Indifferent Contradiction (to Matt from Ben)

Ben9275375@aol.com Ben9275375@aol.com
Sat, 4 Oct 1997 15:42:51 -0400 (EDT) (00876015771, 971004154248_-898678288@emout14.mail.aol.com) 

In a message dated 97-10-04 14:25:26 EDT, you write:

<<  TILL
  Let's just put this issue into focus with a question that Matt should be
  able to answer.  ARE THERE ANY PEOPLE NOW LIVING ANYWHERE ON EARTH WHOSE
  ATTITUDE TOWARD JESUS COULD ACCURATELY BE REPRESENTED WITH THE WORD
  "INDIFFERENT"?
   
  MATT
  Yes there would be, but this must be qualified by stating that from a
  Scriptural perspective indifference=against and never for.
   
  BEN
  But there is a conflicting scriptural perspective.  What Till is trying
  to tell you is that there is a contradiction.  You admit that there are
  people who are indifferent to Christ.  One passage says that those who are
  not for him (which the indifferent would qualify) are against him.  On the
  other hand, the other passage they have been showing you is that those who
  are not against him (the indifferent would qualify here, too) are for him.
   So on passage is saying the indifferent are for him, and the other is
  saying
  they are against him.  And you admitted (it is quoted earlier in this
  paper)
  that there are indifferent people.  So the contradiction is valid.
  
  MATT
  You argument falls down when you say 'the indifferent would qualify here
  too'. The indifferent are, through original sin, effectively against Jesus
  and the Gospel. So the contradiction is invalid. >>
 
 
 BEN 
    But Matt, they do qualify.  They are not against Jesus.  I am not
 against
 Jesus.  Therefore I would qualify under the latter passage as well as the
 first.  No mention of original sin is present.  And okay, let's say you are
 right.  Original sin is a concept developed by the Catholic church.  I was
 raised Catholic.  I was forgiven of my origional sin through infantile
 baptism.  I am indifferent, now.  So am I for or against Christ?  The two
 passages contradict each other with me as evidence!  
 
 MATT
 If you are not for, or are indifferent to Jesus then you are against him.
 Original sin is, as I hope to demonstrate, a biblical teaching and not
 derived from Roman Catholicism. Your proposition that you were forgiven of
 your original sin through infantile baptism is erroneous and without any
 Scriptural authority. The two passages put you in a very precarious
 position. >>

BEN
Your concept of origional sin was derived from the Roman Catholic church.
 Protestant churches kept it (at least some of them) when they broke off.
 The general concept behind it is that we are such wretched creatures that we
are evil and deserve to burn in hell for eternity.  Nobody deserves that.
 Would you not agree?  I don't care what you've done (or in this case what
you haven't done) you don't deserve to be punished that badly.  What purpose
does that do?  The only purpose of punishment is to relate physical pain to a
bad act, so the underdeveloped person will not do the bad act again.  Eternal
punishment does not accomplish this.  It is creul, evil and pointless.  No
just God could do it.  Well, enough on hell, back to origional sin.  The
Bible states in two places that 1) God will punish up to the third and fourth
generations for their fathers sins and 2) God will not judge you on your
father's sins but what you do as a person.  The way you will counter this
contradiction is that 1) was the old law and 2) is the new law.  So
basically, we are in the new law, so we are not punished for our father's
sins, but what we do as a person.  What we do as a person.  Amazing.  What we
do.  Not what we were born into.  That was just a concept derived by the
Church, and by the church's own concept, I was cleansed from it through
infantile baptism (not to mention confirmation).  So basically, I have been
forgiven of origional sin (unless of course it somehow came back after I
though about theism too much), and I am indifferent to Christ.  So I am still
a living example of a biblical contradiction.

Ben