Is MAD ethics and or morals void? Is MAD ethics even Christian?

[Clete]

I would say only an idiot would chose otherwise. But, that is what many do now.

An idiot, a fool, an evil person. Six one, half a dozen the other.

 

[Clete]

And here's the other side of that. Consider an unbeliever who goes to that person's church and hears the convoluted gospel taught there, including the character of God they portray in it. That person might reject such a god and his gospel, but then be confronted by the truth about God at resurrection. Why would his eternal state be determined by a convoluted gospel presented by someone who rejects God's true character?

The truth is there to see right now for anyone and everyone who desires to see it.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,​

​

Literally Christianity 101.

 

[Clete]

I'm replying to @Clete's scenario. Romans speaks of something that can be cured by the true gospel, but is only made worse by a false one.

You cannot be that stupid.

This is clearly on purpose.

Good bye!

 

[Derf]

Please compare this complaint about going

three posts before taking what could be a rational discussion down the path of ridiculousness and stupidity.

To this reply:

It sounds like you are either stupid or being intentional asinine.


So what?


You don't deserve my time.


Thank you captain obvious.


Only those of us who can think clearly.


You wouldn't know a pertinent question from you left butt cheek.

 

[Derf]

The truth is there to see right now for anyone and everyone who desires to see it.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,​

​

Literally Christianity 101.

But what form must that take? If the person is recognizing a false gospel and false accounting of God, then he is understanding some of God's attributes correctly and correctly rejecting the false gospel. Isn't that a huge part of accepting the true God and true gospel? So no excuse needed?

 

[JudgeRightly]

It sounds like you are either stupid or being intentional asinine.


So what?


You don't deserve my time.


Thank you captain obvious.


Only those of us who can think clearly.


You wouldn't know a pertinent question from you left butt cheek.

Clete, would you mind responding to his questions for my benefit?

(And try to keep in mind that most discussions aren't going to convince one's opponent, but they may or may not convince someone in the audience.)

 

[Nick M]

The truth is there to see right now for anyone and everyone who desires to see it.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,​

​

Literally Christianity 101.

I remember the late Bob Eyart's TV show all the time without discussions here. It never changes. This exact point was brought up. He looked at the camera and replied to the idiot question, because that is what it was and said

Instead, they worship pigs

And by the way, he was always polite, even to the "fruit loops".

 

[Clete]

Clete, would you mind responding to his questions for my benefit?

(And try to keep in mind that most discussions aren't going to convince one's opponent, but they may or may not convince someone in the audience.)

I don't ever mind answering any honest question. Just exactly which question is it that you want me to answer?

The closest to a question Derf got to was...

"So it sounds like you are willing to say that "saved" means resurrection from the dead (and no more) for believers, but resurrection from the dead does not mean "saved" for unbelievers."

It's the "and no more" parenthetical that throws this statement into the trash heap of stupidity. Derf knows - he knows - that I was not saying that and that I would not be willing to say it. He's a liar. I suspect that he desires to be on my ignore list. Fine. I'm happy to keep him there.

The only reason he came off is because I have a policy about people on my ignore list. If I see someone quote something an ignored person said that seems intelligent and I can no longer remember what it was that landed them on my ignore list, then I will take them off ignore to see if maybe a productive discussion is possible. Most people last at least several days if not weeks. Derf lasted less than a day. If it is possible at all to have a coherent discuss with the guy, it is certainly not worth the effort it requires to discover how to make it happen. All he wants is to sound intellectual and to pretend like he's a thinker. I refuse to give him a stage to play on.

I've gone back through and reread my comments concerning what could potentially happen that would end up causing someone to choose to reject God after their natural death. It is all quite completely clear. Derf wants to make irrational connections and then to pretend his fantasies have something to do with what I said. I won't play that game. The long and short of it is that no one is going to be forced to go to heaven if they don't want to go there. How can that be a complicated thing to understand? It can't! The only way you miss the point is if you are trying to miss it.

 

[Clete]

I remember the late Bob Eyart's TV show all the time without discussions here. It never changes. This exact point was brought up. He looked at the camera and replied to the idiot question, because that is what it was and said


And by the way, he was always polite, even to the "fruit loops".

First of all this is not a television show. I can literally spend hours typing posts and, in fact, I used to do exactly that day after day after day. I'd repeat myself dozens of times and would write near identical posts to more than one person. I'd bet that I've committed 10,000 hours to writing detailed, substantive posts that directly respond to any and every point any lunatic wanted to make.

NO LONGER!!!!

If someone wants to be substantive then AWESOME!!!! I'll spend all day long writing as much as I can write in response to nearly anything they want to discuss, but I will not have my time intentionally wasted any longer. If someone wants to be obtuse, whether its intentional or not, then they can go waste someone else's time. I've got better things to do.

 

[Derf]

I don't ever mind answering any honest question. Just exactly which question is it that you want me to answer?

The closest to a question Derf got to was...

"So it sounds like you are willing to say that "saved" means resurrection from the dead (and no more) for believers, but resurrection from the dead does not mean "saved" for unbelievers."

It's the "and no more" parenthetical that throws this statement into the trash heap of stupidity. Derf knows - he knows - that I was not saying that and that I would not be willing to say it. He's a liar. I suspect that he desires to be on my ignore list. Fine. I'm happy to keep him there.

The only reason he came off is because I have a policy about people on my ignore list. If I see someone quote something an ignored person said that seems intelligent and I can no longer remember what it was that landed them on my ignore list, then I will take them off ignore to see if maybe a productive discussion is possible. Most people last at least several days if not weeks. Derf lasted less than a day. If it is possible at all to have a coherent discuss with the guy, it is certainly not worth the effort it requires to discover how to make it happen. All he wants is to sound intellectual and to pretend like he's a thinker. I refuse to give him a stage to play on.

I've gone back through a reread my comments concerning what could potentially happen that would end up causing someone to choose to reject God after their natural death. It is all quite completely clear. Derf wants to make irrational connections and then to pretend his fantasies have something to do with what I said. I won't play that game. The long and short of it is that no one is going to be forced to go to heaven if they don't want to go there. How can that be a complicated thing to understand? It can't! The only way you miss the point is if you are trying to miss it.

Even if that was your point, it suggested other points, as no belief stands alone. I apologize for sounding too intelligent, but I enjoy your posts and the conclusions you reach, and I want to see where they logically lead. It's a shame you have such little patience with people who you have the potential to influence. Many people are influenced by what we say, even if they don't appear to be immediately.

My wife had a friend who was adamantly against some things she had told her. They lost contact for a few years, then ran into each other. The friend was telling others the exact things she had eschewed before. We don't know the influence we might have, or how the Holy Spirit might be working in someone else using us.

And you might be either party in a similar scenario, if you'll humbly let the Holy Spirit speak to you or through you, or both.

 

[way 2 go]

It's the best I can do, given that none of you ever teach its tenets clearly and openly and plainly in a way that distinguishes Acts 9erism from other schools of theology. You'll say things like, "We believe in the Bible." Great. That's completely unhelpful. So I'm doing the best I can through interpolations, triangulation, inference, and other reasoning approaches and tools.

you accuse MAD of never "teach its tenets clearly and openly and plainly"
what kind of dead \ death are you talking about ?

$$ Ro 1:29
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
$$ Ro 1:30
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
$$ Ro 1:31
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
$$ Ro 1:32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death

what kind of death are they worthy of ?
are they already dead ?

Nor does Catholicism. But you above call Catholicism "horrible doctrine."



That's basically what I said in my post.



$$ Eph 2:1
And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins;
$$ Eph 2:2
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world ...
...
$$ Eph 2:4
But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
$$ Eph 2:5
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ ...

if someone is made spiritually alive they continue on
spiritually alive in heaven for eternity
in a resurrected new incorruptible body


if someone is spiritually dead when they die the continue on
spiritually dead for eternity in hell




first death separation
Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."


alive yet dead
Mat 8:22 And Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead."


dead yet alive
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, the small and the great, stand before God


dead and alive
Luk 16:22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried,
Luk 16:23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.

 

[way 2 go]

Even if that was your point, it suggested other points, as no belief stands alone. I apologize for sounding too intelligent, but I enjoy your posts and the conclusions you reach, and I want to see where they logically lead. It's a shame you have such little patience with people who you have the potential to influence. Many people are influenced by what we say, even if they don't appear to be immediately.

My wife had a friend who was adamantly against some things she had told her. They lost contact for a few years, then ran into each other. The friend was telling others the exact things she had eschewed before. We don't know the influence we might have, or how the Holy Spirit might be working in someone else using us.

And you might be either party in a similar scenario, if you'll humbly let the Holy Spirit speak to you or through you, or both.

Clete has come up with an unsound doctrine of believers choosing unbelief at judgement day . chapter verse for that one

and you questioned is the opposite true , which of course it is not because the former is not true either

Jesus on the other hand says : depart from me I never knew you

(Matthew 7:22-23) [22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

[Clete]

Clete has come up with an unsound doctrine of believers choosing unbelief at judgement day . chapter verse for that one

I have done no such thing.

It never stops amazing me the consistency with which people who disagree with me are forced to mischaracterize what I've said so as to sound reasonable when they disagree. It has been the overarching theme of my theological life for more than two decades now, particularly on this website. It has the curious double edge of being annoyingly frustrating on the one side and being unintentionally encouraging on the other.

It really gets fun when those who disagree with me accuse me of being the one who is mischaracterizing their beliefs. In such cases I seem to be the only one able to cite primary sources.

In any case, if you want to address what I actually said instead of finding ways to recast my position into obvious self-contradictions of your own making, then I'm happy to oblige, but I will not debate your mischaracterization as if they have anything to do with what I actually said.

and you questioned is the opposite true , which of course it is not because the former is not true either

His question was not the opposite of my position. It was an intentional mischaracterization of my position by presenting a false "opposite". A tactic you seem to have fallen for.

Jesus on the other hand says : depart from me I never knew you

Jesus will not say anything of the sort to any Christian saved under Paul's gospel.

(Matthew 7:22-23) [22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

A teaching about Jews. Those saved under the previous dispensation will have a much different experience than anyone saved by grace alone through faith alone.

 

[Derf]

Clete has come up with an unsound doctrine of believers choosing unbelief at judgement day . chapter verse for that one

and you questioned is the opposite true , which of course it is not because the former is not true either

Jesus on the other hand says : depart from me I never knew you

(Matthew 7:22-23) [22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

I would think that is talking about when Christ returns to establish His kingdom on earth, and not about hell.

 

[Derf]

I have done no such thing.

It never stops amazing me the consistency with which people who disagree with me are forced to mischaracterize what I've said so as to sound reasonable when they disagree. It has been the overarching theme of my theological life for more than two decades now, particularly on this website. It has the curious double edge of being annoyingly frustrating on the one side and being unintentionally encouraging on the other.

It really gets fun when those who disagree with me accuse me of being the one who is mischaracterizing their beliefs. In such cases I seem to be the only one able to cite primary sources.

Congratulations.

In any case, if you want to address what I actually said instead of finding ways to recast my position into obvious self-contradictions of your own making, then I'm happy to oblige, but I will not debate your mischaracterization as if they have anything to do with what I actually said.


His question was not the opposite of my position.

Agreed.

It was an intentional mischaracterization of my position by presenting a false "opposite". A tactic you seem to have fallen for.

Which is a mischaracterization of what I wrote, if it matters to you at all. I'll assume, for the sake of a brother, that yours was not intentional. Mine was a serious question that came from thinking about your position, which I tend to agree with, if it matters.

Jesus will not say anything of the sort to any Christian saved under Paul's gospel.


A teaching about Jews. Those saved under the previous dispensation will have a much different experience than anyone saved by grace alone through faith alone.

True. Anyone saved by their own works will surely have a different experience.