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?

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

No, I am not a Mormon.  I am Christian.

 

The 2nd Person of the Trinity, God the Son, took on a body.   Before the Son took on a body, God was Spirit only.  But, though Spirit, He still was a Person and with shape. (John 5:37)  That shape was the very shape of the Man Jesus Christ.  (Heb. 1:3)  God has a body.  Jesus Christ.  

 

Stranger

Earlier you said you have God's DNA inherited from Adam. Not just Adam's DNA, but God's. If God gave his DNA to Adam, God had a body at the time of Adam. Now you are saying God acquired a body when Jesus was born but was spirit only before that. A spirit cannot have DNA, since that is enclosed in cells. And a spirit does not have flesh, as was proved previously.

 

You are contradicting yourself.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

Msg 813 .

 

 

When you say Invisible Pink Unicorns do not exist because science cannot prove them....

 

you are wrong.

 

all science can say is, it doesn't know.

 

Therefore the IPU is real.

 

Pretty much this. This is Strangers argument.

[Stranger]

 

 

No problem.

 

You wrote...

"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." 

If your claims in the above sentence are true then it should be possible for you to demonstrate that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.  Or, if you'd prefer to select any other numbers with which to show us that math doesn't use final conclusions, please do so. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

As I have said, I have no problem with 2+2= 4.   Just as I have said I have no problem with science which does not come against God.  So, does 2+2=4 come against God?

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

Where did I say this? No where have I claimed god doesn't exist because science cannot prove it. 

 

 

We come back to: what are we being saved from?... haven't we had this conversation?

 

 

Questions aren't dishonest because of a belief anyone holds. That's an excuse because you know you've run out of any decent argument. I could quite easily say you are being dishonest by being here because you do believe in god. Your statement is a non sequitur. It does not follow that anyone's question is dishonest because of any belief they hold. 

 

 

So you have already determined, before you rely your experience, that there is no point in sharing. Great. It's probably true, that based on all other experiences I've heard, that your one is unlikely to make much impact on me, but I'd like to hear it. And no I wouldn't mock your experience. I mock your insistence on asserting that which you cannot show to be true. That's difference from mocking YOU.

 

 

We know - that's the problem, you cannot back up anything from the bible, and clearly as discussed above refuse to. May I ask what you are doing here? I'm really interested in what you are trying to achieve? You don't seem to be doin your hardest to convince us or save us or else you'd ignore what you think we might say and relay your experience etc as testimony anyway. So what is your goal here?

 

 

Right, yes, so true, yeah my father is Zeus, I'm descended from his son Hercules - we share the same DNA. Stranger, I was a Christian, I believed all that, but its not true, so unless you have something that I haven't thought of that shows your DNA has gods DNA (Which by extension every human.... nay, every life form on earth, will have... which would make a bacteria gods son....) you are again simply making theological assertions.

 

 

Oxymoron right there

 

 

I was saying you are self deceiving yourself into thinking you have made a good argument (Hence the 'pat on the head'). Do you think you are proud?

 

Let me rephrase my wording in that last sentence - nonsense may have been the wrong word for constructive dialogue

 

"No, you just assert theological claims without backing any of it up, then you hold your head high and mighty and pat yourself on the back for a job well done. "

 

So have I changed the meaning of the sentence by changing the word? If you cannot back up what you are saying, then I say the sentence holds true in both its forms.

 

 

 

 

Very good.  God can exist though science cannot prove Him.    That is quite a breakthrough.

 

I'm sure we have had this conversation.  Doesn't change what I have said.  If one wants to be saved, he must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Please, don't be dishonest.   If you don't believe in God, then you can't believe in my experiences with God.   Play to your own 'logic' please.  

 

That is a lie.  If you mock God, you will mock my experience with God.    You can't have it both ways.     Thus, forget any experience I have had with God.

 

Wrong, everything I say I back up with the Bible.   You just don't accept it.   i am not trying to save you or anyone else here.   I telling you what I believe.  That  is what I am doing here.  Do you feel threatened?    Does the forum here require that I try and save  you, for me to remain.?    Why does everyone keep asking why I am here?    I am here to participate.

 

It doesn't matter to me that your father is Zeus.   I already know that your father is not God.  Well, when you said your father is Zeus, you also are making 'theological assertions'.    So?

 

Why is that an oxymoron?

 

You don't know I am self deceiving.   You believe I am self deceiving.   Your 'faith'. 

 

I do back up theological claims with the Bible.    You reject them.  So?    What do you use to deny or support 'theological claims?    

 

Stranger

 

 

[Stranger]

 

 

Msg 813 .

 

 

When you say Invisible Pink Unicorns do not exist because science cannot prove them....

 

you are wrong.

 

all science can say is, it doesn't know.

 

Therefore the IPU is real.

 

 

I didn't say Pink unicorns do not exist because science cannot prove them.    So, get it right.    I said 'when you say God does not exist because you,  science, cannot prove Him, you are wrong'  

 

As I have said, all science can say is it doesn't know.   Does that bother you?   That it doesn't kno?.  Doesn't bother me.

 

Stranger

 

 

[Stranger]

 

Earlier you said you have God's DNA inherited from Adam. Not just Adam's DNA, but God's. If God gave his DNA to Adam, God had a body at the time of Adam. Now you are saying God acquired a body when Jesus was born but was spirit only before that. A spirit cannot have DNA, since that is enclosed in cells. And a spirit does not have flesh, as was proved previously.

 

You are contradicting yourself.

 

No, I said my DNA from Adam is from Adam, not God.  God created Adam, Adam was not 'born' of God.    

 

God did not have a body at the time He created Adam.   I never said He did.  

 

With the birth of Jesus Christ, God had a body.    Thus God who is Spirit, had, has, a body.  

 

Stranger

[LogicalFallacy]

 

Ok I'm through trying to have a conversation with you Stranger. You are not even attempting to discuss the issues - you are now just proselytizing, making assertions, and going in circles.

 

The invisible unicorn can exist though science cannot prove it. Major breakthrough.

You must believe in the unicorn to be saved

Please, don't be dishonest.   If you don't believe in the unicorn, then you can't believe in my experiences with the unicorn.   Play to your own 'logic' please.

You are a liar because you don't believe in the invisible unicorn

I back up everything I say because I am telling you the invisible unicorn revealed it to me

I am backing up these claims up with my revelation and you reject them. Who cares? What do use use to deny or support theological claims?

 

 

Wrong, everything I say I back up with the Bible.  

 

Research circular reasoning - it will be the first education you've had in some time.

 

 

Why is that an oxymoron?

 

Quite right, upon review it probably isn't an oxymoron. To be an oxymoron it would have to be contradictory in terms.... not sure that it is. It comes down to is what you believe a choice? I would answer no because you cannot make yourself believe something by choice.

 

HOLY SHIT I just reviewed something I said, considered it, and changed my mind based on reasonable thinking. How shocking is that? Yeah its called intellectual honesty. Stranger, you should try it.

[Stranger]

 

 

Ok I'm through trying to have a conversation with you Stranger. You are not even attempting to discuss the issues - you are now just proselytizing, making assertions, and going in circles.

 

The invisible unicorn can exist though science cannot prove it. Major breakthrough.

You must believe in the unicorn to be saved

Please, don't be dishonest.   If you don't believe in the unicorn, then you can't believe in my experiences with the unicorn.   Play to your own 'logic' please.

You are a liar because you don't believe in the invisible unicorn

I back up everything I say because I am telling you the invisible unicorn revealed it to me

I am backing up these claims up with my revelation and you reject them. Who cares? What do use use to deny or support theological claims?

 

 

Research circular reasoning - it will be the first education you've had in some time.

 

 

Quite right, upon review it probably isn't an oxymoron. To be an oxymoron it would have to be contradictory in terms.... not sure that it is. It comes down to is what you believe a choice? I would answer no because you cannot make yourself believe something by choice.

 

Don't say that.  No matter how much we disagree, there is nothing wrong with continued conversation.

 

I don't know of Scripture that says I must believe in the unicorn to be saved.  You?

 

I believe the Bible.  If you call it circular reasoning, so be it.

 

I have always said you cannot make yourself believe something you don't.  

 

Stranger

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

Don't say that.  No matter how much we disagree, there is nothing wrong with continued conversation.

 

No, I agree there isn't anything wrong, but when one side outright refuses to answer questions put to them the conversation shuts down. Now I could go through and list all the places where for one reason or another that you are refusing to answer questions or continue conversation, however that would take too much time. Some examples:

 

Refusal to engage Realist

Refusal to answer Bornagainatheist questions

Refusal to relay your personal experience based on preconceived notions.

 

 

I don't know of Scripture that says I must believe in the unicorn to be saved.  You?

 

He revealed it to me.

However realise that the unicorn is a catch all example of religions - many religions have claims and they have holy books for them. The point of the unicorn is to point out that simply saying my book says it, or it was revealed to me, doesn't make it true. Now if you say my book says xyz and I can show you xyz - now you have something to demonstrate what is written is true. So just because a scripture says something does not make it true in the slightest. We come back to circular reasoning - you book says you must be saved, and you must believe what the book says because the book says to believe it.

 

You believe nothing the Quran says. Why? You dismiss every religion except Christianity without giving them all careful consideration. We simply go one step further and dismiss Christianity after careful consideration and finding out it doesn't back up its claims.

 

 

I believe the Bible.  If you call it circular reasoning, so be it.

 

The point here is once you are engaging in logical fallacies, and accepting them as you are, you can't have any claim to truth because anyone arguing from logical fallacies cannot logically be correct.

 

 

I have always said you cannot make yourself believe something you don't.  

 

Which brings to mind the question, how can God judge us for us not being able to "make yourself believe something you don't. " ?

 

You've essentially shown that god is unjust in condemning us for not believing in something that we cannot make ourselves believe.

[nutrichuckles93]

People can certainly disagree, but it becomes aggravating when one side refuses to do anything other than push their own assertions instead of engaging in dialogue. You may think you are conversing, but clearly no one else feels that way. Not when all you do is place up your wall of belief and refuse to actually converse in a meaningful way.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

No, I said my DNA from Adam is from Adam, not God.  God created Adam, Adam was not 'born' of God.    

 

God did not have a body at the time He created Adam.   I never said He did.  

 

With the birth of Jesus Christ, God had a body.    Thus God who is Spirit, had, has, a body.  

 

Stranger

Negative. You said this:  "But, my Father is God.  I am literally born of Him.  I have His DNA."

 

You claimed that you have God's DNA.

[sdelsolray]

 

Negative. You said this:  "But, my Father is God.  I am literally born of Him.  I have His DNA."

 

You claimed that you have God's DNA.

 

Poster Stranger doesn't do or need evidence, according to poster Stranger.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

Negative. You said this:  "But, my Father is God.  I am literally born of Him.  I have His DNA."

 

You claimed that you have God's DNA.

 

 

 

Poster Stranger doesn't do or need evidence, according to poster Stranger.

 

Correct, he has faith, and this is precisely the point I've been making. Faith is a bad pathway to truth, because despite Strangers claim, we can show that God is not Strangers father, and that Stranger was not literally born of him. (I mean what a claim - Stranger is essentially making the same claim Jesus did - that he is the son of god.)

 

We know that Stranger will have a very human father and mother, and that he was LITERALLY born of his mother, and that his DNA will match his parents. Biology and facts suck when you want faith to take precedence. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

It's not just that Stranger makes faith claims. It's worse. Stranger said he had God's DNA. Then he claimed he never said that he has God's DNA.

[midniterider]

 

 

 

I didn't say Pink unicorns do not exist because science cannot prove them.    So, get it right.    I said 'when you say God does not exist because you,  science, cannot prove Him, you are wrong'  

 

As I have said, all science can say is it doesn't know.   Does that bother you?   That it doesn't kno?.  Doesn't bother me.

 

Stranger

 

 

 

I understood what you said. I was just illustrating that science cannot disprove the existence of Jesus, nor Invisible Pink Unicorns, nor elves nor hobbits. But none of those things are likely to exist , really.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

No he has faith, and this is precisely the point I've been making. Faith is a bad pathway to truth, because despite Strangers claim, we can show that God is not Strangers father, and that Stranger was not literally born of him. (I mean what a claim - Stranger is essentially making the same claim Jesus did - that he is the son of god.)

 

We know that Stranger will have a very human father and mother, and that he was LITERALLY born of his mother, and that his DNA will match his parents. Biology and facts suck when you want faith to take precedence. 

 

Again, poster Stranger does not do evidence or evidence-based rational thinking.  As I mentioned early in this thread, poster Stranger's frontal cortex has atrophied, and his posts since then are additional evidence of this.  His brain is miswired causing frequent congnitive errors.

[sdelsolray]

 

It's not just that Stranger makes faith claims. It's worse. Stranger said he had God's DNA. Then he claimed he never said that he has God's DNA.

 

Well, poster Stranger pretends he is special.  I wonder how he would answer the question, "From whom or what did your mitochondrial DNA originate"?

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

Again, poster Stranger does not do evidence or evidence-based rational thinking.  As I mentioned early in this thread, poster Stranger's frontal cortex has atrophied, and his posts since then are additional evidence of this.  His brain is miswired causing frequent congnitive errors.

 

Agreed.

 

Edit note - my initial response started with "no", it should start with "correct"... I think no gives off a meaning I did not intend.

[bornagainathiest]

No problem.

 

You wrote...

"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." 

If your claims in the above sentence are true then it should be possible for you to demonstrate that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.  Or, if you'd prefer to select any other numbers with which to show us that math doesn't use final conclusions, please do so. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

As I have said, I have no problem with 2+2= 4.   Just as I have said I have no problem with science which does not come against God.  So, does 2+2=4 come against God?

 

Stranger

 

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

 

Then you have no problem trusting science to deliver the final conclusion of 4, which is the sum of adding 2 with 2.

 

Thank you for contradicting yourself, Stranger.

 

Since you do trust science's final conclusions, you also err, as per your quote.

 

"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." 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stranger]

 

Negative. You said this:  "But, my Father is God.  I am literally born of Him.  I have His DNA."

 

You claimed that you have God's DNA.

 

God back to posts #813, 828.  You claimed I said I have God's DNA through Adam.   I clearly did not.  I did say I am literally born of  God and therefore have His DNA.   Science may not be able to trace His DNA, but He can.     

 

Stranger

 

 

 

 

[Stranger]

 

 

No, I agree there isn't anything wrong, but when one side outright refuses to answer questions put to them the conversation shuts down. Now I could go through and list all the places where for one reason or another that you are refusing to answer questions or continue conversation, however that would take too much time. Some examples:

 

Refusal to engage Realist

Refusal to answer Bornagainatheist questions

Refusal to relay your personal experience based on preconceived notions.

 

 

He revealed it to me.

However realise that the unicorn is a catch all example of religions - many religions have claims and they have holy books for them. The point of the unicorn is to point out that simply saying my book says it, or it was revealed to me, doesn't make it true. Now if you say my book says xyz and I can show you xyz - now you have something to demonstrate what is written is true. So just because a scripture says something does not make it true in the slightest. We come back to circular reasoning - you book says you must be saved, and you must believe what the book says because the book says to believe it.

 

You believe nothing the Quran says. Why? You dismiss every religion except Christianity without giving them all careful consideration. We simply go one step further and dismiss Christianity after careful consideration and finding out it doesn't back up its claims.

 

 

The point here is once you are engaging in logical fallacies, and accepting them as you are, you can't have any claim to truth because anyone arguing from logical fallacies cannot logically be correct.

 

 

Which brings to mind the question, how can God judge us for us not being able to "make yourself believe something you don't. " ?

 

You've essentially shown that god is unjust in condemning us for not believing in something that we cannot make ourselves believe.

 

Well, we are in the  800's post wise.  So I apparently have responded and answered many questions.    I gave an example, not my experience, of a believer being healed by God of cancer.   The doctor acknowledges he had cancer but it is gone.  The believer knows God healed him.  The doctor just says he doesn't know.   So, how would you respond to that believer who said God healed him?

 

I agree that me saying the Bible is the Word of God doesn't make it the Word of God.  It either is or it isn't.   We who are Christians believe and know that it is the Word of God.  And yes we are locked into the teachings of that Book.   Which you will call circular reasoning.  

 

The koran simply took truths from the Bible and perverted them.   So, of course I reject all it says.  The claim that Christianity  did the same with the Old Testament is not true.  Jesus Christ and the New Testament are a fulfillment of the Old Testament.    Yes,, I reject all other religions and their writings.   

 

I don't know about 'logical fallacies'.  I know about God and Christ and the Bible.  You say I can't have any claim to the truth.  The Bible says otherwise.   Your logic moves you away from God.  My faith moves me towards God.  

 

As I have said, the invitation to come and believe on Jesus Christ for salvation is always present.  He has not removed the offer.   He could send all to hell and be just in doing so.  Because all are sinners.   One should not be concerned with who God gives faith to.  That is His business.  From our side we know the offer is there to all and that we need Jesus Christ for our salvation.  

 

Stranger

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stranger]

 

 

 

Correct, he has faith, and this is precisely the point I've been making. Faith is a bad pathway to truth, because despite Strangers claim, we can show that God is not Strangers father, and that Stranger was not literally born of him. (I mean what a claim - Stranger is essentially making the same claim Jesus did - that he is the son of god.)

 

We know that Stranger will have a very human father and mother, and that he was LITERALLY born of his mother, and that his DNA will match his parents. Biology and facts suck when you want faith to take precedence. 

 

As I have said, 'faith' in Christianity is the key element.    You cannot show that I am not born of God.  You can show I have an earthly father.   I never denied that.   Every Christian is a son or daughter of God.   Not 'The Son', but a son.    Literally born of Him.   

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

No problem.

 

You wrote...

"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." 

If your claims in the above sentence are true then it should be possible for you to demonstrate that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.  Or, if you'd prefer to select any other numbers with which to show us that math doesn't use final conclusions, please do so. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

As I have said, I have no problem with 2+2= 4.   Just as I have said I have no problem with science which does not come against God.  So, does 2+2=4 come against God?

 

Stranger

 

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

 

Then you have no problem trusting science to deliver the final conclusion of 4, which is the sum of adding 2 with 2.

 

Thank you for contradicting yourself, Stranger.

 

Since you do trust science's final conclusions, you also err, as per your quote.

 

"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." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am not contradicting myself.   I have always said I have no problem with science learning things of the creation.  The problem comes when they conclude the Bible is wrong in its statements about creation or God.  

 

So, 2+2=4.   Well and good.  No problem.      But 2+2=4=Bible is wrong=no God.  These are the conclusions I reject.   

 

As I said, science is always learning, which changes it's conclusions.  

 

Stranger

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I am not contradicting myself.   I have always said I have no problem with science learning things of the creation.  The problem comes when they conclude the Bible is wrong in its statements about creation or God.  

 

So, 2+2=4.   Well and good.  No problem.      But 2+2=4=Bible is wrong=no God.  These are the conclusions I reject.   

 

As I said, science is always learning, which changes it's conclusions.  

 

Stranger

 

Stranger,

 

The issue between us is simply this.

You made a claim about science and I have challenged you only on that claim.  You and I are not in dispute about what the Bible says because that subject has not come up between us.  We are in dispute about what you say science cannot do.  The issue of science vs the Bible is not what you and I are discussing.  The issue under discussion between us is only about what you claim science cannot do.  Only that and nothing more.

 

We are only discussing your claim about the limitations of science.

You claimed that science cannot come to a final conclusion.  This and only this is what I am challenging.  I contend that the science of mathematics does come to final, absolute and unchangeable conclusions.  This is a direct challenge to your claim that science doesn't.  There is nothing to do with creation or learning or the Bible or God in my challenge.  To meet my challenge you must deal only with what I have written and nothing else.  To meet my challenge you must not introduce anything from yourself to do with creation or learning or the Bible or God.  If you do that then you are not meeting my challenge, you are shifting the goalposts to make my challenge what you want it to be and not what it actually is.

 

Now, to meet my challenge, please demonstrate that the number 4 is not the final, absolute and unchangeable conclusion of adding 2 and 2.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

[Stranger]

 

 

Stranger,

 

The issue between us is simply this.

You made a claim about science and I have challenged you only on that claim.  You and I are not in dispute about what the Bible says because that subject has not come up between us.  We are in dispute about what you say science cannot do.  The issue of science vs the Bible is not what you and I are discussing.  The issue under discussion between us is only about what you claim science cannot do.  Only that and nothing more.

 

We are only discussing your claim about the limitations of science.

You claimed that science cannot come to a final conclusion.  This and only this is what I am challenging.  I contend that the science of mathematics does come to final, absolute and unchangeable conclusions.  This is a direct challenge to your claim that science doesn't.  There is nothing to do with creation or learning or the Bible or God in my challenge.  To meet my challenge you must deal only with what I have written and nothing else.  To meet my challenge you must not introduce anything from yourself to do with creation or learning or the Bible or God.  If you do that then you are not meeting my challenge, you are shifting the goalposts to make my challenge what you want it to be and not what it actually is.

 

Now, to meet my challenge, please demonstrate that the number 4 is not the final, absolute and unchangeable conclusion of adding 2 and 2.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see how you can say that our dispute about what the Bible says hasn't come up.   Trace our discussions all the way back.  You will see that science coming against the Bible was always in the discussion.     And whether it be with GR and GPS, or 2+2=4, my response has always been the same.   I have been very clear, that I don't reject science but that I reject science's claim's that the Bible is wrong about  Creation or God or anything else in the Bible.

 

So, I have not shifted any goalposts.  You have.   My statements that science doesn't have all knowledge, that science can't make final conclusions, that science is always changing its conclusions, cannot be isolated from the rest of what I have said.    2+2=4 is not the final conclusion of science I am addressing  2+2=4=Bible is wrong=there is no God, is the final conclusion or any other similar conclusion.   

 

Stranger