Christians: Why would an all-good God base our salvation from Hell on whether or not we believe in a 2,000-year-old supernatural story?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Where General Relativity is used in technology I would use it.  Where General Relativity is used to conflict with the Bible I would reject it.

 

Stranger

 

That would be cherry-picking.

 

And if a technology (or the science that underpins it) does conflict with the Bible, who's responsibility is it to find that out? 

 

Yours perhaps?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lucy]

 

 

The Bible didn't say it was a magic show, or that they were magic tricks.  

 

Stranger

 

 

 

So you ignore my point and only respond to my use of the term magic trick? Whether you call it magic or miracles doesn't affect the price vs reward. The price was small compared to what was gained.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I have never head islam say this.   You are saying it as an example, but have you ever heard them say this?    

 

Christianity and islam do not make identical claims.   

 

Just because both come under the topic of 'religion' doesn't make them the same.    Just because you see them the same due to their being religions, doesn't make them the same.  

 

Probably not.  

 

Stranger

 

No problem.

 

Let's say there's you and another a Christian posting in Ex-C.

 

Both of you are making identical claims, both of you are using circular arguments and both of you claim to be spiritually guided.

 

And then you disagree about something.

 

We cannot tell you apart.

 

Can you resolve that for us?

[Stranger]

 

 

Not at all, I think "faith" can be a positive thing, when it's based in reason. For example, I have faith (complete trust or confidence, per dictionary) in my husband not to cheat on me. I base this faith on the history of his actions thus far, his trustworthiness in other facets of his life, and his audible promise not to do so. I don't think the faith and reason are mutually exclusive. I do think faith in christianity, specifically, is not compatible with reason. This is suspect to me because of the other ways faith can be shown to work with reason in a positive way.

 

As for historical deconstruction, the definition of deconstruct is "to take apart or examine (something) in order to reveal the basis or composition often with the intention of exposing biases, flaws, or inconsistencies." So to do this historically, we would keep our beliefs (for or against) to ourselves, and look objectively at the evidence before us. We look at the inconsistencies not only contained within the bible itself, but also at it's incompatibility with other contemporary texts and for physical evidence of what is contained in the Bible. So not only do we want to know the actual historical account of the resurrection (which is confusion and inconsistent within Scripture), but we look at other historical facts. Was there really a census that made Joseph go to Bethlehem? Historically speaking no. How do other pagan religions of the time influence the authors of the bible? Are the authors who they said they were? Did the Noah's Flood story come from the Epic of Gilgamesh (which came from an even older flood tale)? Did Dante's inferno influence our understanding of hell? Is Adam and Eve allegory or was there a historical, literal creation? We have historical evidence of the Sumerians, of the Roman empire....we should be able to find evidence of the 40 years the Hebrews spent in Egypt. 

 

Keep in mind, I'm speaking only of historical deconstruction. I am not taking into account moral, philosophical/metaphysical, scientific, cultural, logical, or even emotional deconstructions, among many more. 

 

But....my faith 'is' a negative to  you.   Isn't it?

 

If faith is based on 'reason', it isn't faith.  

 

When you say 'historically speaking' you mean no historical evidence at this time.  Correct?   In other words, are you saying the Exodus didn't occur because there is no evidence at this time?   Or, are you saying until there is evidence, the Exodus didn't occur?   

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

Hi Stranger,

 

You say you were raised to know Jesus because God wants His people living amongst His people and being taught His ways.  So does this mean that children born to non-Christian parents are already not "His people"?

 

Howdy, pleased to meet you

 

No, it does not mean that.   Overall, God will place His people among His people.  But, there are those who He places among those who are not His people.    So, children born to non-Christian parents usually are not His people.  But He has those who are.   Just like there are those born to believing parents who are not His people.   But that would be a minority.  

 

Stranger

[ag_NO_stic]

 

 

But....my faith 'is' a negative to  you.   Isn't it?

 

If faith is based on 'reason', it isn't faith.  

 

When you say 'historically speaking' you mean no historical evidence at this time.  Correct?   In other words, are you saying the Exodus didn't occur because there is no evidence at this time?   Or, are you saying until there is evidence, the Exodus didn't occur?   

 

Stranger

 

I think your faith is good and, relatively positive. Just as "reason" and "logic" is positive. I think your faith in christianity, specifically, is bad. I used to believe in christianity because I thought faith was a good reason. I have also changed my beliefs for a reason. I think it's good to have a little faith every now and then, life would be dull without it. It absolutely can and should be based in rationality. I have "faith" in my car working, because it's reasonable and demonstrably "proven." Just as you think we put too much value in "reason," so we think you put too much stock in "faith." I don't think they are mutually exclusive, in fact faith depends on reason. 

 

I feel you'd have a hard time saying faith is not based in reason, because you have reasons for your faith in christianity too. The bible is convincing to you as the word of god, so you believe it. You have faith in god because it's a "reasonable" explanation for how life got here. Isn't this correct?

 

Sure, I have no interest in nitpicking words with you. I think I'd give "the exodus" another look if evidence were available. However, don't you think it's more reasonable to wait until that evidence is there to believe it? I wouldn't believe in flying pink unicorns until I had a reason to, right? Not vice versa?

[Stranger]

 

 

That would be cherry-picking.

 

And if a technology (or the science that underpins it) does conflict with the Bible, who's responsibility is it to find that out? 

 

Yours perhaps?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't worry about it until science comes against the Bible.   As long as science stays within its realm of knowledge, then it doesn't matter to me.   

 

Again, I don't need science to know what I believe.   

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

So you ignore my point and only respond to my use of the term magic trick? Whether you call it magic or miracles doesn't affect the price vs reward. The price was small compared to what was gained.

 

Sorry, but I don't believe I ignored your point.   I am answering a lot of posts.  If you could tell me how I ignored your point would be helpful.   I remember considering your post and that this answer I gave covered all that you said.   If I am mistaken, please show where.  

 

That you use the term 'magic' affected what you said about the price.   The price wasn't 'magic'.  It was real.   If I misunderstand, let me know.

 

Stranger

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

All men everywhere have the knowledge of God in them.  And are thus accountable to God.   (Rom.  1:19-20)

 

Except they don't. You can go to some parts of the world, even with all of technology and globalisation, and those people have never heard of God. We don't have knowledge of god or we wouldn't be questioning the existence of said god. No doubt you'll come up with some line like "we are rejecting god" blah blah. Again you are wrong. Let's take smoking as an example again. I have knowledge of smoking, I know smoking exists, I feel the effects of people smoking, I know what it does. That is knowledge. I don't disbelieve smoking, but I reject it. Do you understand the difference between knowing and rejecting something, and not knowing and therefore lacking belief in something?

 

 

Yes, God's hand was seen in Christianizing Europe. (Acts 16: 6-10)   Islam is not of God.  Islam has perverted the Bible and changed it.    It was created by Muhammad for a religion to the Arab peoples.   It is actually based on their former idols but conformed to compete with Christianity.   It is not of God's hand because it is contrary to God and the Bible.

 

I'm sorry, but you might have missed the point. Macedonia is not Europe, it is part of Europe - Europe as a whole was Christianized by the state proclaiming it as the official religion to the extent they stamped out other religions forcefully. And in other parts of the world the European armies would go through, conquer land, and missionaries came in behind them. There was, shall we say, strong incentive to convert.

 

Ironic - we can trace your God all the way back to the Canaanite god Elohim. We can also find traces of older myths in stories through the bible. So very ironic.

 

 

Well, God chose the Jews.   God blessed and cursed certain of Noah's sons from whom all the races would come from.  God Christianized Europe and not the other peoples.   If that is what you call a racist, then yes God is a racist.   

 

Yeah the whole dozens of races coming from 3 sons things is scientifically impossible in the timeframe allowed and given information provided in the bible. The whole Noah's story is folklore based on older Sumerian tales. Not a shred of evidence or any great flood, or a bottle neck of genetic inbreeding 4000 years ago.

 

 

As a child of God I am a slave of God as I have been bought and paid for by the blood of Jesus Christ.  Being a slave doesn't mean God doesn't love me.    And the price He paid speaks to the love He has for His people.   

 

This has to be one of the saddest lines I have ever seen written on this forum. You stay a slave then \Stranger, and if you ever want to get rid of your chains come ask us for help. Ironic that in the civilised world slavery is illegal, but once again we can see the bible condones slavery to the point people are happy to proclaim they are gods slaves. If you are a salve you have no free will. You are a puppet pulled on strings of which you have no control. You are suffering from Stockholm syndrome mate. I think you might need help.

[ag_NO_stic]

 

All men everywhere have the knowledge of God in them.  And are thus accountable to God.   (Rom.  1:19-20)

 

Any idea why they choose to worship the rain? Or the stars? Or the sun? Or the moon? Or the universe? Or their ancestors? Or a wooden carving of a hippo that they name and then worship? 

[Stranger]

 

 

No problem.

 

Let's say there's you and another a Christian posting in Ex-C.

 

Both of you are making identical claims, both of you are using circular arguments and both of you claim to be spiritually guided.

 

And then you disagree about something.

 

We cannot tell you apart.

 

Can you resolve that for us?

 

There are things within Christianity that we as Christians can disagree on and argue and debate and may never come to an agreement.   For example: the Gap Theory.  Many, if not most Christians,  disagree with me on it.   Yet they have come to Christ for salvation and are indeed Christians.   What we have in commmon is Who Jesus Christ is.  And that salvation is found only in Jesus Christ.   

 

All that you would need to know is that we are both Christian.  And yes, in that regard you cannot tell us apart.   

 

Stranger

[TABA]

 

 

Howdy, pleased to meet you

 

No, it does not mean that.   Overall, God will place His people among His people.  But, there are those who He places among those who are not His people.    So, children born to non-Christian parents usually are not His people.  But He has those who are.   Just like there are those born to believing parents who are not His people.   But that would be a minority.  

 

Stranger

 

So let's say 100 million babies are born worldwide in 2018.  Each one, at birth, will either be one of His people or not?  What does this mean, exactly?  Are those babies who are not His people destined to be saved, while those who are not are inevitably lost?  Is that how it works?

[Stranger]

 

 

I think your faith is good and, relatively positive. Just as "reason" and "logic" is positive. I think your faith in christianity, specifically, is bad. I used to believe in christianity because I thought faith was a good reason. I have also changed my beliefs for a reason. I think it's good to have a little faith every now and then, life would be dull without it. It absolutely can and should be based in rationality. I have "faith" in my car working, because it's reasonable and demonstrably "proven." Just as you think we put to much value in "reason," so we think you put too much stock in "faith." I don't think they are mutually exclusive, in fact faith depends on reason. 

 

I feel you'd have a hard time saying faith is not based in reason, because you have reasons for your faith in christianity too. The bible is convincing to you as the word of god, so you believe it. You have faith in god because it's a "reasonable" explanation for how life got here. Isn't this correct?

 

Sure, I have no interest in nitpicking words with you. I think I'd give "the exodus" another look if evidence were available. However, don't you think it's more reasonable to wait until that evidence is there to believe it? I wouldn't believe in flying pink unicorns until I had a reason to, right? Not vice versa?

 

The Christians faith is based on the testimony of Scripture.  We believe it is 'reasonable'  but not the 'reason' of the world.  We 'know', but not the 'knowledge' of the world.   I have faith in God, because I have faith in God.    I believe, not because it is reasonable to the world, but because I believe.  I believe it is so, and I cannot change it.  

 

Well, you're saying I should not believe the Exodus account in the Bible until more evidence was available.  I say, I believe it already.  And I await science to discover and prove it is so.  Till then I know it is so.     

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

So let's say 100 million babies are born worldwide in 2018.  Each one, at birth, will either be one of His people or not?  What does this mean, exactly?  Are those babies who are not His people destined to be saved, while those who are not are inevitably lost?  Is that how it works?

 

The simple answer is yes.   

 

Stranger

 

 

[Stranger]

 

 

Any idea why they choose to worship the rain? Or the stars? Or the sun? Or the moon? Or the universe? Or their ancestors? Or a wooden carving of a hippo that they name and then worship? 

 

Well, when men turn away from God, they will still worship something.   

 

Stranger

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I don't worry about it until science comes against the Bible.  

 

 

And how would you know this?

 

 

 

As long as science stays within its realm of knowledge, then it doesn't matter to me.   

 

Ah ...so you wash your hands of the responsibility of finding out.  Convenient for you.

 

 

Again, I don't need science to know what I believe.   

 

Stranger

 

Correct.

 

But not for the reason you might think.  Your faith excludes evidence and science relies upon evidence. 

 

Which means that you cannot dismiss anything in science on the basis of evidence - you can only dismiss it on the basis of your faith.

 

Curious, don't you think, Stranger?

 

You use your evidence-free faith to dismiss things that are supported and backed up with evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

[Stranger]

 

 

Except they don't. You can go to some parts of the world, even with all of technology and globalisation, and those people have never heard of God. We don't have knowledge of god or we wouldn't be questioning the existence of said god. No doubt you'll come up with some line like "we are rejecting god" blah blah. Again you are wrong. Let's take smoking as an example again. I have knowledge of smoking, I know smoking exists, I feel the effects of people smoking, I know what it does. That is knowledge. I don't disbelieve smoking, but I reject it. Do you understand the difference between knowing and rejecting something, and not knowing and therefore lacking belief in something?

 

 

I'm sorry, but you might have missed the point. Macedonia is not Europe, it is part of Europe - Europe as a whole was Christianized by the state proclaiming it as the official religion to the extent they stamped out other religions forcefully. And in other parts of the world the European armies would go through, conquer land, and missionaries came in behind them. There was, shall we say, strong incentive to convert.

 

Ironic - we can trace your God all the way back to the Canaanite god Elohim. We can also find traces of older myths in stories through the bible. So very ironic.

 

 

Yeah the whole dozens of races coming from 3 sons things is scientifically impossible in the timeframe allowed and given information provided in the bible. The whole Noah's story is folklore based on older Sumerian tales. Not a shred of evidence or any great flood, or a bottle neck of genetic inbreeding 4000 years ago.

 

 

This has to be one of the saddest lines I have ever seen written on this forum. You stay a slave then \Stranger, and if you ever want to get rid of your chains come ask us for help. Ironic that in the civilised world slavery is illegal, but once again we can see the bible condones slavery to the point people are happy to proclaim they are gods slaves. If you are a salve you have no free will. You are a puppet pulled on strings of which you have no control. You are suffering from Stockholm syndrome mate. I think you might need help.

 

Except (Rom. 1:19-20) disagrees with you.

 

Had Paul not gone to Europe, then Europe would not be Christian.   You asked what I based it on and I showed you.  

 

The Canaanites did not worship the God of the Bible.  If they did, they wouldn't have been destroyed by the God of the Bible.

 

Well, the Bible disagrees with your statement.   

 

Only God has 'free will'.  Man has a will.  But , it isn't free.  

 

Stranger

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

There are things within Christianity that we as Christians can disagree on and argue and debate and may never come to an agreement.   For example: the Gap Theory.  Many, if not most Christians,  disagree with me on it.   Yet they have to Christ for salvation and are indeed Christians.   What we have in commmon is Who Jesus Christ is.  And that salvation is found only in Jesus Christ.   

 

All that you would need to know is that we are both Christian.  And yes, in that regard you cannot tell us apart.   

 

Stranger

 

Then it's a good thing that Troy Brooks, the Christian who runs this site...

 

http://biblocality.com/forums/

 

...isn't the Christian who is disagreeing with you, here in Ex-C.

 

He believes that God's New Jerusalem will sited on the summit of Olympus Mons, the highest mountain on the planet Mars.

 

We therefore couldn't tell you apart from a raving lunatic.

[TABA]

 

 

The simple answer is yes.   

 

Stranger

 

 

 

So let's say Baby A is one of His people.  Is Baby A inevitably going to become a Christian and be saved?  

 

And if Baby B is NOT one of His people, is that baby inevitably lost?

[Lucy]

 

 

Sorry, but I don't believe I ignored your point.   I am answering a lot of posts.  If you could tell me how I ignored your point would be helpful.   I remember considering your post and that this answer I gave covered all that you said.   If I am mistaken, please show where.  

 

That you use the term 'magic' affected what you said about the price.   The price wasn't 'magic'.  It was real.   If I misunderstand, let me know.

 

Stranger

 

My comment was about the price vs reward. The price was not magic. I was using magic to describe the method. The method by which Jesus died and came back is irrelevant. He died and came back and now he gets to rule the universe forever. But then he was going to rule the world forever anyway. So he did it to save mankind from the hell he himself created? If that's the case, then he set an unpayable price for the salvation of mankind and then paid it himself to himself to exalt himself. He set a price so uniquely special that only he could ever pay it and then he paid it to himself to show how awesome he is. How is that paying a price? How does that show love? It shows abuse of power and emotional manipulation if anything. I don't see that any price was paid if nothing was lost. He gained "experience of suffering" and lost nothing. 

 

What if a trillionaire says all of humanity owes him money so he is going to nuke the whole planet, but he won't do it if the people pay him several trillion dollars even though it's impossible. After no one is able to do it, he pays it to himself and announces the debt is paid because he loves us all too much to nuke us all even though we deserve it. Would everyone praise his name? Did he pay a high price to show us his love? It's a pointless attention seeking gesture.

[ag_NO_stic]

 

 

The Christians faith is based on the testimony of Scripture.  We believe it is 'reasonable'  but not the 'reason' of the world.  We 'know', but not the 'knowledge' of the world.   I have faith in God, because I have faith in God.    I believe, not because it is reasonable to the world, but because I believe.  I believe it is so, and I cannot change it.  

 

Well, you're saying I should not believe the Exodus account in the Bible until more evidence was available.  I say, I believe it already.  And I await science to discover and prove it is so.  Till then I know it is so.     

 

Stranger

 

But isn't the "reason of the world" made by god? Wouldn't our ability to reason and to find fallacies in arguments not only be made by god, but does it not reflect that we are "made in his image?" Who decides what is the "reason of the world" and what is "god given reason" if it's all god given?

 

Fair enough, on this point. I know when to pick my battles, you and I will argue until we are blue in the face on this point. All I can say is, if god made both a "reasonable, logical" brain and principles of logic.....who are you to go against them?  

[Stranger]

 

 

And how would you know this?

 

 

Ah ...so you wash your hands of the responsibility of finding out.  Convenient for you.

 

 

Correct.

 

But not for the reason you might think.  Your faith excludes evidence and science relies upon evidence. 

 

Which means that you cannot dismiss anything in science on the basis of evidence - you can only dismiss it on the basis of your faith.

 

Curious, don't you think, Stranger?

 

You use your evidence-free faith to dismiss things that are supported and backed up with evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know it when science comes against the Bible.   When science says something like the creation account in Genesis can't be true because we have learned, etc. etc.   

 

Science is not supposed to be delving in matters of Spirit...is it?  When it does, I reject it.  When the Bible says something of the matter of creation, and science rejects it, then I believe the Bible. 

 

I dismiss science when it's findings go against the Bible.  Because science will change having learned more about something then they knew before.   

 

Stranger

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

The Christians faith is based on the testimony of Scripture.  We believe it is 'reasonable'  but not the 'reason' of the world.  We 'know', but not the 'knowledge' of the world.   I have faith in God, because I have faith in God.    I believe, not because it is reasonable to the world, but because I believe.  I believe it is so, and I cannot change it.  

 

And by your own admission, evidence cannot change your mind either.

 

So the bones of Jesus could be dug up tomorrow and you would do as William Lane Craig said he'd do - disbelieve the evidence of his own eyes.

 

And you believe that to disbelieve your own eyes is a reasonable thing?

 

If so, where would you religion be if the disciples had employed that kind of 'reason' with the empty tomb?

 

By your logic they should have believed that Jesus was still dead.

 

 

 

Well, you're saying I should not believe the Exodus account in the Bible until more evidence was available.  I say, I believe it already.  And I await science to discover and prove it is so.  Till then I know it is so.     

 

Stranger

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

I know it when science comes against the Bible.   When science says something like the creation account in Genesis can't be true because we have learned, etc. etc.   

 

Science is not supposed to be delving in matters of Spirit...is it?  When it does, I reject it.  When the Bible says something of the matter of creation, and science rejects it, then I believe the Bible. 

 

I dismiss science when it's findings go against the Bible.  Because science will change having learned more about something then they knew before.   

 

Stranger

 

You're starting to repeat yourself.

 

Specific examples of how you would know.  

 

Please.

 

 

[ag_NO_stic]

 

Science is not supposed to be delving in matters of Spirit...is it?  When it does, I reject it.  When the Bible says something of the matter of creation, and science rejects it, then I believe the Bible. 

 

Except that there is science delving "into the spirit": I will disregard (for now) that there is not a whole lot of evidence for a "spirit," and say simply thatscience does have a lot to say about our capacity for spirituality in our brains. Our brain is very flexible and adaptable, it feeds off of what we reinforce.