toldailytopic: For those unsaved. If it turns out you were wrong and you face God in

[nicholsmom]

Yet you claim to commune with him--to the exclusion of billions of people--and claim to be part of the only system that provides the truth and the whole truth.

The truth, yes; the whole truth, not unless Christianity has suddenly taken on the face of Sozo or Nick M :noid:

I do commune with God, but I don't think that has anything to do with anyone else, especially their exclusion. Their communion with God, or lack thereof, has little to nothing to do with me. I can proclaim the Gospel, and I do, but I am not Christ that I can redeem anyone (or you'd be redeemed, 'cause I like you). The choice is not mine to make except in my own relationship with God.

A member of any other religion on the planet could (and has) said the very same thing, so, we're right back to square one.

Yep. And we can't all be right; and we probably aren't all wrong...

I'd be careful, if I were you, speaking dogmatically about Hinduism. Very few westerners (including me) even understand the basics of arguably mankind's most complex religion. That said, I'm not familiar with this particular belief.

It is complex because of this particular belief. It is the main reason that Buddha tried to reform it by eliminating worship of any god (he'd be horrified if he knew that Hindus just added him as another god :chuckle

That's a simplification of a slightly bigger idea, NM.

I know it is. It was only meant as an illustration of the fact that we can't all be right, and by odds alone, we can't all be totally wrong.

Or you'd be the type of Christian who rejects most of it but likes playing dress-up feel-good Charades on Sunday Christianity. You know what I mean.

I do, sadly, know what you mean. They are among the lost - the unredeemed - and I sorrow for them in the same way I sorrow for the executive too trapped in his circle of business and worldly success to look Heavenward And for you, my friend. I will always pray that I will meet you one day on that Other Shore and share a chuckle with you. :cheers:

 

[nicholsmom]

Sorry NM, but from a Christian perspective there are plenty who believe that in a 'universal' sense God restores all. It's rather disingenuine to bracket those who ascribe to such as being outside the Christian faith, no matter how much you're at odds with such a position. Plenty believe Calvinist theology to be flawed, or Catholic, or Baptist, Or Presbyterian etc....so 'discerning truth' often seems to be at the whim as to whatever 'religious theology' one ascribes to. Ironically, most universalists I've known have no problem with accepting all the above (and more) as part of the Christian faith...

:e4e:

Hi Arthur! I understand the desire that underlies Universalism, but it cannot be reconciled to the Bible which is very clear about eternal suffering. Also, it is a dangerous perspective to take. As this thread asks: "What if you're wrong?" Many who believed such will wind up in eternal torment. Are you really willing to risk that based on personal desire - especially when it contradicts the Bible?

 

[Silent Hunter]

(he'd be horrified if he knew that Hindus just added him as another god)

. . . I'd imagine Jesus would be too (that Christians added him as another god) :chew:.

 

[chair]

. . . I'd imagine Jesus would be too (that Christians added him as another god) :chew:.

But where did the "Holy Spirit" come from?

 

[Silent Hunter]

But where did the "Holy Spirit" come from?

. . . a construct brought about by the ambiguity of "spirit of god" (or St. Louis . . . if you're C.A.L.) . . . if god is god then the "spirit of god" is also god . . . in the same manner . . . if god is god then the "son of god" must also be god . . . yielding . . . three gods . . . but that can't be because there is only ONE god . . . so Christians developed the "trinity" as an explanation . . .

. . . it's a nonsense . . . that is ultimately defended by its adherents with . . . "it's a mystery" :kookoo:.

 

[nicholsmom]

I suppose it does require faith to believe in the impossible. I don't know why you view that as a virtue.

One man's trash is another man's treasure :idunno:

I will take a stab at this and assume you don't like it due to the attitude that seeps from it. That is, it puts non-believers off.

No. If I could choose to whom God showed mercy, I'd pick everyone. So I hate the idea of Hell. I hate sin too - why can we sin? These are the things that I don't like about reality - plus gray hair and achy joints after a good workout :sigh: And the flu :noid: And death

You get the idea...

If we are incapable of matching up to the "holiness" required by God, then how is it coherent for us to be judged on that standard?

You are judged for your choices. God doesn't choose sin for us; we choose to sin. That we live in a fallen world where sin is commonplace does not force our hand to sin. Every time I sin, it is because I have chosen to do so. God cannot be blamed for not preventing my choice. God, as all-powerful Creator of everything that exists, can move to stop my sin. But He almost never does that sort of thing. That is why Calvinists say "Man is free, but God is freer." Every sin we commit is our choice even though God could move to prevent that choice. Does that make our sin God's fault? Not rationally.

Do we live in a fallen world? All evidence says we do. Does it force our hand to sin? Not at all. Does it make it hard to avoid sin - just about impossible - none have succeeded yet, except for Jesus. But He did. He was/is fully man, and yet didn't sin. He was tempted in every way that man can be tempted and yet didn't sin. He never chose sin - not for His whole life.

In this life, I'm sure you believe that. I am not sure you do when it comes to your view in the afterlife.

In the afterlife, those who loved him on this side will know Him more fully - and He is so lovable already, even with our temporal shades on. Those who never loved Him will certainly hate him in the afterlife. There won't be any choosing to believe when Almighty God is right in front of us in full view, so love or hate will be the choices, because He is that sort of person - not someone you could just ignore or be ambivalent about.

Pheromones? This isn't a frivolity. It is a curiosity.

Something very like that, I think. We were created for communion with our Creator, so He "smells" and "tastes" just like our favorite things. One of my favorite verses from the Psalms is "O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him."

Our relationship to Him is likened to that between husband and wife - see Song of Solomon among others. He is the creator of sex, you know...

Re: who is worthy of eternal punishment?

None of them actually. No-one. It can't be defended. Eternal torture for finite crimes.

I tend to agree (see above). However, I am not the Creator of the Universe. I am not only limited by inability to set the rules of the game, but more importantly by my pathetically poor eyesight. I simply cannot see things as deeply or as well as the One from whom everything else flows. I have to trust Him whether or not it looks just from my pov, because I know that justice is also His creation - or flows naturally from who He is. I also know that He chooses mercy for many, overriding that justice to save those who will be saved.

Do you think that God at least desires us to adore him?

Does a mother desire to be adored by her son? But then God is different. He is holy and cannot sin. Covetousness and lust are sin. Can God desire that which He cannot have? God certainly desires the adoration of those who will adore Him, but can He desire the love of those who will not? I don't think so; not without sinning.

 

[Skavau]

This is why repentance and faith are conditions of receiving this substitution for the penalty of sin. We come to see that we are guilty, condemned before a holy God and cannot save ourselves.

Yeah, so... scapegoating. Passing your responsibility onto another. Or, I could put it in a nicer fashion and describe it as a divine pardon.

It is not a denial of moral responsibility. Those who want to pay the penalty can do so by rejecting the provision/substitute. Those who see our helpless estate, flee to Him for mercy.

So you believe us to be born inherently helpless, guilty and condemned and believe that the redemption is based squarely upon willing yourself to believe in the existence of a saviour to hold the burden of your sins. This is so incoherent that it defies a coherent rebuttal (much like the nonsense ontological argument). Why is it that we are born wretched? How is it our fault that we are imperfect creatures incapable of matching the obscene standards of our creator? How is it remotely fair and coherent for us to in addition be judged and punished for failing to live up to said standards?

You are rejecting a straw man caricuture of the issues out of ignorance.

What have I said that is incorrect about the God that you believe in?

I have been directly responding to claims that you make about him.

On judgment day, you will not be arguing the merits of your wrong views of the atonement. You will clearly see the wisdom and wonder of God, the love of God, the awefulness of sin in the cross. Believers generally get it, but you just use it as an excuse for continued unbelief.

I have said this to Hilston and I'll say it to you. My anti-theism has nothing to do with my unbelief in God. They are two separate issues. I would have no problem if I did believe in a God in viewing it as immoral.

And to respond to the more specific point: Whether or not I concede on judgment day is a complete irrelevance at this moment for I don't see it now.

 

[Skavau]

One man's trash is another man's treasure

I'm slightly surprised that you haven't defended the 'virtue' of faith. It is probably one of the most important aspects of any Christian denomination and arguably the reason why millions actually believe.

No. If I could choose to whom God showed mercy, I'd pick everyone. So I hate the idea of Hell. I hate sin too - why can we sin? These are the things that I don't like about reality - plus gray hair and achy joints after a good workout And the flu And death

You're flirting with dystheism here and I have no objections to it (obviously). Though I do get what you're saying afterward. You seem to be suggesting that "life isn't fair" by detailing the other things that you don't like. This of course, is true - but you hold a world-view that has an omniscient deity in charge of all affairs. That is to say that all events that could ever be, are and will be are directly under the supervision or will of God. If hell cannot be justified, then it has no reason to exist. If that earthquake that will strike somewhere can be stopped, it should. If that volcano erupting can be stopped it should. We would do it if we could (and imagine the outrage if we didn't). God should be held precisely to the same standards if he is interested in the fate of humanity.

You are judged for your choices. God doesn't choose sin for us; we choose to sin.

But God knows that we will sin. God created us imperfect with the propensity to sin.

That we live in a fallen world where sin is commonplace does not force our hand to sin. Every time I sin, it is because I have chosen to do so. God cannot be blamed for not preventing my choice.

Of course, but that isn't the argument. Of what value is our judgment if is based in obscene standards that we simply could not match?

In the afterlife, those who loved him on this side will know Him more fully - and He is so lovable already, even with our temporal shades on. Those who never loved Him will certainly hate him in the afterlife. There won't be any choosing to believe when Almighty God is right in front of us in full view, so love or hate will be the choices, because He is that sort of person - not someone you could just ignore or be ambivalent about.

So you believe that we will have another choice after death?

I tend to agree (see above). However, I am not the Creator of the Universe. I am not only limited by inability to set the rules of the game, but more importantly by my pathetically poor eyesight. I simply cannot see things as deeply or as well as the One from whom everything else flows. I have to trust Him whether or not it looks just from my pov, because I know that justice is also His creation - or flows naturally from who He is. I also know that He chooses mercy for many, overriding that justice to save those who will be saved.

I'll accept the honesty in this answer. It doesn't suspend my contempt of eternal torture, but the honesty is appreciated.

 

[nicholsmom]

I'm slightly surprised that you haven't defended the 'virtue' of faith. It is probably one of the most important aspects of any Christian denomination and arguably the reason why millions actually believe.

It is a virtue impossible to obtain apart from the gift of God, so it isn't something I can brag about or defend. I enjoy faith because God has given it to me in full measure.

You're flirting with dystheism here and I have no objections to it (obviously). Though I do get what you're saying afterward. You seem to be suggesting that "life isn't fair" by detailing the other things that you don't like. This of course, is true - but you hold a world-view that has an omniscient deity in charge of all affairs. That is to say that all events that could ever be, are and will be are directly under the supervision or will of God. If hell cannot be justified, then it has no reason to exist.

Since hell exists (if we are to believe the Bible), and since justice is a thing that flows from God (He cannot be unjust), then hell must be justifiable. That you and I cannot find justification for it is beside the point. We are sorely limited in vision, not being able to see across time and space, and not being able to see the hearts of men, you and I. God is not limited in sight the way we are. He sees and knows all things concerning His creation. We can no more judge His provision of hell than we can officiate in a football game on the other side of the globe.

If that earthquake that will strike somewhere can be stopped, it should. If that volcano erupting can be stopped it should. We would do it if we could (and imagine the outrage if we didn't). God should be held precisely to the same standards if he is interested in the fate of humanity.

No, God should be held to much higher standards since the fate of humanity is in His hands. The trouble is, we are so temporal - thinking only of the now - whereas God is eternal and thinks of the eternal consequences. Neither you nor I know the good that might come of that earthquake or that volcano. But God sees all and is, if we are to believe the Bible (which I do), always at work for the good of those who love Him and are the called according to His name. Christ promised us suffering, but He also said that He would be with us when we suffer, to strengthen us and comfort us while that good work is done by suffering. It's a bit like pregnancy and giving birth - painful and hard work, but yielding a priceless treasure.

But God knows that we will sin. God created us imperfect with the propensity to sin.

We are made with the freedom to choose sin or not. How is that "imperfect?" Should we have been made with limits on our freedom, that we could not choose to hate God or to ignore Him?

Of course, but that isn't the argument. Of what value is our judgment if is based in obscene standards that we simply could not match?

This trouble you are having here is due to your misunderstanding of the person of God. He is holy. He cannot abide sin. Consider: everything that we know flows from His existence - it's all here because creativity is part of who He is. That he allows us enough latitude to sin in this world is an amazing thing all by itself - we flow from holiness, but are allowed to be unholy... for a time. We are allowed to choose sin, but we must be separated from that sin if we are to enter into God's presence, unfiltered, and survive.

So you believe that we will have another choice after death?

The choice to love God or not is made on this side of the grave and sealed at death, if we are to believe the Bible. You and I both know that atheists, agnostics, and other unredeemed don't all hate God - most would claim to simply fail to believe He exists or believe that He is someone totally different than who He is (and so love someone who is NOT God). When, therefore, they meet Him at the Judgment, they will have to change that view of non-belief to that of hatred, since the choice to love Him must precede death.

I'll accept the honesty in this answer. It doesn't suspend my contempt of eternal torture, but the honesty is appreciated.

We both struggle with the same issues, I just struggle from a different platform, and one day I will see with much better eyes. I pray the same will come to you :cheers:

 

[Town Heretic]

Not to interrupt, exactly, and just because it interests me (no one needs to answer as the answers appear to be working their way out through your conversation)...

I'm slightly surprised that you haven't defended the 'virtue' of faith. It is probably one of the most important aspects of any Christian denomination and arguably the reason why millions actually believe.

Faith isn't why some believe, but how. And, to be fair, faith is how most of us find and process the world. That faith may be more or less speculative, depending on the issue and our foundational faith in rationality.

If hell cannot be justified, then it has no reason to exist.

If hell becomes the product of your will, your choice, it is just and justified. If hell is the absence of the good you now enjoy the influence of, the withdraw of it in every aspect, affect and effect, then you aren't so much consigned to hell as become it. And you won't so much suffer as become suffering itself. And it will be a perfection of your will. And it will be just.

And that's not the only way to justify hell. Just one notion.

If that earthquake that will strike somewhere can be stopped, it should.

Why? In the eternal course of things, why?

We would do it if we could (and imagine the outrage if we didn't).

I've witnessed children loudly demand this or that of their parents, certain of the right of it. But this reduces God to genie and the point of existence vanishes with it. Why not stop horror becomes why shouldn't I be beautiful becomes why aren't we all perfect becomes why aren't we God, if you follow the string. Ultimately that string is a vanity.

God should be held precisely to the same standards if he is interested in the fate of humanity.

Supra. And you're assuming, within the context of God, that His judgement and process is inferior to yours, which is rationally absurd; or you're attempting to judge Him into oblivion from without, which is equally absurd and for the same reason.

But God knows that we will sin. God created us imperfect with the propensity to sin.

Christ managed to make the right decisions, setting the notion that sin is less than willful, that it is inevitable, on its ear. The same mechanism which allows you to negate one impulse can be used for every. You aren't found wanting because it's your nature, but because it's your choice.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Hi Arthur! I understand the desire that underlies Universalism, but it cannot be reconciled to the Bible which is very clear about eternal suffering. Also, it is a dangerous perspective to take. As this thread asks: "What if you're wrong?" Many who believed such will wind up in eternal torment. Are you really willing to risk that based on personal desire - especially when it contradicts the Bible?

Hi NM. :e4e:

You're presuming that everyone who ascribes to such does so based on personal desire/whim which is simply not the case. I formerly attended a Pentecostal church, (which several would denounce in itself) and despite my misgivings and discomfort with the hellfire/brimstone aspects I didn't embrace universalism upon discovery because it 'sounded nice'. To begin with I rejected it as I couldn't reconcile it with certain passages myself. There again it worked the other way also. Eternal suffering was contradicted by God reconciling/restoring all. So I abandoned the 'whole thing' for rather a long time afterwards. It's only been in fairly recent years where (thanks to certain people here and elsewhere better versed) I educated myself as to the original texts and the formation of such doctrines where no such contradiction exists. I don't deny that it's easily the most positive belief but that's rather an effect than actual cause to believe it.

I get that you don't believe it's correct. Then again there's plenty who think Calvinists are 'hellbound' and Calvinism itself irreconcilable with the bible so what then?

I don't believe that an Almighty loving God would sentence people to an eternity of suffering for not believing the "correct" theology whilst here.

:e4e:

 

[Skavau]

It is a virtue impossible to obtain apart from the gift of God, so it isn't something I can brag about or defend. I enjoy faith because God has given it to me in full measure.

If faith is a gift, then how would you personally recommend someone to believe then?

Since hell exists (if we are to believe the Bible), and since justice is a thing that flows from God (He cannot be unjust), then hell must be justifiable. That you and I cannot find justification for it is beside the point.

But the problem here is that I imagine you would label God no matter what he decreed as justifiable at all times. That is to say that if God suddenly endorsed murder, you would have to accept it as moral. That is also to say (responding to the common complaint about that example) that if God suddenly changed his mind you would also have to accept it as moral. You necessarily void morality to nothing more than obedience towards God.

We are sorely limited in vision, not being able to see across time and space, and not being able to see the hearts of men, you and I. God is not limited in sight the way we are. He sees and knows all things concerning His creation. We can no more judge His provision of hell than we can officiate in a football game on the other side of the globe.

The above is a predicament solely for you. From where I stand, I am responding to fallible humans informing me that the apparently benevolent God they believe in endorses eternal torture. What do you imagine is my reaction?

No, God should be held to much higher standards since the fate of humanity is in His hands. The trouble is, we are so temporal - thinking only of the now - whereas God is eternal and thinks of the eternal consequences. Neither you nor I know the good that might come of that earthquake or that volcano.

Then you view as means to an end. What of the millions of those dead before infancy through natural disasters?

We are made with the freedom to choose sin or not. How is that "imperfect?" Should we have been made with limits on our freedom, that we could not choose to hate God or to ignore Him?

This is an issue of semantics. We have the propensity to sin and being imperfect or ungodly if you like we will all do so at some point. How is fair then for God to judge us for doing exactly as he knew we'd do, exactly as he'd see us do and exactly how he designed us to be able to do?

This trouble you are having here is due to your misunderstanding of the person of God. He is holy. He cannot abide sin.

This is white noise to me I'm afraid. It does not provide a sufficient answer to how God is acting rationally when he holds us to obscene standards that we simply cannot match.

. Consider: everything that we know flows from His existence - it's all here because creativity is part of who He is. That he allows us enough latitude to sin in this world is an amazing thing all by itself - we flow from holiness, but are allowed to be unholy... for a time. We are allowed to choose sin, but we must be separated from that sin if we are to enter into God's presence, unfiltered, and survive.

Then this is an incoherent paradigm that God has endorsed. I can only presume that the only successful way to literally be free from sin is to pass the buck to Jesus and have him pay the burden (or have his sacrifice metaphysically pay the burden), and that's fine in itself - but to do such a thing requires a specific conviction in it being true. That is, what of the millions of people that simply cannot believe in such a redemption, don't believe that it ever happened and/or see another way to salvation (Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism etc). No-one could be taken seriously if they accused a devoted Muslim of forgoing God and refusing his presence. What do you believe concerning them?

The choice to love God or not is made on this side of the grave and sealed at death, if we are to believe the Bible.

What of those that don't believe a God exists?

 

[nicholsmom]

If faith is a gift, then how would you personally recommend someone to believe then?

But the problem here is that I imagine you would label God no matter what he decreed as justifiable at all times.

What of those that don't believe a God exists?

I'm not sure I should proceed at this point, Skavau, as it seems we have come back to our starting point - the nature of the god of Christianity. I have tried to show you in many ways how your vision of God is totally different from the Christian view of God. I can see from this post that none of that has sunk in. You have either forgotten that your understanding of the Christian god and the Christian understanding of God are irreconcilable.

You are doing battle with a straw man instead of the Christian God. I don't know how better to tell you than I already have.

If I come up with something new to add to this conversation, I'll certainly bring it here.

 

[Skavau]

I'm not sure I should proceed at this point, Skavau, as it seems we have come back to our starting point - the nature of the god of Christianity. I have tried to show you in many ways how your vision of God is totally different from the Christian view of God.

I'm not sure what you have shown that is specifically different from what I said other than on semantics. You have said that eternal torture bothers you (which was an honest thing to say) but have not claimed that it does not exist. You have not really disagreed that we are to be judged for our actions and nor have you disputed vicarious redemption. You have expressed your honesty and explained how you withhold moral judgment regarding God (if it conflicts) due to trust in his better judgment.

 

[Town Heretic]

In that case none of my answers/objections were met. In and out for lunch. Returning to a better bit of contemplation under an azure sky. If you want any part of that have at it. If you don't, keep what you have.

:e4e:

 

[nicholsmom]

I'm not sure what you have shown that is specifically different from what I said other than on semantics. You have said that eternal torture bothers you (which was an honest thing to say) but have not claimed that it does not exist. You have not really disagreed that we are to be judged for our actions and nor have you disputed vicarious redemption. You have expressed your honesty and explained how you withhold moral judgment regarding God (if it conflicts) due to trust in his better judgment.

I have described God. That was the first post, I believe that I gave in response to one of yours. You seem to mistake God for a super-powerful, super-intelligent being not unlike us except by degree. Have a look back, if you're interested, at the descriptions I give of God.

Not only that, but I withhold moral judgment over that of which I have imperfect vision, not because God has better judgment, but because He is the embodiment of justice, and because He sees what I cannot.

God cannot be judged by me any more than an ant can hold us in contempt for planting a garden. The ant can't see the greater good.

 

[nicholsmom]

Hi NM. :e4e:

You're presuming that everyone who ascribes to such does so based on personal desire/whim which is simply not the case.

I apologize for the implication. I had no notion of your path to your belief and it was wrong for me to presume.

I get that you don't believe it's correct. Then again there's plenty who think Calvinists are 'hellbound' and Calvinism itself irreconcilable with the bible so what then?

I was rather surprised to hear a new friend tell me that she believed that Calvinists are hellbound. When I asked her why she thought I'd go to hell (yes, I admit I was baiting her), she couldn't give a coherent answer (meaning she couldn't answer questions regarding her answer and accused me of twisting her words - I promise you, I did not). I told her that it was very unChristian of her to tell me that I'm going to hell without telling me why nor how I could avoid it. Needless to say, we aren't friends any more Why do people have to be that way?

I don't know, Arthur, who will wind up in Hell, but I'm not taking any chances. I'm gonna keep learning as much as I can from the Bible and preaching that to all who will listen. It isn't something that can be glossed over - it's eternity at stake.

I don't believe that an Almighty loving God would sentence people to an eternity of suffering for not believing the "correct" theology whilst here.

:e4e:

I'm not going to repeat my earlier error and accuse you of emotionalism again. I assume that this belief can be backed up by Scripture, but I will also be honest and tell you that I fear you have misinterpreted those Scriptures.

I do not believe that it is failure to believe the "correct" theology that damns, but rather sin unredeemed.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I apologize for the implication. I had no notion of your path to your belief and it was wrong for me to presume.

No probs NM. Appreciated. :cheers:

I was rather surprised to hear a new friend tell me that she believed that Calvinists are hellbound. When I asked her why she thought I'd go to hell (yes, I admit I was baiting her), she couldn't give a coherent answer (meaning she couldn't answer questions regarding her answer and accused me of twisting her words - I promise you, I did not). I told her that it was very unChristian of her to tell me that I'm going to hell without telling me why nor how I could avoid it. Needless to say, we aren't friends any more Why do people have to be that way?

It wasn't just unChristian of her, it was ignorant and arrogant as well. Unfortunately people of all manner of theological persuasion indulge in such and the common denominator invariably involves the above in my experience...there really is no excuse for it IMO. *sigh*

I don't know, Arthur, who will wind up in Hell, but I'm not taking any chances. I'm gonna keep learning as much as I can from the Bible and preaching that to all who will listen. It isn't something that can be glossed over - it's eternity at stake.

Learning is obviously a positive thing. I'll endeavour to do the same...

I'm not going to repeat my earlier error and accuse you of emotionalism again. I assume that this belief can be backed up by Scripture, but I will also be honest and tell you that I fear you have misinterpreted those Scriptures.

I won't deny that emotionalism played a part in my initial attraction towards it. It gave a spark of hope which my then church and its doctrine/attitudes had practically extinguished. But to be true to oneself requires honest inquiry/reflection, and I knew I was too unknowledgable on such matters to ascribe based on my own limited understanding alone. There may well be those who believe it simply because it 'sounds nice', but in general I've found universalists to be very well versed and thoughtful on the subject. I realize you think I'm misinterpreting certain verses but in honesty I think you do the same. So we're kinda in a stalemate on that score....

I do not believe that it is failure to believe the "correct" theology that damns, but rather sin unredeemed.

Fair enough.

:e4e:

 

[godrulz]

GR, for once, just once, please try to actually prove or support your declarations. We can start with the basic one (actually two) here:

It can be demonstrated that Jesus is God and that the Bible is the Word of God. ​

So- go ahead and do this. It would be best to start a separate thread.

I have a thread on the Deity of Christ, but it is showing what the Bible teaches for those who reject the Bible teaching. Even if you were convinced the Bible does teach the Deity of Christ, you could still reject it as a false teaching.

Christian apologetics have endless sources. I have linked a book on the inspiration, canonicity, transmission, etc. of the Bible, so I have done my homework and am satisfied with the evidence. Will I be able to convince you with some posts if a whole book will not?

We learn about the Deity of Christ from the revelation of Scripture. If you reject the Bible, you cut yourself off from spiritual truth. If you accept the NT, then we have demonstrated the truth.

You are assuming that a medical book that describes the pathology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment of a simple illness must be wrong, so how can we help you? Do I have to prove that the text is from a doctor and backed up by science or can you read the book and see it is true.

You underestimate Christian apologetics and are biased against or ignorant of it. Your problem is probably more heart than head or laziness. Eternal, spiritual issues are paramount, but you would rather trust a stranger on the internet (depend on me) than a wealth of conservative, credible, evidence-based research by experts in the field (go argue with the secular archaeologists that have artifacts that confirm biblical accounts).

 

[godrulz]

Just because you're an arrogant stuffed shirt doesn't make the same out of your brethern, fortunately. As others here have pointed out, a declarative statement (especially from you) does not make something so. Your personal conviction is not proof of anything. Since you seem completely numb to this concept I'd appreciate it if you left me alone on this thread. The adults are talking.

If my personal convictions are based on truth, this is not being arrogant, just correct. It would be arrogant to believe a false thing and dogmatically say the moon is green when it is not. It is not arrogant to say 2+2=4.