What Convinced you God Exists?

[Mark Quayle]

How have you ruled out that there never was a beginning? Many Physicists have hypothesized that nothing may not be a possible state. Who knows but how do you rule this out?

'Nothing' as a possible state or as impossible, is still of itself intended, being either mechanical fact, or intention itself. While I consider the notion of 'not even nothingness' more than my mind can encompass, the raw nature of it demonstrates that the reality-based nature of fact itself had a beginning --an 'inventor'.

I have looked at all the evidence I can get my hands on. I spent two years trying to determine what is true by trying to find the good evidence for my religious beliefs. What I found was I had no good reasons to believe and became unconvinced. You saying that I "won't look at the evidence" is just fallacious and almost slanderous.

Perhaps I'm not the right person to be doing this for you, then. I say it because it makes sense, and because I believe what the Bible says about human nature, not to mention seeing the tendency within myself. I meant you no insult. I don't consider myself more intellectually honest than you. I don't suppose it would do to go again through a long description of the nature of salvific faith, that it is generated by God within myself, so I will say that what I believe has convinced me, and I find myself progressively more convinced as the days pass; I have become incapable of believing otherwise.

Please demonstrate how you can possibly know this to be true? My life would be so much easier if I was still a believer.

Two ways. 1. The worse and most obvious being that when you die you see you were wrong all along --even as a 'believer' thinking you understood the nature of God and the nature of fact. (No, I don't think I understand either; I only understand enough.) 2. Your eyes may be opened. God may yet convince you. If you really want to be convinced, then I would advise you to remain intellectually honest. But I'm not the one to do the job.

Nope, again you just want to brush away my entire experience of losing my faith as I "just don't want to believe" Well that is arrogant and foolish because it just gives me good evidence that you don't have any answers.

I think you haven't lost your faith, or at least what of it was indeed 'of God'. Or if you have lost your faith, it was a false faith. That is simple Bible, and common sense and personal experience. I meant you no insult. There have been times I would rather not have believed, but found that I couldn't 'not believe'. You found the opposite. But I find (again, the Bible and introspection) in myself the balking at submission to the ultimate authority: when God tells me to do something, I don't want to decide to do it --I want him to MAKE me do it. When God shows me something to accept again, that will likely hurt me again, I don't want to accept it, because it is too painful for me (the story of 'Doubting Thomas' comes to mind). I don't want to do the effort --I want to HAVE TO. I want to still be me and not change. I'm lazy.

And then, there is the old classic, which in surface appearance counters the other --I want to be self-determining. So if I am going to be convinced, God is going to have to do the job.

That is because you are convinced by some evidence that it is true. See at times you did not want to believe but you remained convinced because of the evidence you think is reasonable. Why can't you believe the same about me? Why must you tell me that "I really don't want to believe" or that I "won't look at the evidence" which are lies.

I almost hate to keep coming back to this same thought: that what evidence is the strongest, the evidence that keeps me, is the Faith that is not my own, but from God himself. "Faith is the evidence of what is not seen" does not mean that the fact of faith, or the fact that I have faith, serves as evidence, but that the faith itself is THE evidence for those in whom the Spirit of God has taken up residence. It causes the belief. It is not the result of my decision --that part you have right!

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

'Nothing' as a possible state or as impossible, is still of itself intended, being either mechanical fact, or intention itself. While I consider the notion of 'not even nothingness' more than my mind can encompass, the raw nature of it demonstrates that the reality-based nature of fact itself had a beginning --an 'inventor'.

You are just saying that because your mind cannot comprehend something happening naturally then it must have had an inventor. This is just incredulity.

Perhaps I'm not the right person to be doing this for you, then. I say it because it makes sense, and because I believe what the Bible says about human nature, not to mention seeing the tendency within myself. I meant you no insult. I don't consider myself more intellectually honest than you. I don't suppose it would do to go again through a long description of the nature of salvific faith, that it is generated by God within myself, so I will say that what I believe has convinced me, and I find myself progressively more convinced as the days pass; I have become incapable of believing otherwise.

Yes, and that is a perfectly good thing. Where I find offense is that you don't think that about me. Why isn't that I am not convinced by the evidence and you are convinced by the evidence good enough? Why go the additional step to say I don't want to be convinced etc.?

Two ways. 1. The worse and most obvious being that when you die you see you were wrong all along --even as a 'believer' thinking you understood the nature of God and the nature of fact. (No, I don't think I understand either; I only understand enough.) 2. Your eyes may be opened. God may yet convince you. If you really want to be convinced, then I would advise you to remain intellectually honest. But I'm not the one to do the job.

I am open to all truths. I just need good evidence for belief. God can provide that evidence if He exists. So I will wait.

I think you haven't lost your faith, or at least what of it was indeed 'of God'. Or if you have lost your faith, it was a false faith. That is simple Bible, and common sense and personal experience. I meant you no insult. There have been times I would rather not have believed, but found that I couldn't 'not believe'. You found the opposite. But I find (again, the Bible and introspection) in myself the balking at submission to the ultimate authority: when God tells me to do something, I don't want to decide to do it --I want him to MAKE me do it. When God shows me something to accept again, that will likely hurt me again, I don't want to accept it, because it is too painful for me (the story of 'Doubting Thomas' comes to mind). I don't want to do the effort --I want to HAVE TO. I want to still be me and not change. I'm lazy.

My faith was real and I no longer have faith. The fact that my true experience does not line up with the bible should tell you something. This is why you assert my faith was not real in the first place.

And then, there is the old classic, which in surface appearance counters the other --I want to be self-determining. So if I am going to be convinced, God is going to have to do the job.

Nope, I just need evidence that convinces me.

I almost hate to keep coming back to this same thought: that what evidence is the strongest, the evidence that keeps me, is the Faith that is not my own, but from God himself. "Faith is the evidence of what is not seen" does not mean that the fact of faith, or the fact that I have faith, serves as evidence, but that the faith itself is THE evidence for those in whom the Spirit of God has taken up residence. It causes the belief. It is not the result of my decision --that part you have right!

Then we disagree on what good evidence is. Because you believe something to be true is a good reason to believe it is true. This is what you are saying. It is not convincing.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You are just saying that because your mind cannot comprehend something happening naturally then it must have had an inventor. This is just incredulity.

Can I infer then, that you have some reasonable explanation for existence? Or can I infer your own incredulity, more than mine, yours rejecting what you have not had forced sweetly onto your perfectly ordered mind, mine merely unable to reject what I love to study.

Yes, and that is a perfectly good thing. Where I find offense is that you don't think that about me. Why isn't that I am not convinced by the evidence and you are convinced by the evidence good enough? Why go the additional step to say I don't want to be convinced etc.?

Because we all do that. It is human nature.

I am open to all truths. I just need good evidence for belief. God can provide that evidence if He exists. So I will wait.

What is ironic is that while you insist intellectual integrity, you also insist God must do what it takes to convince you. Who do you think you are? God owes you nothing. But he may be gracious enough to convince you yet. I hope so.

Maybe it is just projecting, but, I find it hard to believe that you have done all you can to find out the truth.

My faith was real and I no longer have faith. The fact that my true experience does not line up with the bible should tell you something. This is why you assert my faith was not real in the first place.

Your interpretation of your experience necessarily falls short of the truth. Same with me. --Just saying.

Nope, I just need evidence that convinces me.

Tell God, not me. God can convince you, but you probably will find out it is not at all what you thought you were looking for.

Then we disagree on what good evidence is. Because you believe something to be true is a good reason to believe it is true. This is what you are saying. It is not convincing.

You didn't understand what I said. I do not think that my belief is evidence. The evidence is what is real, placed in me, undeniable, shown me daily, unavoidable, and overwhelmingly convincing --not something I chose and therefore believe-- but something that happened to me and drives me. This does not depend on my intellect to handle and taste before deciding on. I do not sit and consider its validity. I have been uprooted and set down in a different place, and now consider the question of my own validity.

We humans are not built to find out about God and do him the favor of esteeming him. We are made FOR him.

 

[cvanwey]

I feel like we are running around in circles:

Christianity is this:

• We build relationship with God, based upon the offer of total forgiveness for all sins
• Relationship with God gives us access to His Spirit, which gives us strength over sin
• We are to do our best to avoid sin, and move away from it
• The Holy Spirit gives us power to do the above

2Ti 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

Yes, we will continue to go in circles, if you do not answer my questions (and/or) until you acknowledge the flaw(s) in your current rationale.

(Unanswered Q): Does 'free will' include the ability to simply will a belief in a deity, for which you currently do not think exists?

(In response to) "We build relationship with God, based upon the offer of total forgiveness for all sins"

Building a relationship with God - (by acknowledging His existence, worshiping Him, and acknowledging you are a sinner) means He now applies a "new beginning" for you. However, you will still continue to sin; no matter how hard you try not to - until the day you die. Hence, sin is now pretty much arbitrary. Why is sin arbitrary? Your continued sin, for which you WILL continue committing, will not keep you out of heaven. Sure, you may try not to sin, but you still will. A white lie, I lie to spare someone's feelings, a lie to save a life, or even purposeful lies are ALL still sin(s) to God. As long as you pledge allegiance and worship Him, you are apparently golden.

(In response to) "Relationship with God gives us access to His Spirit, which gives us strength over sin"

You will still sin. The numeric value of how many times you still sin is irrelevant to God. The entire reason for Jesus' substitutional atonement, is to act as a "replacement" for you, as a confirmed sinner. All you need to do is accept the gift He offers.

(In response to) "We are to do our best to avoid sin, and move away from it"

I trust you are starting to get the point. You will still continue to sin. God hates all sin, and God deems you a life longer sinner; in need of you worshiping His provided 'replacement/substitution.'

(In response to) "The Holy Spirit gives us power to do the above"

This would only hold true if you never sinned, or held no further desire to sin. God knows all will continue in both. Hence, the necessity for you to latch onto His provided [substitution proposition/free gift].

Therefore, sin is virtually arbitrary under Christian doctrine. By arbitrary, I mean not a requirement. Your lack of sin is not a requirement for salvation. Worship is.

 

[cvanwey]

Concerning the difference between knowledge and belief, I am going to quibble, because it makes a huge difference in one's theology. It also deals directly with our current discussion re Romans 1. If people know something, they may not even realize that they know it.

Sure, but then we might start chasing a rabbit trail of... "do you ever really know anything?" This is why I used the "gravity" example.

Romans 1 tells it's readers that they 'know' God is real. And the ones who truly don't, are blocked by "sin".

Therefore, I did not want to get into the 'differences' between [belief/know]. In this context, the Bible asserts we all do, aside from the 'evil' exception

You've lost me here. I'll guess by 'intentional agency' etc you are referring to the discussion about whether something happens naturally, or by God's providence. But then it doesn't make much sense to say my 'survival' is secured by invoking intention. Do you mean, my existence is secured by intentional agency (i.e. God)?

But like I said, IF First Cause exists, then it is ALL intentional.

I mean when you have experiences, you sometimes invoke intentional agency, where I may not.

Where we now seem to diverge, is I no longer infer God as intervening anywhere, as where you still apparently do. However, we both still likely commit type 1 errors all the time. (case/point) - the "broken window in the dark" example.

In your case, when you infer God, there is likely no real way to 'demonstrate' it was actually God intervening, verses not. Unlike the broken window example. Again, it is harmless for billions to assert a God interaction, when there was none. On the other hand, it might instead be a grave type 2 error, to only infer natural causes for the broken window, if there actually was an intruder.

Where is the 'too dumb' part, in the Bible?

Right here:

"The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

 

[cvanwey]

'He' who? God?

Yes. He seems to not mind being the author of confusion.

Btw, my 'opponent' is not diametrically as opposed as you might think. We are agreed on the basics, or the wording of them. Omnipotence and Sovereignty of God. The person and work of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. And a lot more. Our biggest differences lie in the usual POV distinction between Arminianism and Calvinism. I don't think he believes in works over faith for salvation --I just think his way of thinking of it comes to that, that human action comes before faith.

I do think you two are more diametrically opposed than you might want to admit. Please continue to see my exchange(s) with him.

Here's the question... How does one get to heaven?

- grace alone
- faith alone
- works alone
- grace and faith
- grace and works
- grace, faith, and works
- other

And how much of each?

Now I AM lost. What does the question of intentionality have to do with any of this? Are you asking if I meant to dream something or to lie? I thought we were talking about God's intentions.

However, just to ease your mind concerning me, some things I dream about reveal some of what is in me.

And some of the 'lies' some people tell are not lying, but part of the way people talk. Like playing I Doubt It is a game. It is understood that some things must be done the way they are. Sarcasm uses the opposite of what someone means, to say what they mean.

Also my wife was one who would say that if I don't tell all that is on my mind, I am lying by omission. It took years for her to see that nobody tells ALL that is on their mind. There simply isn't time, not to mention we pretty much all have to get along together.

You stated you "don't believe there is such a thing as an unintentional sin."

You have dreams, thoughts, and actions which were unintended. Many of these dreams, thoughts, and actions God might still consider to be 'sin'; even though you did not deliberately set out to perform them. And yet, they are still deemed sin by God.

I don't get your use of the word, 'arbitrary'. Do you mean, sin is ok, because....? Also, I'm curious, where do you get that 'not worshiping' is apparently not arbitrary (i.e. not ok?)?

Sin is arbitrary because worshiping sinners can still go to heaven. Like you stated prior, you must accept God's provided 'replacement'.

Worship is not arbitrary because without it, you cannot get into heaven. You must accept the "replacement".

 

[cvanwey]

Ahahaha! There ought to be a name for that kind of talk! Remember, in your choleric antagonism, that if God is God, there is no reason for him to be unjust. Nobody will get "tortured" more than they deserve. (By the way, the Bible uses the word, 'torment', and yes, there is a difference.)

By the way, you left out false believers, too.

Why can't you address or acknowledge my simple point? Or at least tell me where I went astray? The Bible itself instructs....

The chosen go to heaven
The unchosen go to a singular place of ('torment'/other term of choice).

If an agent wishes to label themself "love", does this presented destination dichotomy sound to parallel the term "love"? (i.e.) "With me equals eternal bliss, but not with me equals eternal suffering"

Also, in my response of post 445, you stated "8. Those who remain in rebellion will receive in themselves just compensation for their deeds."

Are all skeptics, atheists, agnostics, other simply just "rebellious"?

What? Why would I disagree with that?

Exactly. You stated in post 445 "We were talking about the evidence for God". Based upon your answer above, Jesus' resurrection is, at least in part, your evidence for God apparently So how do you know He rose?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Sure, but then we might start chasing a rabbit trail of... "do you ever really know anything?" This is why I used the "gravity" example.

Romans 1 tells it's readers that they 'know' God is real. And the ones who truly don't, are blocked by "sin".

Therefore, I did not want to get into the 'differences' between [belief/know]. In this context, the Bible asserts we all do, aside from the 'evil' exception

Actually, Romans 1 leaves nobody out, it doesn't allow for anyone, even if blocked by sin, to truly not know God is real. I've been wondering where you got that term "blocked by sin". I thought you were referring to the Romans 8 description of what the sinful nature does to the will.

I mean when you have experiences, you sometimes invoke intentional agency, where I may not.

Where we now seem to diverge, is I no longer infer God as intervening anywhere, as where you still apparently do. However, we both still likely commit type 1 errors all the time. (case/point) - the "broken window in the dark" example.

In your case, when you infer God, there is likely no real way to 'demonstrate' it was actually God intervening, verses not. Unlike the broken window example. Again, it is harmless for billions to assert a God interaction, when there was none. On the other hand, it might instead be a grave type 2 error, to only infer natural causes for the broken window, if there actually was an intruder.

You still seem to misunderstand, and so, you misrepresent, my view of the matter. Would it make it more plain to you, if I said EVERYTHING in my life is by God's intervention? I call it Providence. In fact, even the 'bad', including even my disobedience, is by God's [hidden] will. Everything that happens to me, whether I like it or not, is by God's doing.

You seem to think that I claim some things are miracle. It is all miracle. Even the 'natural' (the usual) is God's doing.

Right here:

"The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

In the footnotes, in some versions such as the NIV, it states something like, "The Hebrew word translated 'fool' denotes one of moral deficiency".

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes. He seems to not mind being the author of confusion.

You may be surprised to find that God planned for confusion, like he planned for sin, and even caused that there be sin and confusion, but he did not author it. Sin, or the author of sin, is the author of confusion. Sin and confusion have their uses, and God uses, in fact, he intended them for good.

I do think you two are more diametrically opposed than you might want to admit. Please continue to see my exchange(s) with him.

Here's the question... How does one get to heaven?

- grace alone
- faith alone
- works alone
- grace and faith
- grace and works
- grace, faith, and works
- other

And how much of each?

I don't understand why you put that list up. The Bible says "...by grace you have been saved through faith."

You stated you "don't believe there is such a thing as an unintentional sin."

You have dreams, thoughts, and actions which were unintended. Many of these dreams, thoughts, and actions God might still consider to be 'sin'; even though you did not deliberately set out to perform them. And yet, they are still deemed sin by God.

How were they unintended? Do I know myself well enough to say I didn't mean to lie? It just slipped out? The fact that I am unaware of some of my sin doesn't mean it is unintended. If I have a habit, a personality flaw, shall we say, of anger, and "I didn't mean to lose my temper" but lost it anyway, why say that was unintended? My sinful will intended the whole matter.

By the way, some dreams, at least in my opinion, are more a revealing of your will than an act of your will.

Sin is arbitrary because worshiping sinners can still go to heaven. Like you stated prior, you must accept God's provided 'replacement'.

Worship is not arbitrary because without it, you cannot get into heaven. You must accept the "replacement".

I guess that would depend on your meaning of worship. Also, 'sinners' can mean forgiven, active, habitual, constant... which are you referring to? Where do you find that without worship one can't get to Heaven? Maybe that would explain what you mean by it. I can find a lot of places where it shows that sinners cannot go to Heaven. Depends what you mean, then.

 

[cvanwey]

Actually, Romans 1 leaves nobody out, it doesn't allow for anyone, even if blocked by sin, to truly not know God is real. I've been wondering where you got that term "blocked by sin". I thought you were referring to the Romans 8 description of what the sinful nature does to the will.

Are you saying that everyone, at least deep down, knows God exists?

You still seem to misunderstand, and so, you misrepresent, my view of the matter. Would it make it more plain to you, if I said EVERYTHING in my life is by God's intervention? I call it Providence. In fact, even the 'bad', including even my disobedience, is by God's [hidden] will. Everything that happens to me, whether I like it or not, is by God's doing.

You seem to think that I claim some things are miracle. It is all miracle. Even the 'natural' (the usual) is God's doing.

Miracles alone, or in every case, it's quite easy <and> unfalsifiable to assert that God is always intervening and/or looking out for you. How do you know you are not committing a continuous type 1 error?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why can't you address or acknowledge my simple point? Or at least tell me where I went astray? The Bible itself instructs....

The chosen go to heaven
The unchosen go to a singular place of ('torment'/other term of choice).

If an agent wishes to label themself "love", does this presented destination dichotomy sound to parallel the term "love"? (i.e.) "With me equals eternal bliss, but not with me equals eternal suffering"

God's intense interest in every detail of his creation, to my thinking, sounds like love.

You want to contract the whole means of sin down to elimination of sin, placing blame for God's judgement on God's causation. THEY WILLFULLY CHOSE sin. They will pay for their sin.

Also, in my response of post 445, you stated "8. Those who remain in rebellion will receive in themselves just compensation for their deeds."

Are all skeptics, atheists, agnostics, other simply just "rebellious"?

Ha! I suppose that would depend on what you mean by 'just "rebellious"'! Was there some other word or concept you had in mind?

Exactly. You stated in post 445 "We were talking about the evidence for God". Based upon your answer above, Jesus' resurrection is, at least in part, your evidence for God apparently So how do you know He rose?

The fact that he was resurrected demonstrates that he is God. I haven't done an in-depth study to see if the Bible is telling the truth that there were many witnesses. Is there some reason I should? I've heard 'experts' on both sides, and I'm skeptical of both. The 'experts' on the one side are the same who don't take the Bible for truth in other matters, and don't believe in Omnipotent God. I tend the other way.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Are you saying that everyone, at least deep down, knows God exists?

As I understand it, Romans 1 says so.

Miracles alone, or in every case, it's quite easy <and> unfalsifiable to assert that God is always intervening and/or looking out for you. How do you know you are not committing a continuous type 1 error?

Lol, you still seem to take my view as 'God intervening' in some special different way. Several posts back I tried to explain that EVERYTHING God created deistically, is also him upholding theistically. Combining that with the fact that God created for the specific purpose of making a particular people for himself, EVERYTHING that happens is God's doing, for that particular purpose. Thus, what happens is all God's Providence.

 

[cvanwey]

You may be surprised to find that God planned for confusion, like he planned for sin, and even caused that there be sin and confusion, but he did not author it. Sin, or the author of sin, is the author of confusion. Sin and confusion have their uses, and God uses, in fact, he intended them for good.

So God's message is clear? How do you know you have the correct message for salvation?

I don't understand why you put that list up. The Bible says "...by grace you have been saved through faith."

Sure, then there is the 'sheep and the goats' story. Jesus mentions nothing of grace by faith in this parable. Just as Jesus mentions nothing of works in the others.

Drive through any large town or city. Starting counting all the denominations you see posted, in Christianity alone. Do they all assert the same central message for salvation?

Then look at all the opposing churches, temples, etc... Is God pleased with His given message(s)?

How were they unintended? Do I know myself well enough to say I didn't mean to lie? It just slipped out? The fact that I am unaware of some of my sin doesn't mean it is unintended. If I have a habit, a personality flaw, shall we say, of anger, and "I didn't mean to lose my temper" but lost it anyway, why say that was unintended? My sinful will intended the whole matter.

By the way, some dreams, at least in my opinion, are more a revealing of your will than an act of your will.

If you look at a woman in 'lust', God deems this a sin. Unless you close your eyes, and think about baseball 24/7, you will eventually commit an unintentional sin

And you do not control what you dream. Hence, they are too also unintended.

I guess that would depend on your meaning of worship. Also, 'sinners' can mean forgiven, active, habitual, constant... which are you referring to? Where do you find that without worship one can't get to Heaven? Maybe that would explain what you mean by it. I can find a lot of places where it shows that sinners cannot go to Heaven. Depends what you mean, then.

I think you know what I mean.

- An atheist philanthropist cannot earn his/her way to heaven. He needs to worship Him.
- A worshiping Christian can and will sin, but still has a chance to enter His kingdom.

 

[cvanwey]

God's intense interest in every detail of his creation, to my thinking, sounds like love.

You want to contract the whole means of sin down to elimination of sin, placing blame for God's judgement on God's causation. THEY WILLFULLY CHOSE sin. They will pay for their sin.

"Love me in the way I want, or you will burn," does not sound like love.

Ha! I suppose that would depend on what you mean by 'just "rebellious"'! Was there some other word or concept you had in mind?

You tell me? You used the word? Are all unbelievers actually just being rebellious? Are they just too prideful/other to admit they know God exists?

The fact that he was resurrected demonstrates that he is God. I haven't done an in-depth study to see if the Bible is telling the truth that there were many witnesses. Is there some reason I should? I've heard 'experts' on both sides, and I'm skeptical of both. The 'experts' on the one side are the same who don't take the Bible for truth in other matters, and don't believe in Omnipotent God. I tend the other way.

Welp, you may want to check into it... Being that this claim is the entire basis for why you are a Christian, verses some other god(s) believer

 

[cvanwey]

As I understand it, Romans 1 says so.

Kool. Do you agree? DO you also think all believe in God, and some just suppress or rebel?

Lol, you still seem to take my view as 'God intervening' in some special different way. Several posts back I tried to explain that EVERYTHING God created deistically, is also him upholding theistically. Combining that with the fact that God created for the specific purpose of making a particular people for himself, EVERYTHING that happens is God's doing, for that particular purpose. Thus, what happens is all God's Providence.

You are invoking intentional agency. -- Whether you assert He watches from a distance, intervenes directly sometimes, or anything else. Do you admit this could very well be one giant type 1 error? And once you do finally acknowledge this question, how do you know you are not committing an error in this case?

We can then re-reference the "broken window" story, if need-be...

 

[Mark Quayle]

So God's message is clear? How do you know you have the correct message for salvation?

I didn't say his message is clear. I said he is not the author of confusion.

His Word says "by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves." Further definitions and statements affirm that the whole work of Grace by definition is God's doing, from first to last, not mine.

Sure, then there is the 'sheep and the goats' story. Jesus mentions nothing of grace by faith in this parable. Just as Jesus mentions nothing of works in the others.

Drive through any large town or city. Starting counting all the denominations you see posted, in Christianity alone. Do they all assert the same message central for salvation?

Then look at all the opposing churches, temples, etc... Is God pleased with His given message(s)?

The sheep and the goats parable is not about how people get saved/ condemned. It is about judgement. I can't refer to the others until you get specific, but I would guess they are pretty much the same if there is no mention, one way or another, of the grace of God.

You may be surprised about God's choice of means to accomplish the proclamation of the Gospel and the maturing of believers. God doesn't need complete purity, truth and precision of communication to bring to himself those whom he has planned all along to become his particular people. In fact, sometimes it is done all wrong because THAT is the way it needed to happen.

(As a sort of example, I voted for Trump the second time around, not because he is a wonderful guy but because he was getting done the things I wanted to see done in this country. He is an iconoclast, and I don't really like the guy nor enjoy listening to him talk. But he is the guy I think we needed in there.)

If you look at a woman in 'lust', God deems this a sin. Unless you close your eyes, and think about baseball 24/7, you will eventually commit an unintentional sin

And you do not control what you dream. Hence, they are too also unintended.

Did you not understand what I said about the dreams? I was agreeing with you about them, unintended, therefore revealing of sin, not acts of sin.

I don't deny that you will commit sin. My disagreement is that it is not intentional. My "old man", "the flesh", "the sinful nature" still exerts its influence when it can. Intentionally.

I think you know what I mean.

- An atheist philanthropist cannot earn his/her way to heaven. He needs to worship Him.
- A worshiping Christian can and will sin, but still has a chance to enter His kingdom.

No, actually, I don't know what you mean, and I don't want to assume. I can't read your mind, and what I seem to understand you to say I disagree with completely.

Can you show me somewhere in the Bible that says I must worship to enter his Kingdom?

 

[cvanwey]

I didn't say his message is clear. I said he is not the author of confusion.

His Word says "by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves." Further definitions and statements affirm that the whole work of Grace by definition is God's doing, from first to last, not mine.

Many many many denominations exist. Many of which assert opposing ways to salvation. They all use the same source [The Bible]. Is God pleased with the Book for which He authored and/or inspired?

The sheep and the goats parable is not about how people get saved/ condemned. It is about judgement. I can't refer to the others until you get specific, but I would guess they are pretty much the same if there is no mention, one way or another, of the grace of God.

Please see above.

I don't deny that you will commit sin. My disagreement is that it is not intentional.

I know. I'm saying some sin is unintentional. You disagree.

No, actually, I don't know what you mean, and I don't want to assume. I can't read your mind, and what I seem to understand you to say I disagree with completely.

Can you show me somewhere in the Bible that says I must worship to enter his Kingdom?

The other interlocutor did not post these already; for which I responded to them?

 

[Mark Quayle]

"Love me in the way I want, or you will burn," does not sound like love.

Perfect obedience of God's law will do it. God's law, such as the first and greatest commandment. And none of us can do that. Not even the first one. Nope --we are rebellious and self-important. And we have by our actions, our thinking and our attitude, called our own creator a liar and irrelevant. Yeah, for that, justice needs done, or he is a liar. But he loves some of us with a particular kind of love, a more intense interest in us as more than clay vessels for common purpose.

These 'elect' he chose are special because he chose them, and made them, not because there is anything to them better than any others. So he took their sin, their guilt, their payment, upon himself, so that they owed nothing.

But you pretend it can be reduced to just "Love me in the way I want, or you will burn,"

You tell me? You used the word? Are all unbelievers actually just being rebellious? Are they just too prideful/other to admit they know God exists?

Mostly they are too full of themselves, (judging by myself, i.e. knowing my own tendencies, here), to even be aware they know God exists. Yes, they are rebellious. They are set against God by nature, self-important, self-serving, and will not to submit to what they innately know (just as they know God exists) that his existence implies submission. I'm not saying these are intellectually apprehended, and perhaps subliminally, but it is there.

The notion that children are born atheists by default is ludicrous, frankly.

Welp, you may want to check into it... Being that this claim is the entire basis for why you are a Christian, verses some other god(s) believer

No, it's not the entire basis. If he was not resurrected, then yes, it is all in vain. But he was resurrected. My basis for being a Christian is the faith that the Spirit of God has generated in me. My intellectual apprehension of his resurrection as a researched fact will make little difference. I already believe it. Better minds and even better hearts than mine have done more historical and biological research than I can do. I don't see the need, frankly. My interests go elsewhere.

The same kind of claim can be laid on me for not researching the canonical books of the Bible. It doesn't matter if I made my own decision about that. What I read in the Bible sounds like the Bible. It all works together to do what it says it will do. The other books do not quite fit. My faith does not rest upon my research.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Kool. Do you agree? DO you also think all believe in God, and some just suppress or rebel?

Yes I agree. No, to 'know' God exists, and to 'believe in' God, (unless by 'believe in' one only means intellectual apprehension, such as, 'the devil believes and trembles') are not the same thing. All suppress and rebel, even those to whom he has shown mercy do that sometimes and to some degree. (And yes, that too is sin).

You are invoking intentional agency. -- Whether you assert He watches from a distance, intervenes directly sometimes, or anything else. Do you admit this could very well be one giant type 1 error? And once you do finally acknowledge this question, how do you know you are not committing an error in this case?

We can then re-reference the "broken window" story, if need-be...

Lol, no, One giant type 2 error, haha. No, it is not an error. I know it is true just as surely as you know the floor will be there when you crawl out of bed in the morning --maybe even more surely.

One way is the faith that I have tried to describe, that doesn't come from me.

Another way is simple logical progression from the fact of first cause. It makes no sense to say he has no control, or only has irrelevant control over the progress of fact and history, if he made all this for his particular purpose. It is illogical to say that it got away from him somehow, and that chance now reigns over even one little portion of it.

And both ways are tied together rather happily.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Many many many denominations exist. Many of which assert opposing ways to salvation. They all use the same source [The Bible]. Is God pleased with the Book for which He authored and/or inspired?

Very pleased.

But, I'm not at all sure he is pleased with your representation of it, nor even with the representation that any particular one of the denominations makes of it.

The other interlocutor did not post these already; for which I responded to them?

Is that a question? I don't understand what you are saying.