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

[Silent Hunter]

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).

. . . so . . . your answer is . . . you can't . . . unless you assume something else you can't prove . . . the Bible.

 

[chair]

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... ..........................................................................................................................

sigh

 

[Silent Hunter]

sigh

:sigh: . . . that better?

 

[chair]

:sigh: . . . that better?

Thanks. :sigh:
I am pretty tired, and didn't have the energy to search for the right one.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Thanks. :sigh:
I am pretty tired, and didn't have the energy to search for the right one.

: sigh : (without the spaces).

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to chair again.

 

[godrulz]

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

Jesus claimed to be YHWH. He verified His truthful claim by rising from the dead. It is not Christians or pagans who are inventing God or putting words in Jesus' mouth. The Jews understood His claims and rejected Him. You don't even understand what He claimed because you are not first century Jew.

Again, why do atheists think they know spiritual truths when they don't even get the existence of God right?!

Revelation>reason (we know about God/Jesus because He has communicated revelation to us, not because our reason is inventing things).

Take your stupid flying spaghetti monster logic and go fly a kite.

 

[godrulz]

But where did the "Holy Spirit" come from?

Jesus revealed more detail about the Holy Spirit, though He is seen in Genesis 1. The Father, Son, Holy Spirit are the eternal, triune God. They did not come from anywhere but have always existed.

 

[Ktoyou]

To what standard should "I was a good person" be compared? And what if someone has a lousy version of what the world being "a better place" should be? Like, say, the one who believes the world would be a better place without black people and Jews.

How should God make a determination if you were truly a "good person" and if your version of the world being a "better place" is acceptable?

Thanks,
Randy

:rotfl: I love it! Thanks Randy.:wave:

 

[godrulz]

. . . 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:.

God is spirit (Jn. 4:24). This is a metaphysical statement about God's nature, substance, essence (vs rock, dog, plant, matter). This should not be confused with the Holy Spirit, a personal distinction/conscious center in the one spirit of God. The Holy Spirit is spirit vs man, but Spirit/spirit are not identical in technical use (man has spirit, but is not God).

Like cultists, you confuse nature vs personal distinction. Mormonism/Hinduism is polytheism, tritheism, plurality of gods, because they are ontologically distinct gods.

The triune view is based on revelation and flows out of God's self-disclosure. He is triune, triunity, compound unity vs solitary. Deut. 6:4 Jesus taught one God, yet claimed to be God and revealed the Holy Spirit, etc. Since there is only one eternal spirit of God, the polytheism straw man can be rejected as your own inadequate understanding.

All you are doing is displaying ignorance and the fact you do not have God in your life. Those who know Him have supernatural understanding of who He is and what He is like by the illumination of the Spirit and Word. You fumble around with your own flawed reasoning affected by the noetic effects of sin, blinding of Satan, etc.

Feel free to reject the Bible understanding of God (like JWs do), but at least accurately represent what it teaches.

It can be demonstrated that there is only one God, yet there are 3 personal distinctions who are called this one God (yet Father is not the Son, Son is not the Holy Spirit, etc.).

The creeds tell us not to confuse nature and person, yet you make this rookie mistake leading to a straw man 3 god caricature. JWs make the same mistake because they are Russellite rationalists who twist the Word (mistranslate it) to suit their misguided bias.

Regardless, why dabble in sophisticated theological ideas about the trinity when you don't even get the more basic existence of God arguments?! You are like a mentally handicapped child who cannot understand the times tables trying to pontificate on the nuances of calculus needed to send someone to the moon.

 

[godrulz]

. . . so . . . your answer is . . . you can't . . . unless you assume something else you can't prove . . . the Bible.

There are reasons to accept the Bible as the Word of God. It is the primary source of truth about God. It is more accurate than any book, newspaper, magazine you will ever read on any given subject.

Why should we throw pearls before swine? You guys show no hunger for truth and reject what light you do have. Where are your arguments against the Word of God? I have read stuff from atheists who are clueless and refutable.

 

[alwight]

There are reasons to accept the Bible as the Word of God. It is the primary source of truth about God. It is more accurate than any book, newspaper, magazine you will ever read on any given subject.

Why should we throw pearls before swine? You guys show no hunger for truth and reject what light you do have. Where are your arguments against the Word of God? I have read stuff from atheists who are clueless and refutable.

Oh but I do have irrefutable proof that the Bible is only the work of men GR and it is evidence that even you cannot deny.
All you need do now is argue why such evidence is false using your reasoning, since I have no need to show any of it apparently.

 

[nicholsmom]

An imaginary cure for a made-up disease, all sold by the same people. Convenient.

To what end, rex? I know that there are control freaks in every camp, but what of the rest of us?

 

[rexlunae]

To what end, rex? I know that there are control freaks in every camp, but what of the rest of us?

Seems like it would be kinda hard to evangelize without it. Why else would godrulz have presented the charge he did to me?

 

[Skavau]

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.

You'd be surprised how many reference faith as their reason for belief in both Islam and Christianity (though much less so in Islam due to the continual insistence and desire expressed by its adherents to be scientific and logical). How do you suppose that faith is how most of us process the world? And more importantly: How are you defining faith here?

If hell becomes the product of your will, your choice, it is just and justified.

But hell is the product of no-one's will. This is a smear that is often invoked by theists to describe those who wallow in it. The only group I could imagine that would literally say that hell is the product of their will would be some practicing Satanists.

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.

The above as a justification certainly does and cannot describe the traditional evangelical rendition of hell of the unsaved wallowing for eternity. So according to your understanding and beliefs: Who are those that 'inhabit' hell?

And might I ask, what does actually becoming suffering itself involve and what does it mean? Or can I conclude it is merely hyperbole?

Why? In the eternal course of things, why?

Because it would directly prevent the death of thousands and displacement of millions. It would alleviate suffering on a gargantuan scale. It can serve absolutely no purpose in the eyes of an omniscient and omnibenevolent superpower than could literally will any end into being.

I've witnessed children loudly demand this or that of their parents, certain of the right of it.

I'm talking about natural disasters and not children demanding a new toy. If we advanced enough sufficiently to prevent earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes it would be morally unacceptable to not do so. It would save millions of lives.

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.

I consider this a slippery slope fallacy and not relevant to the point I was making. The bottom line is that God is not comparable to any parent (any analogy that has ever tried this has always failed). If you describe God as an omniscient and benevolent being then it becomes effectively mandatory for him to root out injustice.

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.

I am judging what fallible humans tell me are the characteristics of their God and I compare that to my perception of reality. I consider, for an example that omniscience and free-will are mutually exclusive and that any property of a hypothetical being that includes omniscience cannot be considered a rational concept.

Propensity is a bit repetitious. And 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.

Repetitious or not, you don't seem to be disputing the claim that I'm making that God made us with the ability to sin and then holds us accountable at the end of it all for our sinning (excluding those who have been made exempt). Never mind such exemption: How do you view it as fair that those who could not believe or made their bed with other views are to be held to such rigid standards?

 

[Skavau]

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.

Yes, you did give grandiose descriptions of God but none of them specifically contradicted anything I actually said concerning hell, vicarious redemption, sin etc.

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.

What does "embodiment of justice" actually mean when describing God? That he is himself a literal aura of 'justice' or that he decrees what is and is not just? Or both?

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.

Not quite. We simply don't consider the plight of the ant as relevant. If your expansion in your garden affected say, the bird population then there would be issues to consider. I could not care less if any actions I took in a garden bought half the insect population there to extinction. The only reason humanity in general cares about the plight of other species is for reasons of vanity and self-preservation. We quite like a lot of the species that do exist and we would rather not damage the Eco system by having the one's we don't care for go extinct.

Assuming your comparison to its literal conclusion, you would have to declare that God simply doesn't mind what happens to us (and I don't think that's what you would want to conclude).

 

[Skavau]

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?

The part in bold interests me because of its unintentional irony. You can't really give me a coherent answer as to why I ought to go to hell (though it doesn't bother me, as you were honest regarding it) but my main point is: What if your friend was to respond that she can't provide you with a coherent answer and only trusts that God is doing the right thing by sending you there. That is to say that like you, she would withhold judgment on what she believed God would ultimately do based on the exact same reasoning that you do: faith.

How could you respond to that?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Jesus claimed to be YHWH.

. . . no . . . he didn't . . . but that's your interpretation.

He verified His truthful claim by rising from the dead.

. . . no . . . he didn't . . . but that's your belief . . .

It is not Christians or pagans who are inventing God or putting words in Jesus' mouth. The Jews understood His claims and rejected Him. You don't even understand what He claimed because you are not first century Jew.

:blabla: . . . you've been a "first century Jew" how long . . . exactly.

Again, why do atheists think they know spiritual truths when they don't even get the existence of God right?!

Yep . . . gr's got ALL the answers . . . :chuckle:

Revelation>reason (we know about God/Jesus because He has communicated revelation to us, not because our reason is inventing things).

. . . yep . . . it's something invented alright. Revelation is to reason what area is to a line segment.

Take your stupid flying spaghetti monster logic and go fly a kite.

. . . look . . . if you're going to keep breaking my irony meter . . . you're going to have to start paying for the repairs.

 

[Silent Hunter]

God is spirit (Jn. 4:24). This is a metaphysical statement about God's nature, substance, essence (vs rock, dog, plant, matter). This should not be confused with the Holy Spirit, a personal distinction/conscious center in the one spirit of God. The Holy Spirit is spirit vs man, but Spirit/spirit are not identical in technical use (man has spirit, but is not God).

Like cultists, you confuse nature vs personal distinction. Mormonism/Hinduism is polytheism, tritheism, plurality of gods, because they are ontologically distinct gods.

The triune view is based on revelation and flows out of God's self-disclosure. He is triune, triunity, compound unity vs solitary. Deut. 6:4 Jesus taught one God, yet claimed to be God and revealed the Holy Spirit, etc. Since there is only one eternal spirit of God, the polytheism straw man can be rejected as your own inadequate understanding.

All you are doing is displaying ignorance and the fact you do not have God in your life. Those who know Him have supernatural understanding of who He is and what He is like by the illumination of the Spirit and Word. You fumble around with your own flawed reasoning affected by the noetic effects of sin, blinding of Satan, etc.

Feel free to reject the Bible understanding of God (like JWs do), but at least accurately represent what it teaches.

It can be demonstrated that there is only one God, yet there are 3 personal distinctions who are called this one God (yet Father is not the Son, Son is not the Holy Spirit, etc.).

The creeds tell us not to confuse nature and person, yet you make this rookie mistake leading to a straw man 3 god caricature. JWs make the same mistake because they are Russellite rationalists who twist the Word (mistranslate it) to suit their misguided bias.

Regardless, why dabble in sophisticated theological ideas about the trinity when you don't even get the more basic existence of God arguments?! You are like a mentally handicapped child who cannot understand the times tables trying to pontificate on the nuances of calculus needed to send someone to the moon.

. . . you could have saved yourself a lot of time and just wrote . . . "it's a mystery."

 

[Silent Hunter]

There are reasons to accept the Bible as the Word of God. It is the primary source of truth about God. It is more accurate than any book, newspaper, magazine you will ever read on any given subject.

. . . lots of bald assertion . . . yet to see any actual evidence from you though . . . :yawn:

Why should we throw pearls before swine? You guys show no hunger for truth and reject what light you do have. Where are your arguments against the Word of God? I have read stuff from atheists who are clueless and refutable.

. . . just because you reject what atheists have said doesn't make them clueless or their work refutable . . . the only difference between you and sd is sd at least tries to support his assertions . . . you rarely (if ever) do (*** assuming the Bible is true which in turn needs verification . . . Christian apologetics . . . circular reasoning at its best and most profound).

 

[nicholsmom]

The part in bold interests me because of its unintentional irony. You can't really give me a coherent answer as to why I ought to go to hell (though it doesn't bother me, as you were honest regarding it)

I never said that you ought to go to hell :nono: Quite the opposite. I don't like the notion of hell any better than you do, but I accept the reality of it (from my Christian perspective, so I don't expect you to accept it). I also thought I was clear that it is sin that is chosen by the individual that damns us to hell. So if you have ever chosen to sin (that sin being clearly defined in the Bible), and you die without being redeemed, then according to Christian doctrine (to which I adhere), you will wind up in hell. That doesn't mean that you will end up in hell - no one but God knows who will wind up in hell.

I am quite willing to tell you about redemption - how to stay out of hell - and I will continue to pray for you to be regenerated, and so to receive the faith that you need to see your sin and your need for a Savior. I sincerely hope that you do not wind up in hell

but my main point is: What if your friend was to respond that she can't provide you with a coherent answer and only trusts that God is doing the right thing by sending you there. That is to say that like you, she would withhold judgment on what she believed God would ultimately do based on the exact same reasoning that you do: faith.

I could understand that. But she is no Calvinist :think: It is the Reformed theology that teaches us that faith/regeneration proceeds Salvation, and that that is the gift of God. So she'd be pretty weird to, on the one hand condemn Calvinism, and on the other use Reformed theology to argue her point :squint:

Also, she did not withhold judgment - she told me I'm going to hell and said that she would not tell me how to amend that, or even if it was possible, nor did she say that she would pray for me or show any concern whatever.

Is that what I have done with you?