that you're fine to do so.  I think the westboro folks feel about the same with the stuff they do.  I might find their interpretations more crazy than yours, but I think they really believe it.  They're acting in what they consider to be good faith, on their best understanding of the what the bible means.  Now, you and I can agree that their "best understanding" doesn't seem very good, in fact it seems absurd, but it really seems to me like they believe it.  They're not making up their own new Jesus anymore than they are.  They're probably making some serious errors in logic, but it seems like they're actually convinced.

No. Grace is where God realizes you are at. That is why he does everything for you.

Seems like we hit the end of this, but understand where each other is on this.

But the example you gave was a person. God is significantly more than a person. God being God has significantly more awareness of the situation.





And that you are a sinner. Not in disagreement with that.

Correct all the way.
No, I'm stating you are changing words, and suggesting they are the same thing.

Right. But you made a mistake. You made an argument for salvation through faith.

You switched belief from christian. I stated Phelps was not following Christ. And your arguments are Phelps believes he is, and therefore belief in Jesus equals salvation.

I'm saying faith is the only requirement for salvation
And Phelps is not following Christ.

You're saying if Faith saves,
and belief is faith
Phelps believes he is Christian
since Faith is belief and Phelps believes
Therefore Phelps is christian and saved




Well, if He said it now, I'd assume that was not God. Not because God can't speak, but it wouldn't match what He already said on the matter.

However, if God said it before, then it would be just in my view. I think that's what you want me to say, though I already know that statement is wrong based on what God says.


Yes, but I think we can establish that justice is determined by the one offended, not by the offender. We can agree to that, right?




This is one of those things you're switching around. I'm saying the Westboro church is aware what Jesus did, and they are choosing to disregard that.

I'm talking about them not following Christ, which means that's not christian.

You're talking since they believe they are, then they are. Belief does not mean following.

Yep, but I am just a person too, so can only make mind up based on what I see.  God could say "I've got a good reason for this, just trust me on it," whether He's good or evil, whether it's true or not.  If he says that right before sending me to something infinitely worse that the worst torture ever committed in the worst dictator's secret dungeon, I think I'll conclude He's not all that good.  Maybe I'd be wrong.  But likewise, maybe you'd be wrong if you believed He was good.  We're only human, have limited knowledge, so have to go with evidence we have.  The evidence in question is sending people to an eternity of torture in this scenario.  I just don't see how I could conclude that's what a good being does.


Okay, and do you think Fred Phelps believes that Jesus is the son of God, that Jesus died for his sins, and that Fred is a sinner?  Because it seems to me like he does believe all that.  He believes other kooky stuff too, but on the stuff that matters according to the faith alone doctrine, he's got full marks, and that's all that matters.


...Okay...then I'm confused why you think Fred Phelp's odd ideas about what Jesus want him to do would prevent him from getting salvation.  What am I missing?




hmm.  Which words in particular?  It does seem likely that an issue of what words mean to us could be at play here, since it seems like you agree with me one moment and not the next, so probably we're using different meanings for some words somewhere.


?!  Hmm, now I'm really confused.  My point was to describe the faith alone doctrine (ie, salvation through faith), but you're telling me it was a mistake to do so.  Why?



Perhaps there are two separate issues being confused here:
1.  Fred Phelps has the faith that the faith-alone doctrine says is what gets you salvation (or so it seems to me--if you disagree, let me know what part of the "Jesus is the son of God", "Jesus died for your sins" and "you are a sinner" list you think Fred doesn't believe).
2.  I think that faith makes him a christian, because to me being a christian is an act of belief.  If you consider a christian to be someone who acts a certain way, rather than believes a certain thing, that's fine.  The word "christian" isn't particularly important to the discussion, which is actually about whether Fred Phelps makes it into heaven or not.  You can define a christian how you like, I guess, though I think if it means someone who does exactly as the bible says, then I've never met a christian and highly doubt I ever will!


Okay, what does the latter have to do with the former?  If faith is the only requirement, then whether Fred "follows" or not isn't really an issue (if by "follows" you mean takes the actions Jesus said people should take).


No, not at all.  I'm saying:
Fred Phelps believes that Jesus is the son of God.
Fred Phelps believes that Jesus died for his sins.
Fred Phelps believes that he (Fred) is a sinner, and accepts Jesus' forgiveness.
Therefore, if the faith-alone doctrine is correct, Fred Phelps gets saved despite all his nut job beliefs and actions, and despite being an all-around pretty unpleasant character.



Exactly!  And that's pretty much how I feel, though it's less about what "He already said on the matter" and more about "what we're told He is like."  So we're told that God is good.  So if the entity that people call God does something that's not good, then I think, ah, okay, this guy must not actually be the one they're talking about OR they were wrong about Him being good.  Either way, the guy doesn't look good, and I don't feel like doing as he says, or trying to please Him.  And here's the kicker:  sending someone to hell is worse then raping innocent babies.  Not that raping babies isn't horrible.  I intentionally picked it as the worst thing I could think of, so we'd all agree it as horribly, horribly wrong.  But hell is worse than that, because it's not only worse each moment you're there, but also because it goes on forever.  That's how bad it is.  A good, loving being doesn't do that to someone.


Wow, not sure what to say there.  Radically different world views, I guess.  What does it even mean to you to say that God is "good," if no matter what He does you consider it to be good?  Is there anything God could 'have said' that would indicate He wasn't good or loving or just?  What does it really mean to say God is just, if you consider Him to be just even if He had demanded baby raping?  I guess I just don't understand what the words would even mean in your version of things.
Put another way, would you really not know it was wrong to rape babies if you hadn't read the bible?  Surely you have more empathy than that, no?  I feel like you're not giving yourself enough credit here.




No, definitely not.  Punishment may be determined by the one offended, but whether the punishment is just is not determined by the one offended.  If it were, then sending christians to siberia would be just (because the Soviet government was the offended party, and they would get to determine if it was just).  If the justness of a punishment is decided by the one offended, then no punishment is unjust, and surely you don't think that, do you?  You've even said so, since you agreed that sending christians to siberia wasn't just.



How is that different from your situation?  You've described yourself as 'disregarding' scripture about clothes made of two fabrics.  I'd use the term "interpret" over "disregard" but since you've used the latter, I'll stick with it.  You believe you're following christ while you disregard the scripture in question.  You are doing your best to do what you think Jesus wants you to do.  Maybe you're wrong, but if so, it's an honest mistake, not an intentional slighting of Jesus.  I think the westboro folks are similar (though more crazy in their beliefs).

To me, doing what you believe Jesus wants done DOES mean following, even if you're wrong about what Jesus wants.  Put it this way: you're an imperfect human, just like everyone else.  What are the chances that you know exactly what Jesus wants you to do, and haven't made any mistakes in interpreting the bible?  When you think about that, consider all the other people who consider themselves to be christians in the world, whom you think aren't following Jesus properly.  Like as not, just from statistics, you've probably made at least one mistake in your understanding somewhere, no?  Does that mean you're not really following Jesus?  Does that mean you're following some different, fake Jesus that you just made up?  Does it mean you're not a christian?  No, of course not.  It just means you're a human, and that you're not perfect, just like everyone else.  I would agree that you're doing a far better job of it than the westboro folks, but just considering the number of verses, and how many people have disagreed about them over time, I think it's a pretty safe bet that you've got everything 100% correct.  I think if there is a Jesus up there, he'll be lenient with you for doing your best.  And if the faith-alone doctrine is right, then he'll be lenient with the westboro folks too.

Also, I started a new thread to discuss the issue of belief and choices, etc.  It'd be great to get your thoughts on it, since it was sort of a spin off of discussion we were having in this thread.

I think your last sentence has a bit to the issue we're having.

I'm going to back off this line of questioning for now.

I'd like to discuss hell, and eternity I think some more. I think until some ideas about hell and eternity are dealt with, the rest is just relatively minor and unimportant.

I think Phelps believes that, yes.


Running out of time. Got to go.

The question is, how do we (as non-christians) tell the difference?  I have no doubt that Phelps is just as sincere in his beliefs as you are, so sincerity isn't the test.  He's got just as much theology background as you do, if not more, so that's not the test either.

No, the test is as Jesus said: "You will know them by their fruits."  In other words, you know that they are good people because they do good works.  Of course, this applies to everyone, not just christians.  Those who do good works are good people, regardless of what they believe.

In context, that phrase was used for prophets.

Matthew 7:15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

The term false prophet was originally one word,
pseudoprophētēs
psyoo-dop-rof-ay'-tace
From G5571 and G4396; a spurious prophet, that is, pretended foreteller or religious impostor: - false prophet.

Now I now you claim a prophet is also called a teacher, but in context, that's not true. The prophet was the one who spoke from God, and the teacher was needed to explain that to the people. I suppose other religions might mix the two words around freely, not sure which ones though.

Acts 13:1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul.

prophētēs
prof-ay'-tace
From a compound of G4253 and G5346; a foreteller (“prophet”); by analogy an inspired speaker; by extension a poet: - prophet.

didaskalos
did-as'-kal-os
From G1321; an instructor (generally or specifically): - doctor, master, teacher.

To further see this example, we can go to
1 Corinthians 12: 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?

Normally I wouldn't go this far in addressing a subject, but this was something we discussed in the past, but the debate stopped.

In answer to the question, how do we (As non christians and christians alike) tell the difference?

Compare it to scripture. It's what was asked of the people, and Jesus did it. That's how you know if they are following.

Nice try, but there's a later verse that calls all of Jesus's followers to be prophets and teachers.  At any event, you're definitely taking things too literally; the verse I quoted was intended to refer to all people, not just prophets.

And even that is another red herring on your part.  The fact remains: If I want examples of good christian behavior, christians aren't always a good place to get it.  Non christians show much more christ-like behavior than some christians, such as Phelps.

Actually, it was false prophets. The word was not prophets it was one word that translated as false prophets.
But if you have scripture that shows otherwise, let's discuss it.



Yea, if you take someone bad of any faith, and compare them to someone good of another faith, that is evidence there are some people who are better than bad people. I think we both agree that fact remains.

If I want examples of good __________ behavior, __________ aren't always a good place to get it.

That statement is true regardless of who you put in the blank. Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, christians, muslims, students, etc

Which brings us right back to Faith vs Works.  We know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys in any group by their works, by their actions.  Their devoutness is not something we see.  Again, you and I agree that hatemongers like Phelps are extremely sincere and devout in their beliefs.  How do we know the difference between them and "good" christians?  By their works.

So, we have come back to my original conclusion: in the end, faith is irrelevant.  Works is all that matters.

Some non-Christians show much more Christ-like behavior than some purported Christians (I'm not sure if this is what you intended to say or not). But why are you bringing up Phelps again? Didn't you show in your last comment that Phelps was not a real Christian, because he doesn't do good?

I have no idea of Phelps is a real christian or not.  I have no right to judge who is and who is not a real christian.  I just judge who is and is not a good person, based on their works.  Hence why, in my book, works matter the most and faith not at all.

Well, in the times of Jesus, he actually kept speaking badly about a group called the Pharisees, who did everything they were asked to in the old testament.

And then he went to those who were the dregs of society, the tax collectors, prostitutes, etc, and pointed out it was not by their actions they were saved, but by God's

Respectfully, I get you feel that works determine a good person or not, but is that consistent with salvation as talked about in the bible?

Understandably, I do get you do not feel the bible is true. So it's not a big deal to you that the bible does mention faith is needed for salvation, right? Would you agree that the bible does mention that concept several times fairly clearly? (I know you mentioned works, and the bible does speak on works, but the question I'm asking is if you agree that bible is kind of clear on mentioning faith is needed for salvation)

The bible does indeed mention salvation, but even then, faith is not the only requirement for salvation.  Works and deeds are required as well.  Jesus made a big deal about how you needed to do good things; Paul was the one who wrote that it was "by faith alone", but even then he stressed the importance of works.

Let's go back to the "by their fruits" example.  I know you insist that it only refers to prophets, but you're taking the verse too literally.  Jesus's teachings were in parables and metaphors: a good prophet does not literally sprout leaves and figs!  So, by examining the metaphor, we see that good people naturally do good things.  Those are the "saved" people, who produce good works and have good faith.

I know you feel that is true. But what I asked was can we agree that there are several scriptures from the bible that state that salvation is a result of faith?

This shouldn't be a real concern for us to agree with that much. We're coming from different backgrounds, but either it says it or it doesn't.

I understand the bible contains metaphors, but just because there is a metaphor in one paragraph about some story, that doesn't mean a word that directly translates as false prophet means that too is a metaphor.

But I think I see where you are going with this. If everything is a metaphor in the bible, then I concede that prophet can mean teacher and neighbor, friends, etc. It can relate to many many things.

Obviously since it is not written in a metaphor, I don't really agree with that premise.

You have to remember that word was literally "false prophets" not prophets.

Not everything is a metaphor (Numbers is pretty much the epitome of dry, literal history), but Jesus's teachings were in parables and metaphors.  And his teachings do relate to many things.  "Treat your neighbor as yourself" doesn't literally mean neighbors, or people you know.  It's not permission to mistreat strangers because they don't live next door.  It's well understood that it means to be kind to *everyone*, even though it says "neighbors".

I had to check back and make sure the first question I asked wasn't being put in some private line, or using the hide tab function. But I must be doing it wrong, as it looks like the question I was asking still looks like it's formatted right so that it can be read by anyone. ;)





As to the metaphors, I did agree that there were metaphors used in other scripture, but we know not everything Jesus taught was a metaphor.

To sum up the debate, you're saying when it said "false prophet" it was a reference to teacher, or person, because it has metaphors in other parts of the bible. And being a metaphor, it would also be true it didn't actually mean false prophet? Unless a literal metaphor?
This message was last edited by the player at 00:15, Tue 21 Aug 2012.

When discussing our judging other people, I think it's important for us to remember our own limitations. Absolutely, I feel comfortable judging whether someone is living a christ-like live based on their actions (and I do agree, a lot of Christians fall short, and a lot of churches seem focused on the wrong things, although this is in no way universal).

However, God is not so limited, and can see aspects of the story we can't. It's quite possible that Phelps is somehow mentally disturbed, or otherwise hurt, such that he simply cannot deal with things properly. Or it's possible that he is fully responsible for his actions and, while he claims to have dedicate his life to God, he truly is dedicating it to something else, and just lies about it (possibly even to himself). Ultimately though, that discussion is academic. Not even Phelps knows.

I would like to think that "faith" is more than just blind acceptance, but that it implies some sort of relationship. I can have faith that the pretty girl I met last night will come take me out today, but if I don't actually have a relationship, that faith is grounded on assumptions and ignorance. Just speaking for myself, I feel like if I talk to some happy-go-lucky fellow that Jesus will take care of him when he dies, and he says "sure", but doesn't do anything else, that that person is not automatically among the chosen.

Of course, I don't have any references for this, and even if I did, anyone who knows Hebrew or Greek better than I do would certainly rip me up. So take my beliefs for what they're worth :)

You're trying a rhetorical trick again.  There are a fair number of verses that refer to what we understand as salvation (honestly, I don't recall if Jesus ever actually used that term), and while some (mostly by Paul, IIRC) refer to faith alone, others refer to works alone, and some refer to both.  So the correct answer is, yes, the bible does contradict itself on that point.


I have no idea what you're asking, but I'll sum it up.  In this context, the verse is a metaphor for determining good people by the works they do.  It's an example, not a literal statement.  The example is clearly a metaphor, since people don't actually burst into leaves and figs in response to what they do; in the same vein, the lesson is to be applied to everyone, not just those who claim to be prophets.

Jesus referred to your "neighbor" many times.  Treat your neighbor as yourself, be kind to them, etc.  That doesn't mean if someone lives too far away, you have the right to treat them badly!  In context, neighbor refers to everyone.

No, it was a legitimate question. I thought that was a point we can agree on.

I know it's important to you that the bible is in contradiction, but I'll take this as an agreement here that we agree on part of the bible.

I think it's been a couple of years, if not more since we agreed on something. :)

I was saying you feel it's a metaphor because the bible uses metaphors in other scripture, and that you feel that false prophet was not actually meant to refer to a false prophet, but a metaphor for any person.

But the word wasn't prophets. I know in english we read prophets in that sentence, but that's not the word originally used. It was "false prophets", or pseudoprophētēs. It could also have been translated to pretend foreteller, or religious imposter.


Note, there's no literal mention of people growing leaves or figs, it was talking of plants growing grapes and figs, not people growing grapes and figs.

I'm going to ask for some additional feedback from the other readers here please. I'm looking for someone not a part of this conversation on this and ask for an unbiased poster. This scripture seems really clear here, and I'm wondering why others can't see it.

Does it really look like people are literally bursting leaves and figs? Does this verse read like a metaphor?

I'd prefer someone not christian to look through this scripture and suggest this looks like a metaphor considering that prophets and teachers are recognized separately in the bible.

Matthew 7:15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Yes, it does read like a metaphor.  The term "sheep's clothing" is an old metaphor; bad people do not literally dress up like sheep.

In reply to Trust in the Lord (msg # 138):

An interesting bit of scripture, actually, especially if we look at the whole chapter instead of just a few versus.

To answer the question, yes, there's a lot of metaphor in the verses TitL quotes.  But, no, I don't think Jesus was talking about everyone in those versus, just false prophets at TitL indicates.  The first few verses of the chapter tell people not to judge others, so it would be somewhat odd to contradict that just a few sentences later with "here's how you judge people..."

The verses directly following the ones TitL quote also have some bearing on the discussion, as they talk about 'false disciples':

Which I think is a good argument for scripture backing up a few that Phelp's wouldn't be saved.  But one that also comes down firmly on the "works" side of the "faith vs. works" debate.  Here Jesus is saying it's not what you believe it's what do that matters.  Only one that "does the will of my Father" will enter heaven.  "Does the will" describes actions, not faith, so it sounds like works are a necessary condition of entering heaven, according to Jesus.

Ok, disagree.

Because he is not following Jesus of the bible. So which Jesus is he following?






To be clear, you said Phelps was christian, and having belief in Christ is enough for salvation, Since Phelps believes, therefore, he is Christian.

Having salvation through faith doesn't mean your christian because you really believe you are christian.

The Jesus part. The actual Jesus is where I think Phelps is failing on. I understand Phelps claims Jesus, and uses the term baptist in his church name.


I get that. However, I took exception to the idea that it was the term christian way way back. You have altered the debate about salvation as the focus, when it was christian that I was making the exception I took.

 Don't really feel like going back to show you the original context that I countered. Seems like we don't agree.


If you get married, and then after the wedding go back to your single apartment, and keep dating people, and not visiting, helping, loving your spouse, well, you're still married, but you are not taking up your marriage for what it is. If you say you trust Jesus as your savior, but go back to your old life as if Jesus doesn't exist, it's just not a real relationship.


No, not a all? I'm not sure where we disagree on understanding your stance.



I agree that hell is bad. Not something that I want anyone to go through. So I let people know about God offering a gift. It's free, and available to everyone. Whenever you want. As a matter of fact, God will do a whole lot to try and keep us from going to hell. He sends people your way, let's you know about him, tries to help you depend on him, etc.

He's doing lots of stuff to keep you out of hell. But God respects free will. He's not going to force you to be not you.

Based on who's opinion? Should God force you to change who you are? Force you to love Him, even though you don't?

If you had a son, and he chose to leave you and never call, would you do what you can to keep a door open, and let him know you'll always accept him, but if he rejects you anyway, would you not allow him that choice?




Yea, I worded that incorrectly.

A non issue I think. I think I have established a reasonable amount of evidence to show that offending God is much worse than offending a regular person. As such, it does show that the punishment is greater based on who you are offending.

Well, in my case, it says specifically about the laws were for establishing the law, and that we are no longer under the law.