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?

[midniterider]

 

 

My parents pretty much just knew the basics.   And I don't remember anything they taught me about God that I ever disagreed with.  The church we went to, however, did have some things that I questioned even as a youth.    These things seemed harmless to them but to me they seemed they would result in a liberal unbelieving faith.    Overtime, my suspicion was proven correct.

 

 

Your suspicion was proven correct? Did someone in your church lose the faith?

 

What does 'liberal unbelieving faith' mean, exactly?

[midniterider]

 

  Jesus at this time is physically sitting at the right hand of God.

 

I thought Jesus 'was' God. Is he sitting at his own right hand? That's confusing.

[bornagainathiest]

 

"What I said was you err because you trust what science says as final conclusions.  And they are not.  They are conclusions at this time only.   Open for change." 

 

"You err because you trust science to give you final conclusions, which it can't.   It is always still learning."

 

"You don't trust or expect science to offer final conclusions.    Which means your so called 'evidence' is very 'fluid'."  

 

Hello again Stranger.

I've cited you three times because I'm interested to find out more about your take on science.  

Of the sciences, mathematics is considered to be the one that deals in absolutes.

Therefore, if I give you an example, perhaps you could demonstrate for me the fluidity of this evidence?  

Or show me why the example isn't a final conclusion?  

Or how this example is open for change?

 

Here it is.

 

2 + 2 = 4

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

Do you trust science to give you final conclusions about creation or God at this time?

 

Stranger

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Would you please be so good as to answer my three questions, Stranger?

 

I will, of course, answer yours.

 

But please fulfill my polite request first.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[nutrichuckles93]

 

 

I can 'know' God's will.   Because I can know God.  Such authority comes from God, which I and every other believer have.   You on the other hand don't have the authority to tell me I don't have the authority.   

 

What I was taught comes from the Bible.  Which comes from God.  Who placed there to parents to be taught the Bible. 

 

Yes, my parents Bible knowledge was not as much I have today.   But they were faithful to that which they had.   All believers are still learning truths in the Bible.   Always learning does not equate with faulty.

 

Stranger

In order for me to not be skeptical of that supposed authority, you need to do a little more than just say you can communicate with this deity (that never wanted to meaningfully communicate with me) and that he gives you such authority. There needs to be more than simply your say so. Are you willing to provide anything other than that?

 

I can understand the need to believe god does everything for a reason or put people in places for a reason. Otherwise, it would be very hard to reconcile what god says with the world before us.

 

"Always learning does not equate with faulty." Sure, it simply means you do not have the resources or ability to know all knowledge at all times. However, since you say that about the bible and god's will, I think that same principle could be applied to the sciences you are so quick to dismiss here. As technologies grow and resources extend, we are able to learn more about things like the origins of the universe. We learn more because our ability to gain knowledge expands. The men who wrote the bible did not have the tools we have now to gain such knowledge. They only had guesses.

 

Sure, I'll grant you that scientists today definitely do not know all things and maybe never will. But they have the ability to know infinitely more than those did who wrote the bible in the day it was written.

[Stranger]

 

@Stranger, I want to thank you for making it very clear that, in reality, you don't really believe in an actual God or a real Jesus. Your faith stems only from a book, a book written by sinners, and no doubt the authors were men similar to you in many ways. Why does your only source of belief come from what these men have written? Because they said so? How do you know that what they wrote was the truth? Because they said so?

 

It would be helpful as you continue this discussion to cite the bible verses that support your statements - in every instance - not just when it's convenient for you. For example you say that "faith alone is required for salvation," but you offer no citation.

 Also, it would be polite of you to respond when someone provides evidence that clearly disproves you, rather than move on or flatly ignore it. Did you not see that LF clearly showed you how Muslims do require faith, citing the Quran and proving your assertion wrong? He asked you how one should discern by faith whether to believe the Muslim God and their Quran or to believe the Christian god and their bible. But perhaps you found that question too difficult to answer. 

 

Actually, I do believe in a real God and real Jesus Christ.   My faith stems from God and the Book that He wrote.   Even if I did not have the Book, I would believe.   I believe what the Bible says because I am of God, and it is of God, and it resonates with my spirit.    Because He said so.   I know His voice.

 

Understand that many here do not like Bible verses given.  So it all depends on who I am talking to whether I give them or not.   For you: (Rom.1:16-17)

 

Muslims do not require faith to be saved.   As I said before, every religion believes it is true and correct.   They require you to believe as they believe.  After that it is submit and obey.    In Christianity, faith is the key.  Faith sets in motion the Spirit of God to act on the believers behalf. You start in faith.  You walk by faith.   You end by faith.    To believe in islam simply places the muslim under law and submission. They then keep laws.    It is not faith that delivers the muslim, it is obedience to law.   

 

Jesus Christ said "my sheep hear my voice".   (John 10:27)

 

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

 

 

I'm sorry (and yes, I'm really sorry), I'm really not trying to be dense. I just don't understand what you are saying here. Please don't tell me to "read it again," I'm not sure what your asking me. Do you mind rephrasing?

 

 

I googled how to become a muslim and this site gives all kinds of answers. It seems faith (with conviction) is absolutely required when you say their version of the "sinner's prayer." Just some food for thought, to us what you are saying we need to be a christian is similar for islam.

 

http://gainpeace.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79:how-to-convert-to-islam-and-become-a-muslim&catid=44:becoming-muslim&Itemid=109

 

 

This thought does not make sense to me. Personally, if I made some cookies and "passed down my recipe to my child," my "thumbprints" were all over my creation, then basic research should bring scientists back to me. They should be able to bake the recipe and have the result reflect what I professed to create. If there is really a god, and it's specifically yahweh, then creation should absolutely point back to him as truth. Scientists don't typically approach things (at least they shouldn't) with the goal of making the world fit into their preconceived box, they follow where the research leads. It should, in theory, point back to god if the world is how he says it is and he actually created it.

 

If I believe the Bible, believe what it says about God and Christ;  then you say it isn't so;  how much reason is necessary for me to say you are wrong.  

 

Islam requires you to believe what they believe.   But it is not faith that saves.  It is submission and supposed law keeping.   In Christianity faith is the key.  It alone saves.   You begin, you walk, you end by faith.   

 

I'm not sure what you are saying.   Are you saying these scientists who became Christians did see God's finger prints in the creation?   If so, why do you not see them also?   I believe you are bias in your statements.   Scientists do approach things based on their already pre-conceived beliefs.     "In theory" is a major statement.

 

Stranger

[disillusioned]

 

 

Jesus Christ said "my sheep hear my voice".   (John 10:27)

 

 

And Stranger said "baaaa".

[Stranger]

 

 

Stranger: If someone is always learning about bible truths that does not equate with faulty. Ok.

So, by the same logic, science is not faulty, though it is always learning.

 

Does truth change? Or is it just our understanding of it that changes?

 

If someone over many years changed their understanding of the scriptures until they finally had the right understanding, could their continual updating of their knowledge of the unchanging truth be called a "fluid understanding" ? I think it could.

 

Science works similarly. The working of the universe may not change, but our understanding may. That doesn't mean it's faulty.

 

Someone cant read the bible once and fully understand it. It's a big book and might take decades to get a thorough knowledge of it.

Likewise, someone can't look up at the stars one time and fully understand the universe. It's a big place and we may never know everything about it.

 

If a new Christian does not know the full import of the bible, is he foolish? An idiot? Destined for hell? No.

If science does not know the entire inner workings of the universe is science invalid? No

 

Has  your understanding of the scriptures always been the same? Have you come to realize that some scripture meant something different than you thought?

 

 

 

Science is faulty in drawing conclusions that God does not exist or did not create the universe.   Those who progress in spiritual or Biblical knowledge, never will obtain knowledge that rejects God or Christ.   They build on that.     You think wrong.

 

Science is faulty as long as it draws the conclusion that God did not create and Christ is not the Saviour of the world.    Given enough time, science would change this.   But such time will not be given.  Thus science is faulty in drawing such conclusions.   

 

It takes being a believer in Christ to understand and progress in knowledge of the Scriptures.   I have no problem with science trying to understand the creation.  I have a problem when science says God didn't create it.

 

I have never said science is invalid.  I am all for science.  That is a charge of God for man. (Gen. 1:28)   Science becomes invalid when it contradicts the Bible.   When it contradicts God.

 

No, I have grown in knowledge of the Scriptures.   But my growth has never led me to say God does not exist.  Or God didn't write this Book.  Or Jesus Christ is not really the Son of God.  I have built on these truths.  Not denied them.

 

Stranger

 

 

[Stranger]

 

 

Your suspicion was proven correct? Did someone in your church lose the faith?

 

What does 'liberal unbelieving faith' mean, exactly?

 

Liberal unbelieving faith begins with emphasis on the goodness of man and not the sinfulness of man.   It always sounds good.  But it leads to a denial of who Jesus Christ really is.  Man becomes 'good'.   The necessity for a Saviour becomes less.   Because man is still basically 'good'.     Jesus Christ becomes a 'good man'.    But just a man.   A man of God, who appeals to our so called 'good nature'. 

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

I thought Jesus 'was' God. Is he sitting at his own right hand? That's confusing.

 

Jesus is God the Son.  He is at the right hand of God the Father.

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

And Stranger said "baaaa".

 

You bet I did.

 

Stranger

[nutrichuckles93]

 

 

Scientists do approach things based on their already pre-conceived beliefs.

 

Stranger

Admittedly, I am cherry-picking, but this stood out. Clearly, Stranger does not realize the irony of his statement here.

[Stranger]

 

 

"What I said was you err because you trust what science says as final conclusions.  And they are not.  They are conclusions at this time only.   Open for change." 

 

"You err because you trust science to give you final conclusions, which it can't.   It is always still learning."

 

"You don't trust or expect science to offer final conclusions.    Which means your so called 'evidence' is very 'fluid'."  

 

Hello again Stranger.

I've cited you three times because I'm interested to find out more about your take on science.  

Of the sciences, mathematics is considered to be the one that deals in absolutes.

Therefore, if I give you an example, perhaps you could demonstrate for me the fluidity of this evidence?  

Or show me why the example isn't a final conclusion?  

Or how this example is open for change?

 

Here it is.

 

2 + 2 = 4

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

Do you trust science to give you final conclusions about creation or God at this time?

 

Stranger

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Would you please be so good as to answer my three questions, Stranger?

 

I will, of course, answer yours.

 

But please fulfill my polite request first.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I have a lot of posts I have responded to.  Repeat your 3 questions.  

 

My question to you is, do you trust science to give you final conclusions about creation at this time.?

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

In order for me to not be skeptical of that supposed authority, you need to do a little more than just say you can communicate with this deity (that never wanted to meaningfully communicate with me) and that he gives you such authority. There needs to be more than simply your say so. Are you willing to provide anything other than that?

 

I can understand the need to believe god does everything for a reason or put people in places for a reason. Otherwise, it would be very hard to reconcile what god says with the world before us.

 

"Always learning does not equate with faulty." Sure, it simply means you do not have the resources or ability to know all knowledge at all times. However, since you say that about the bible and god's will, I think that same principle could be applied to the sciences you are so quick to dismiss here. As technologies grow and resources extend, we are able to learn more about things like the origins of the universe. We learn more because our ability to gain knowledge expands. The men who wrote the bible did not have the tools we have now to gain such knowledge. They only had guesses.

 

Sure, I'll grant you that scientists today definitely do not know all things and maybe never will. But they have the ability to know infinitely more than those did who wrote the bible in the day it was written.

 

Actually, a lot more is needed for  you not to be skeptical.  And that 'lot more' I can not provided.  I give you the testimony of the Scriptures.  That is as far as I can go.

 

The men who wrote the Bible were under the Divine inspiration of God.  They didn't need other tools. They didn't guess. 

 

Scientist's don't know more than God.  And God is the Author of the Bible.

 

Stranger

 

 

[nutrichuckles93]

Were you present for the divine inspiration those men were apparently under? Since the answer is obviously no, you cannot know such a thing. All you can know is this one book that tells you all these things. You never didn't believe because you were never given the choice not to. Because you were not taught another way and were taught from a young age to distrust anything said to the contrary. So that bias against what we are saying stems poisonously from your upbringing where you weren't encouraged to explore anything outside the belief.

 

Really? "God is the author of the bible." You have no way of backing that up.

[Stranger]

 

Were you present for the divine inspiration those men were apparently under? Since the answer is obviously no, you cannot know such a thing. All you can know is this one book that tells you all these things. You never didn't believe because you were never given the choice not to. Because you were not taught another way and were taught from a young age to distrust anything said to the contrary. So that bias against what we are saying stems poisonously from your upbringing where you weren't encouraged to explore anything outside the belief.

 

Really? "God is the author of the bible." You have no way of backing that up.

 

Were you present when the earth was created?   Obviously no.   Which means you just believe what others tell you.  

 

For me to distrust anything to the contrary was not taught me.  I did it because I knew God.   If that is a bias, so be it.    It stems from being of God.  

 

Why would I want to explore anything outside of God?   

 

Scripture declares the Bible is written by God.   Jesus Christ said, 'It is written'.    That was good enough for Him.  It is good enough for me.

 

Stranger

[nutrichuckles93]

And how is it that you "know" god? I mean, in what ways other than the book you've read, what you've been preached, and what you've thought god was telling you? Really, I would like a specific example. Of how he brought some knowledge or wisdom, or anything really, to you in a way that can be easily understood. Or less, I'll say, open to interpretation.

 

I would point out how you can't just use the bible to prove itself, but others have made that clear.

 

So please. An example of a moment in your life where god presented himself in a clearly definable way.

[Guest]

 

 

Actually, I do believe in a real God and real Jesus Christ.   My faith stems from God and the Book that He wrote.   Even if I did not have the Book, I would believe.   I believe what the Bible says because I am of God, and it is of God, and it resonates with my spirit.    Because He said so.   I know His voice.

 

Understand that many here do not like Bible verses given.  So it all depends on who I am talking to whether I give them or not.   For you: (Rom.1:16-17)

 

Muslims do not require faith to be saved.   As I said before, every religion believes it is true and correct.   They require you to believe as they believe.  After that it is submit and obey.    In Christianity, faith is the key.  Faith sets in motion the Spirit of God to act on the believers behalf. You start in faith.  You walk by faith.   You end by faith.    To believe in islam simply places the muslim under law and submission. They then keep laws.    It is not faith that delivers the muslim, it is obedience to law.   

 

Jesus Christ said "my sheep hear my voice".   (John 10:27)

 

Stranger

 

 

Where in the bible does it say that God wrote the bible?  Citation please. Who wrote the books of the bible, Stranger? Humans or God?

 

Nobody likes bible verses given as an explanation for why you believe the bible is true. That's called circular reasoning. What evidence do you have besides the bible that the Bible is true?  

How do you know that the Bible is of God? Because the bible says so? In that case, how do I know that the Quran is true? Because the Quran says so?

 

The verse you cited (Romans 1:16) says salvation will be given to Jews first, then gentiles. So God favors Jews according to your book.

You say you know God's voice. Please explain how you know it is his voice and not yours.

 

[Stranger]

 

 

Where in the bible does it say that God wrote the bible?  Citation please. Who wrote the books of the bible, Stranger? Humans or God?

 

Nobody likes bible verses given as an explanation for why you believe the bible is true. That's called circular reasoning. What evidence do you have besides the bible that the Bible is true?  

How do you know that the Bible is of God? Because the bible says so? In that case, how do I know that the Quran is true? Because the Quran says so?

 

The verse you cited (Romans 1:16) says salvation will be given to Jews first, then gentiles. So God favors Jews according to your book.

You say you know God's voice. Please explain how you know it is his voice and not yours.

 

 

Please.   Make up your mind.  You ask me for Bible verses.   Then when I give you Bible verses,  you tell me you don't want Bible verses.    What is that called?  Crazy?

 

Explain what you want, and stick with it.    Then I will give you explanation.  

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

And how is it that you "know" god? I mean, in what ways other than the book you've read, what you've been preached, and what you've thought god was telling you? Really, I would like a specific example. Of how he brought some knowledge or wisdom, or anything really, to you in a way that can be easily understood. Or less, I'll say, open to interpretation.

 

I would point out how you can't just use the bible to prove itself, but others have made that clear.

 

So please. An example of a moment in your life where god presented himself in a clearly definable way.

 

Well, isn't that something.  You want me to share something of my life, but you want me to only observe your rules.   That is real sweet.

 

But stupid.   

 

Stranger

 

 

[Astreja]

 

Well, if a being matching the description of Jesus showed up in your office he is a pretender.

 

And how am I supposed to know that?  For that matter, how would you be able to tell the difference if someone appeared and did things exactly in accordance with your beliefs, but wasn't actually Jesus?

 

Your soul remains within your body at sleep.  God gives the believer a new spirit, born-again.   Alive to Him.   At physical death, the soul, and spirit of the believer goes to be with Christ.

 

Mythological bullshit, all of it.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

Were you present when the earth was created?   Obviously no.   Which means you just believe what others tell you.  

 

Ironically funny as this is the same boat you are in Stranger.... except we have working theories born out by experiment and testing that give us a good idea how the universe came to be.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

Science is faulty in drawing conclusions that God does not exist or did not create the universe.   Those who progress in spiritual or Biblical knowledge, never will obtain knowledge that rejects God or Christ.   They build on that.     You think wrong.

 

Science is faulty as long as it draws the conclusion that God did not create and Christ is not the Saviour of the world.    Given enough time, science would change this.   But such time will not be given.  Thus science is faulty in drawing such conclusions.   

 

It takes being a believer in Christ to understand and progress in knowledge of the Scriptures.   I have no problem with science trying to understand the creation.  I have a problem when science says God didn't create it.

 

P1) LF repeatedly tells Stranger that science does not conclude there is no god - science is silent on the subject

P2) Stranger repeatedly and incorrectly builds a strawman saying that science says there is no god.

C) Stranger doesn't understand nor comprehend science.

 

 

 

I have never said science is invalid.  I am all for science.  That is a charge of God for man. (Gen. 1:28)   Science becomes invalid when it contradicts the Bible.   When it contradicts God.

 

Ha, you sound like my father.

 

You know what, I'm all for science, except when it contradicts Zeus. Therefore the science about lightning is all wrong, its just stuff made up by those who don't want to believe lightning bolts come from Zeus.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

Well, yes every religion believes its religion.   But 'faith' as a real ingredient accomplishing something in the individual and it alone required for salvation, is not found in islam or any other religion.   islam is law and submission.

 

You are shitting me right now. You are trolling me aren't you? You can't be serious surely? I just quoted the QURAN (You know, the Islam holy book) about faith being required and you still say Islam requires no faith. Talk about a bias and having blinders on.

 

Stranger where do you get your knowledge of Islam from? For example have you read the Quran and the Hadith in depth? Have you listened to Muslim scholars, visited Mosques, perhaps talked to muslims about faith? 

 

 

 

In other words, there is no law that I have to demonstrate to you that God exists.

 

We established that, but its beside the point. I can get you fairly close to a "law" in that St Paul commands Christians to give sound reasoning for why they believe - which you are failing to do.

 

 

You have no way of proving to me that God did not create the universe.  There is no way you can demonstrate it by science.

 

It's impossible to prove a negative. You cannot prove to me that my invisible pink immaterial unicorn didn't create it either. There is no way you can demonstrate that by science. 

 

 

 

The Bible is a spiritual book.  The Christian has the Spirit of God in them.  We know.

 

Assertion again without evidence. The book says its holy and you believe it because the book says it. How are you defining spiritual? What does spiritual mean to you?

 

 

How did an atheist come to God through science?   They did not prove God by science.   Science could not show them God.   If they didn't come by faith, they didn't come.   There is a looking at the grandeur of the creation and rightly recognizing that there must be a God.   And then one may seek Him.  But it will only be by faith that they come.

 

They concluded that current science pointed to a God http://strangenotions.com/flew/ 

 

 

 I didn't say scientist's have faith in something they know to be wrong.  They have faith in things they believe to be right.

 

*Sigh* 

 

 

 

Well, you want to tell me God is not saying anything to me.   Yet you don't want me to tell you what I think you are thinking.    Indeed my faith is small.  But it is enough to be saved.   And hopefully growing.

 

No I'm saying you try and tell me what I am thinking, and you are wrong, showing that God is not giving your thought, and that your own thoughts are wrong. If you want to keep playing the telepathic seer please do so.

 

 

Your pastor is wrong.   God doesn't exist outside of reality.  He exists as Spirit.  Very real.   No issue.

 

Do you are saying a man of God is wrong? A person who has had God speak to him personally in an Audible voice, you are arrogant enough to simply dismiss him? I will let you argue that with him!

 

 

I didn't say the physical world wasn't reality.   I said science can't learn about the spirit world, which is reality also.    You conclude God doesn't exist because you conclude the Bible doesn't measure up to scientific discoveries.    Yet your science is still learning.   Your science is making a conclusion when it doesn't have all the so called 'evidence'.   You shouldn't conclude.  The best science can say is that it doesn't know.

 

Ok... again you are misunderstanding, I'll assume you are not intentionally ignoring what I am trying to show you about science.

 

Let me try again with an explanation and two examples using you and I of how belief and knowledge relate to each other:

 

Science concludes nothing about god. Even if it did a conclusion is not a claim to absolute knowledge which is what you are claiming. I (Me, LF) looks at all the evidence, which includes current science (but I take many other factors into consideration) and I conclude that there is insufficient evidence to say there is a god... any god. I can say with some degree of confidence that the bible is wrong in its claims. However I don't say I know. My official position on god is thus:

 

I don't think there is sufficient evidence to believe there is a god, however I don't know that there is no god. This is what's called an agnostic atheist position. I don't know, but I have no reason to believe.

 

By contrast your position is that you believe in the Biblical god, and you know he exists. This is called a Gnostic theist position.

 

Do you understand not why science does not conclude there is no god? It simply makes statements about reality. That reality does not show up god in it is not sciences problem, its religions problem.

 

 

 

It wasn't hard.   I have always known my faith is small.  But, as I said, hopefully it is growing.

 

But Stranger, no one has ever cast a mountain into the sea. No one has ever fulfilled Jesus's promise. Does everyone have small faith? And if you don't have faith to move a few atoms from one location to the other, how are you going to have enough faith to change your body from a mortal body to a glorified body? "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."

[LogicalFallacy]

@Stranger Hey stranger, can I get your take on this video clip and what you think is happening here? (Ignore the vid title, its the content that counts)