To joey down under,
Sorry but I have not yet had time to look at the blog pages that you gave links to. When I have read them I will comment.
Thank you for your responses to my comments. I am sorry if sometimes what I write appears to be hostile to Christianity. That is not my intention. But I have to be true to what has happened to me over the years. I am aware that your experience has some similarity to mine, but we are at different stages of our spiritual journeys.
You wrote this:
1. I read on some commentary about Genesis that animal sacrifices were used throughout the Old Testament to please God. It was suggested that God had commanded animal sacrifices and Cain decided to do things his own way and give God what he had plenty to give therefore no personal cost (or sacrifice) to him.
Maybe God did prefer animal sacrifices. But there is no mention of this in the Bible before Cains offering was rejected. Cain must have been a bit disappointed when he gave his first fruits to God and they were rejected. After all, the Bible does say that Cain was an arable farmer; he would not have any animals to sacrifice.
Ephesians 2:4-5 Does that sound like a God who is stingy in His love to all those who seek Him?
Interesting that you use Ephesians chapter 2 to suggest that God accepts everyone who seeks God, when Ephesians chapter 1 is one of the Bible chapters that implies that some were chosen from the beginning and others were predestined not to come to God.
Context, context, context. Romans 10:9-13 Does it sound like any cooling off period etc. when it comes to salvation?
Paul writes that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. I prefer the opposite viewpoint told by Jesus in the parable of the sower, that only some would be saved and bring forth good fruit, while others would call on the Lord but not make it to salvation.
I did write previously that when people have different views about something, each will quote from the Bible to back up their argument. We have done that three times already in this posting. Perhaps you can understand now why quoting a Bible verse to me is not necessarily going to convince me of anything, because I know that the opposite point of view will also be in the Bible somewhere. It gives vast scope for Christians to have very different beliefs, all of them consistent (up to a point) with the Bible.
Then like me you will have to trust God that every word in the Bible is true - including the ones about how faith is what saves us and stop looking for signs, impressions or feelings that other christians appear to get unlike us.
For various reasons, including the reason in the paragraph above, I am not in a position of being able to trust that every word in the Bible is true. Even if I did trust the Bible in that way, I would still be very uncertain about many doctrines because of the sometimes opposite ideas expressed in the Bible. However, my main reason for not accepting every word of the Bible is that I want to have faith in God. Not faith in a book. For many years now I have been unable to trust God; it would be ridiculous to ask me to have trust in a book when I cannot trust God yet. That would be, for me, taking things in the wrong order. For me, trust in God would have to come first, and only then would I be able to consider having trust in every word of the Bible. I am aware that many people do come to God by first trusting the Bible and then trusting God. I am not going to be able to do that.
Do you prefer this definition? Definition of a real Christian No mention of feeling the Spirit in your heart to prove you're a christian either.
Here is what the link says about being a real Christian:
"A Christian is someone who has decided to entrust his or her life to Jesus Christ. A Christian trusts Christ for forgiveness of sin, a right standing before God, and guidance in life.
Christian's are sometimes referred to as "born again" because Jesus said that one must be born of the water (the physical birth) and the Spirit:
To be born again--born of the Spirit--a person must place his or her trust in Jesus. The Spirit of Jesus Christ actually comes to dwell within the new Christian, giving newness of life--His life.
In sum, Christ makes a Christian a Christian."
This definition is better than most, because it does at least say that Christ makes a person a Christian and that the indwelling of the Spirit is needed. But first you have to get past the first paragraph which implies that becoming a Christian is something that the person does.
I agree that there is no mention of feeling the Spirit in your heart. But it dos say that the Spirit dwells in the person and to me that implies that the Spirit would make some changes in the person, the newness of life.
If you met a psychiatric patient who was hallucinating and talking to people who are not there - their experience is real, but that experience is NOT based on facts. Same goes for religions with no historical facts to support their beliefs.
It depends on what facts you consider. The hallucinating patient does not hear something that is real, but it is a fact that they hear something. Their experience is based on the fact that they believed that they heard something.
I can also remember many years ago at a Christian conference, the speaker telling us about how he heard a message from a switched off radio and knew that it was guidance from God. Was he also hallucinating, or was it really a message from God?
A christian who does not believe in the physical resurrection is not a real christian and an oxymoron. That is equivalent to a Jewish Muslim.
In principle I agree with you. Yet such Christians do exist.
Yes experiences can help faith because most people have feelings unlike yourself. Very logical people or people without those type of experiences have to take another "route".
You seem to be implying that spiritual experiences only occur because of the persons feelings and emotions. If you are right, then I suspect that the majority of people who think they know God are deluding themselves. However, I believe that there should be some types of spiritual experience (such as having a prayer answered) that do not depend on feelings and emotions and this would be a perfectly acceptable route for very logical people. Or of course God, being resourceful, ought to be able to devise other ways to have a relationship with such people.
OK- quite frankly that is a real sin you are commiting there. That is blatant unbelief. If you were/are a christian you are calling God a liar. 2 timothy 2:11-13 /If you do not believe in the afterlife meaning Heaven for believers and Hell for non-believers then you are not a christian.
Several points here. First, there are lots of Christians who are not happy with the concept of heaven for believers and hell for everyone else. Second, I think there are alternatives that are also consistent with the Bible including nothing after death for many people. Third, what you are accusing me of is disagreeing with the Bible, not with God and I have already said that I am not yet able to accept every word of the Bible as true. Fourth, why are you expecting me, an unbeliever, to believe every aspect of Christian doctrine? You say that a person who does not believe in these things is not a Christian. Well, I admit it, I am not a Christian.
Perhaps more importantly, I did not say that I did not believe in life after death. I said that it was not important to me personally, and that the prospect of eternal life in heaven is not particularly attractive to me. As with many Christian ideas, I remain a dont know on the subject of life after death.
Shouldn't an all-knowing God know whether there is an afterlife or not? Whether or not you ever feel that to be true because you have never felt any emotions does not change the fact that Jesus promised Heaven to those who believe in Him. John 3:16 If you have not ever EVER sincerely believed then you have never been born again (and changed as a result of that).
Of course God would know. I do not think it is lack of emotions that make me have no interest in life after death. My suspicion is that it is lack of awareness of anything spiritual, including no awareness of myself having a spirit (the part that is said to live on after death).
I have no awareness of being changed due to being born again, which is precisely why I began this thread. However, I did sincerely believe, as people who knew me at the time could verify. Sincere belief is not enough; it takes the grace of God for a person to be born again.
Paul received a special assignment from God not warm fuzzy feelings or encouragement.
Quite right. Who wants warm fuzzy feelings? Not me.
I don't remember any athletes looking at each other while racing.... perhaps that is why more Ausssie athletes than British win races then
I remember at the Beijing Olympics there was a comment from an Australian that the British were mainly winning medals while sitting down rowing and cycling for example. I guess the winning rowers, who sit backwards, were definitely watching the opposition. In some races the cyclists also watched each other carefully, judging the best time to make a move. So do many runners. (Although none of this is really very relevant.)
Open the Bible, look down, wear glasses if necessary and read it like the rest of us.....
You suggest this as a way to keep my eyes on God. I agree that I might learn something about God by reading the Bible. But I would not equate that with keeping my eyes on God. Or have I missed something?
God also knew their hearts and the future decisions they would make just as He knows your heart as well.
If you believe that a person cannot lose their salvation then presumably the gospel message says that when a person is saved, their sins are forgiven. All of their sins are forgiven past, present and future. So it would not matter that God knew what sins they might commit in the future. However, if you believe that a person can lose their salvation, then maybe it is only the sins of the past that are forgiven when a person is saved, and they may lose their salvation due to sinning in the future.
Most (examples of people being saved in Acts) are after evangelism i.e. preaching the Gospel and the crowds responding to that message. e.g. Acts 2:14-41. Signs and wonders were necessary AT THAT TIME to show those people God's power BEFORE the Bible was in its final format (as we have it today).
I am not really happy with your statement here, because it implies that signs and wonders are no longer needed because people have the Bible instead. If God is no longer acting in a supernatural way, then I would expect Christianity to be in trouble and heading for oblivion.
Maybe in the last few paragraphs I have made too many assumptions, by discussing what I see as some of the implications of what you have written. I apologise if my assumptions have been inaccurate.
I hope we meet in Heaven losthope, I really do.
That is a lovely thought. Thank you.