God and Sin

Andrewn · Aug 7, 2020

I was wondering why you find that some of my replies do not answer the questions you raise. Certainly, I'm not trying to be evasive. One possibility perhaps is that I'm assuming a role for "faith." All quotations are from Wikipedia. Let's look at the definition "faith" and see if this will take us anywhere:

"Faith, derived from Latin fides and Old French feid, is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept. In the context of religion, one can define faith as "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion". Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant, while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.

"The word translated as "faith" in English-language editions of the New Testament, the Greek word πίστις (pístis), can also be translated as "belief", "faithfulness", or "trust".

"Alister McGrath quotes the Oxford Anglican theologian W. H. Griffith-Thomas (1861–1924), who states that faith is "not blind, but intelligent" and that it "commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence..."

Heb 11:6 Now without faith it is impossible to please God. For the one who comes to God must believe that He exists and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

"James W. Fowler (1940–2015) proposes a series of stages of faith-development (or spiritual development) across the human life-span. His stages relate closely to the work of Piaget, Erikson, and Kohlberg regarding aspects of psychological development in children and adults. Fowler defines faith as an activity of trusting, committing, and relating to the world based on a set of assumptions of how one is related to others and the world.

Intuitive-Projective: a stage of confusion and of high impressionability through stories and rituals (pre-school period).
Mythic-Literal: a stage where provided information is accepted in order to conform with social norms (school-going period).
Synthetic-Conventional: in this stage the faith acquired is concreted in the belief system with the forgoing of personification and replacement with authority in individuals or groups that represent one's beliefs (early-late adolescence).
Individuative-Reflective: in this stage the individual critically analyzes adopted and accepted faith with existing systems of faith. Disillusion or strengthening of faith happens in this stage. Based on needs, experiences and paradoxes (early adulthood).
Conjunctive faith: in this stage people realize the limits of logic and, facing the paradoxes or transcendence of life, accept the "mystery of life" and often return to the sacred stories and symbols of the pre-acquired or re-adopted faith system. This stage is called negotiated settling in life (mid-life).
Universalizing faith: this is the "enlightenment" stage where the individual comes out of all the existing systems of faith and lives life with universal principles of compassion and love and in service to others for upliftment, without worries and doubt (middle-late adulthood (45–65 years old and plus)."

With these definitions in the background, I'll try agin to address your points.

cvanwey said:
You continue to not engage my direct example. According to Scripture, whom is more likely saved --- (a or b)? Please pick one and explain your answer, using Scripture as your evidence? a) Mass murdering child rapist. Later performs sincere confession to Christ, later performs sincere repentance to Christ, and worships Christ, prior to execution. b) Life long peace corp worker and life long philanthropist, whom happens to reject the mere thought of the existence of god or gods? (S)he always has... (S)he is essentially, a version of a nihilist. I'll give you a hint, the answer is not b); according to many Verses in Scripture. This conclusion essentially renders the topic of 'morals' irrelevant. But somehow, belief or lack-there-of, is a grave sin? --- An uncontrollable conclusion, after following the presented evidence?

The answer is (a), if he is truly repents (changes directions) and remains faithful (following the laws of charity). How is the person (b) going to be treated? I don't know. Maybe he will be given more opportunities to believe and repent. He certainly deserves clemency for all his loving work. At least he will not be in the most horrible places of hell. And God is righteous.

cvanwey said:
Do you find it ODD, that God never once answered my hundreds/thousands of repeated requests for remedial contact/exchange in dialogue? He seems to have skipped right over me. And just another piece of food for thought; please reference the following given Verses --- Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23. Is it possible that either: 1) humans are merely accepting the hits, and ignoring the misses, by attributing contact/favor from God when they get a result they like? Or, 2) does God decide to not adhere to Scripture, (for me)? Sorry to press this false dilemma, but I cannot find a third plausible conclusion here...

The answer is (c), wait and trust in the Lord and He will answer.
Embracing Life

cvanwey said:
This does not address my response, in the slightest . God looks to be irresponsible in His communication. God mentions the 'absolute worst thing ever' - hell. And cares not to elaborate. It appears negligent, if He, in the same breath, wishes to also claim 'love' for His creation. He looks to be violating His own Logic. If you love someone, and also have means to provide clear instruction, seems logical to do it. To perform the opposite, begs the question.... 'What is true love"?

The question I answered was about different Christian denominations. If you're asking about atheists, we've already talked about Romans 1 & 2: evidence is available, some people believe (Rom 2) others do not (Rom 1). We pray and trust that God will move us from a state of questioning (stage 4) to a state of conjunctive faith (stage 5). Yes, true love gives us the freedom to choose within our genetic and environmental gifts. This means that an infant or someone with a mental disability or someone who never heard of God will be taken into consideration.

cvanwey said:
Tell that to God. "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

Sexual "orientation" is not a sin. Fornication is a sin, whether it is heterosexual or homosexual.

cvanwey said:
God requires worship, or else. Why?

Everyone of the millions of species that God has created has a purpose. Humans' purpose is to reflect the love of God to the creation and to reflect the love of creation to God. That is worship. As i said before, when we stop fulling our purpose, we cease to be humans. Or, as NT Wright says in the video, if you stop being an image bearing human being within this good world that God has made, you are colluding with your progressive dehumanization.

cvanwey · Aug 7, 2020

Andrewn said:
I was wondering why you find that some of my replies do not answer the questions you raise. Certainly, I'm not trying to be evasive. One possibility perhaps is that I'm assuming a role for "faith." All quotations are from Wikipedia. Let's look at the definition "faith" and see if this will take us anywhere:

"Faith, derived from Latin fides and Old French feid, is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept. In the context of religion, one can define faith as "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion". Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant, while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.

"The word translated as "faith" in English-language editions of the New Testament, the Greek word πίστις (pístis), can also be translated as "belief", "faithfulness", or "trust".

"Alister McGrath quotes the Oxford Anglican theologian W. H. Griffith-Thomas (1861–1924), who states that faith is "not blind, but intelligent" and that it "commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence..."

Heb 11:6 Now without faith it is impossible to please God. For the one who comes to God must believe that He exists and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

"James W. Fowler (1940–2015) proposes a series of stages of faith-development (or spiritual development) across the human life-span. His stages relate closely to the work of Piaget, Erikson, and Kohlberg regarding aspects of psychological development in children and adults. Fowler defines faith as an activity of trusting, committing, and relating to the world based on a set of assumptions of how one is related to others and the world.

Intuitive-Projective: a stage of confusion and of high impressionability through stories and rituals (pre-school period).

Mythic-Literal: a stage where provided information is accepted in order to conform with social norms (school-going period).

Synthetic-Conventional: in this stage the faith acquired is concreted in the belief system with the forgoing of personification and replacement with authority in individuals or groups that represent one's beliefs (early-late adolescence).

Individuative-Reflective: in this stage the individual critically analyzes adopted and accepted faith with existing systems of faith. Disillusion or strengthening of faith happens in this stage. Based on needs, experiences and paradoxes (early adulthood).

Conjunctive faith: in this stage people realize the limits of logic and, facing the paradoxes or transcendence of life, accept the "mystery of life" and often return to the sacred stories and symbols of the pre-acquired or re-adopted faith system. This stage is called negotiated settling in life (mid-life).

Universalizing faith: this is the "enlightenment" stage where the individual comes out of all the existing systems of faith and lives life with universal principles of compassion and love and in service to others for upliftment, without worries and doubt (middle-late adulthood (45–65 years old and plus)."

With these definitions in the background, I'll try agin to address your points.

As I've told others, 'faith' can mean differing things to differing people. Faith may/might be sometimes interchangeable with 'hope' and 'trust'.

Please also recall what I told you from the beginning. From post #264:

"As a precursor, I would like to acknowledge that if Christianity is true, I too might be on your side. Meaning, I would either a) not really engage with unbelievers at all (or) b) would attempt to 'defend' any and every statement made, which seems to 'go against' my believed God's expressed Word."

I see you performing b). And if you wish to fast-forward to the grand finale, we certainly can --- as I have also asked you a few times prior. If not, we can continue below, to your satisfaction.

But here's the kicker. I could thoroughly defeat each and every point, using logic, which you feel sustains or justifies your current belief. And in the end, you will likely 'walk away' exactly the same. You will remain Christian. You want to know why?

Now back to the exchange

Andrewn said:
The answer is (a), if he is truly repents (changes directions) and remains faithful (following the laws of charity). How is the person (b) going to be treated? I don't know. Maybe he will be given more opportunities to believe and repent. He certainly deserves clemency for all his loving work. At least he will not be in the most horrible places of hell. And God is righteous.

Repentance to a deity does not keep you from sinning further.

And yes, your answer is correct, according to the Bible. The answer is a). ** The mass murdering child rapist goes to heaven**, while the earnest philanthropist, whom finds no evidence for creation, does not, and is sent to a concentration camp.

Please tell me then how 'morals' actually matter? Please tell me how worshiping a deity is classified as a 'moral construct'? Both persons A and B will continue to sin, until they die. God hates all sin. A matter of fact, the very worst sin, which God hates, is reflected upon His first given Commandment. Please recall 'might makes right', as a conclusion of the Euthephro dilemma. God dictates what is sin, and punishes the ones whom do not conform.

Furthermore, as I stated many times prior, ALL will sin, right up to the point of natural death. Case/point - using your aforementioned tool -- 'logic':

It's said that the average human lies every single day. You may lie to protect a hostage, you may lie not to hurt someone's feelings. You may lie to secure a later birthday surprise. You may lie for many many many reasons - (with good or bad intentions). But, this is one of God's presented 10 Commandments!

Person A is an unbeliever, breaks Commandment 9 every day, dies at age 50 in a car wreck.

Person B is a believer, breaks Commandment 9 every day, dies at age 50 in a car wreck.

Supposing all other actions of these two individuals are identical, the only difference is 'belief.'

Please again demonstrate why 'morals' are even relevant? Is lack in belief truly a 'moral' construct? According to God it is. Please again reference 'might makes right'.

Andrewn said:
The answer is (c), wait and trust in the Lord and He will answer.
Embracing Life

If I was a believer, I might say the exact same thing; God's answer is 'maybe later.' Please look at this answer from the opposing view point. The Bible looks to give clear instruction. [You] appear to be providing ad hoc/post hoc explanation to a direct question.

Please then reflect upon your given answer with complete intellectual honesty.

'God will answer someday, but is waiting to answer the prayer requests. He chooses not to address such faithful requests, which were delivered in earnest for decades. He will instead decide to answer the request when this individual is no longer a professed Christian. He chose not to address a single prayer request, (1000's of them), as a believer. But instead, will suspend the call to answer, until he no longer believes, maybe some day.

Does [your] rationale look to fit the Bible?????

Andrewn said:
The question I answered was about different Christian denominations. If you're asking about atheists, we've already talked about Romans 1 & 2: evidence is available, some people believe (Rom 2) others do not (Rom 1). We pray and trust that God will move us from a state of questioning (stage 4) to a state of conjunctive faith (stage 5). Yes, true love gives us the freedom to choose within our genetic and environmental gifts. This means that an infant or someone with a mental disability or someone who never heard of God will be taken into consideration.

Please let me clarify further. The point still was not addressed. God mentions hell. God states it's bad. God then walks away, and allows many believers to debate over how bad it really is, who is going to go there, and to use hell as a threat to others - whom do not believe like they do, etc. God cared not to elaborate as to who and how one might end up there, INCLUDING YOU.

If you truly love your creation, would you not attempt to thoroughly warn them, with clarity? You openly admit the tenets to salvation are not clear, and that the description of hell is not clear. God is the direct purveyor of confusion. And yet, He looks to be abundantly clear, when He wants to be. (i.e.) --- Don't murder, don't steel, don't trespass, etc...

But when it comes to clarification about the demarcation between heaven and hell, we receive conflicting answers (i.e.) Romans 10:9-10 (vs) Matthew 25:31-46.

What God does explain about hell, looks to be quite horrifying. But then cares not to elaborate. This looks to contradict, if God also claims love for His creation. God looks to issue a severe threat, then walks away. And when called upon to give further detail, instead of doing so, chooses to remain silent.

I will give you a quick test, which should not violate the claims of Scripture. Pray to God and ask Him to explain what hell is really like, and who goes there? If He does not answer you, and I suspect He won't, then He continues to neglect His creation, which contradicts Scripture. -- Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23

Andrewn said:
Sexual "orientation" is not a sin.

Yes it is. Please revisit the Verse I provided. If man was to ever have relations with another man, God calls this an abomination.

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

Andrewn said:
Everyone of the millions of species that God has created has a purpose. Humans' purpose is to reflect the love of God to the creation and to reflect the love of creation to God. That is worship. As i said before, when we stop fulling our purpose, we cease to be humans. Or, as NT Wright says in the video, if you stop being an image bearing human being within this good world that God has made, you are colluding with your progressive dehumanization.

So a human's purpose is to worship his creator? How does an atheist/deist/agnostic/polytheist/other not fulfill their purpose? How are these individuals no longer human, if they do not perpetually pay homage to a specific creator deity?

An atheist peace corp worker and philanthropist ceases to be human?

Andrewn · Aug 7, 2020

cvanwey said:
I see you performing b). And if you wish to fast-forward to the grand finale, we certainly can --- as I have also asked you a few times prior.

We've expressed our respective positions in detail. I'll just quote a little story or a parable and then give you the podium for the "grand finale:"

1Ki 9:11-13 The Lord said to Elijah, “Go, stand in front of me on the mountain, and I will pass by you.” Then a very strong wind blew until it caused the mountains to fall apart and large rocks to break in front of the Lord . But the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind, there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake, there was a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. After the fire, there was a quiet, gentle sound. When Elijah heard it, he covered his face with his coat and went out and stood at the entrance to the cave. Then a voice said to him, “Elijah! Why are you here?”

Andrewn · Aug 7, 2020

I might as well add a couple of comments:

cvanwey said:
Yes it is. Please revisit the Verse I provided. If man was to ever have relations with another man, God calls this an abomination. "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

You misunderstood me. I said, "sexual orientation is not a sin." Homosexual practice is a sin. I called it fornication in my message but the meaning was not clear to you.

cvanwey said:
An atheist peace corp worker and philanthropist ceases to be human?

"Jonathan Kvanvig, in The Problem of Hell(1993), agrees that God would not allow one to be eternally damned by a decision made under the wrong circumstances. One should not always honor the choices of human beings, even when they are full adults, if, for instance, the choice is made while depressed or careless. On Kvanvig's view, God will abandon no person until they have made a settled, final decision, under favorable circumstances, to reject God, but God will respect a choice made under the right circumstances. Once a person finally and competently chooses to reject God, out of respect for the person's autonomy, God allows them to be annihilated."

Problem of Hell - Wikipedia

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Apocatastasis

cvanwey · Aug 8, 2020

Andrewn said:
We've expressed our respective positions in detail. I'll just quote a little story or a parable and then give you the podium for the "grand finale:"

1Ki 9:11-13 The Lord said to Elijah, “Go, stand in front of me on the mountain, and I will pass by you.” Then a very strong wind blew until it caused the mountains to fall apart and large rocks to break in front of the Lord . But the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind, there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake, there was a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. After the fire, there was a quiet, gentle sound. When Elijah heard it, he covered his face with his coat and went out and stood at the entrance to the cave. Then a voice said to him, “Elijah! Why are you here?”

In post #269, you spoke of reason and logic. However, after several more exchanges, post #309 reveals that your conclusions about Christianity are likely not based upon reason and logic, but instead from "personal experience".

The more I debate here, the more I find that one of my very early created thread observations seems to be justified -- "Knowledge of Existence". Meaning, you too fit this conclusion. It's not about reason and logic, it's about emotion.

Apologetics is really nothing more than asserting a truth, then defending that asserted truth, no matter what.

Where-as a skeptic might more-so ask questions, challenge assumption, and then follow the evidence where-ever that may actually lead.

Here's my conclusion... I do not know if God does or does not exist. But my reason and logic tells me that if a God(s) does exist, it certainly does not logically follow to be the Christian God; under any denominational-planted-asserted-presented-flag; including yours. For reference of this assertion, please re-read the entire thread exchange, using logic and reason alone.

In closing, I would again like to provide a video, for which no one here yet wants to touch.

cvanwey · Aug 8, 2020

Andrewn said:
I might as well add a couple of comments:
You misunderstood me. I said, "sexual orientation is not a sin." Homosexual practice is a sin. I called it fornication in my message but the meaning was not clear to you.

Sexual orientation - "a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual."

If you are not strictly asexual, then your sexual orientation will sometimes cause you to lust or desire after the attracted upon sex/sexes. This is often times step one to finding a mate.

God states that lust is a sin. Hence, what I stated prior about performing confession to a Catholic priest. - 'thoughts of impurity'.

"For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world."

"Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul"

"But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death"

Furthermore, why is homosexuality a sin? Because God says so?

Andrewn said:
"Jonathan Kvanvig, in The Problem of Hell(1993), agrees that God would not allow one to be eternally damned by a decision made under the wrong circumstances. One should not always honor the choices of human beings, even when they are full adults, if, for instance, the choice is made while depressed or careless. On Kvanvig's view, God will abandon no person until they have made a settled, final decision, under favorable circumstances, to reject God, but God will respect a choice made under the right circumstances. Once a person finally and competently chooses to reject God, out of respect for the person's autonomy, God allows them to be annihilated."

First of all, how was this conclusion discerned from the Bible? Bible sources please?

But I'll do you a huge favor. Let's just assume this proclamation is correct. "Only the completely informed are judged."

Presented choices: Worship (or) torture / 'Disney Land' (or) concentration camp / initial provided video...

Andrewn · Aug 8, 2020

cvanwey said:
Furthermore, why is homosexuality a sin? Because God says so?

"Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

Homosexual practice is rejected by all religions and cultures around the world. Even in the Roman Empire when it was apparently more common, "bottoms" were usually abused slaves, like criminals in prison abusing physically weaker individuals, and otherwise refrained upon by society. God commands against it bec it is right but He does not condemn homosexual "orientation." This issue is subject of a big controversy in churches and is far from the purpose of this thread.

cvanwey said:
First of all, how was this conclusion discerned from the Bible? Bible sources please? But I'll do you a huge favor. Let's just assume this proclamation is correct. "Only the completely informed are judged." Presented choices: Worship (or) torture / 'Disney Land' (or) concentration camp / initial provided video...

I added 2 references at the end of my previous post, which show different theories of Hell all based on the Bible. I regret making the mistake of defending the common theory in previous posts when other interpretations coexisted almost from the beginning of Christianity. The different theories disagree about the Lake of Fire but they are in agreement regarding Hades. We've talked about Hell for way too long and I should have just presented articles like these from the beginning.

The video you presented is interesting even though it contains misunderstandings. All Christian denominations represent different paths to God and are valid, despite their errors (and my errors). Salvation is not a test in theology. As far as non-Christian religions are concerned, the Catholic Catechism says in #847:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."

cvanwey · Aug 8, 2020

Andrewn said:
"Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

Homosexual practice is rejected by all religions and cultures around the world. Even in the Roman Empire when it was apparently more common, "bottoms" were usually abused slaves, like criminals in prison abusing physically weaker individuals, and otherwise refrained upon by society. God commands against it bec it is right but He does not condemn homosexual "orientation." This issue is subject of a big controversy in churches and is far from the purpose of this thread.

In an attempt to remain compliant with the rules of this forum, let's just remove this specific topic, and replace it with "X".

Why is "X' a sin? Because God says so?

Now let's evaluate your answer.

- You state 'X" is rejected by all religions. Okay, I see no relevance there (yet)? Please explain why this matters?
- You then also state God commands against "X" because it is right? Why is it right?

Then please observe how painfully simple, yet simultaneously complex, is the Euthephro dilemma. (i.e.):

1) Because I say so = (might makes right)
2) Because of other reason(s) = (no need for God)

Thus far, you have demonstrated option 1). We are to follow God's dictates. Period. But what if He should change His mind? What if my moral conscious does not agree with Him? It would appear none of the above matters. God says it, that settles it. As soon as you furnish 'reason', outside of "God says so", God is no longer needed. Either way, you are 'hosed'. Option 1) demonstrates dictatorship alone. Option 2) demonstrate no necessity for God, in regards to moral predicates.

Andrewn said:
I added 2 references at the end of my previous post, which show different theories of Hell all based on the Bible. I regret making the mistake of defending the common theory in previous posts when other interpretations coexisted almost from the beginning of Christianity. We've talked about Hell for way too long and I should have just presented articles like these from the start.

The video you presented is interesting even though it contains misunderstandings. All Christian denominations represent different paths to God and are valid, despite their errors (and my errors). Salvation is not a test in theology. As far as non-Christian religions are concerned, The Catholic Catechism says under 847:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."

You gave no Bible sources, only viewpoints of differing speculative writings. What Bible passages did they derive such conclusion, and why?

Your response, more-so-than-ever, demonstrates my prior point. God appears careless with this entire topic. He tells humans that hell exists. He tells humans it's "really bad". He then leaves humans to fend for themselves - in deciphering how you....

1. Do or don't go there... Romans 10:9-10 (vs) Matthew 25:31-46 (vs) other (vs) other
2) What it is really like...
3) If it is in fact eternal torture, annihilation, exists and has differing levels of rank, or other.

Again, what claimed loving and claimed interactive agent would remain silent, and allow mass confusion here? This, I gather, is a pretty important topic?

Andrewn · Aug 8, 2020

cvanwey said:
In an attempt to remain compliant with the rules of this forum, let's just remove this specific topic, and replace it with "X".

Why is "X' a sin? Because God says so?

Now let's evaluate your answer.

- You state 'X" is rejected by all religions. Okay, I see no relevance there (yet)? Please explain why this matters?
- You then also state God commands against "X" because it is right? Why is it right?

Then please observe how painfully simple, yet simultaneously complex, is the Euthephro dilemma. (i.e.):

1) Because I say so = (might makes right)
2) Because of other reason(s) = (no need for God)

Thus far, you have demonstrated option 1). We are to follow God's dictates. Period. But what if He should change His mind? What if my moral conscious does not agree with Him? It would appear none of the above matters. God says it, that settles it. As soon as you furnish 'reason', outside of "God says so", God is no longer needed. Either way, you are 'hosed'. Option 1) demonstrates dictatorship alone. Option 2) demonstrate no necessity for God, in regards to moral predicates.

I've been trying to convince you of the 1st horn of the dilemma. Maybe the arguments presented here would make sense to you. Otherwise, we'll just forget about it. You might as well keep believing in the 2nd horn:

Euthyphro dilemma - Wikipedia

cvanwey said:
You gave no Bible sources, only viewpoints of differing speculative writings. What Bible passages did they derive such conclusion, and why?

Your response, more-so-than-ever, demonstrates my prior point. God appears careless with this entire topic. He tells humans that hell exists. He tells humans it's "really bad". He then leaves humans to fend for themselves - in deciphering how you....

1. Do or don't go there... Romans 10:9-10 (vs) Matthew 25:31-46 (vs) other (vs) other
2) What it is really like...
3) If it is in fact eternal torture, annihilation, exists and has differing levels of rank, or other.

Again, what claimed loving and claimed interactive agent would remain silent, and allow mass confusion here? This, I gather, is a pretty important topic?

God doesn't seem interested in explaining Hell in any detail, hence the different views:

Problem of Hell - Wikipedia

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Apocatastasis

I'm surprised that you've been asking about Hell and not about Hades, which should be the immediate concern, rather than the LoF. But even this has different views.

cvanwey · Aug 8, 2020

Andrewn said:
I've been trying to convince you of the 1st horn of the dilemma. Maybe the arguments presented here would make sense to you. Otherwise, we'll just forget about it. You might as well keep believing in the 2nd horn:

Euthyphro dilemma - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

The point of the 'false dilemma', regardless of what order you place the 'two horns' within, is neither one points 'favor' to a god. Would you agree here?

Hence, apologists will attempt to 'hornswoggle' in a third option.

Andrewn said:
God doesn't seem interested in explaining Hell in any detail, hence the different views:

Then this looks to defy 'logic'. Why?

God claims to be both loving and interactive with His creation. Seems quite contradictory to make both proclamations, and yet not interact; especially when called upon, about how to specifically stay out of hell? Wouldn't you agree that not providing such information seems to contradict God's claims of wanting interaction with His creation?

Furthermore, not to sound like a broken record, but God can create any platform He chooses. He chose an either/or proposition - (God's dichotomy) - "Disney Land" or a concentration camp.

Andrewn said:
Problem of Hell - Wikipedia

Andrewn said:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Apocatastasis

I'm surprised that you've been asking about Hell and not about Hades, which should be the immediate concern, rather than the LoF. But even this has different views.

Jesus introduces hell, 'full force', in the NT. He seems to suggest complete 'suckage' for the ones whom will go there. But neglects His creation, by not providing any details. Wouldn't He know this would be a hotly debated topic - causing millions/billions to fear, and that many would use hell as a threatening tool towards others - including small impressionable children?

God appears perfectly content with His given/provided message? One of complete confusion....

Andrewn · Aug 9, 2020

cvanwey said:
Jesus introduces hell, 'full force', in the NT. He seems to suggest complete 'suckage' for the ones whom will go there. But neglects His creation, by not providing any details. Wouldn't He know this would be a hotly debated topic - causing millions/billions to fear, and that many would use hell as a threatening tool towards others - including small impressionable children?

I completely agree that Hell has been the object of nightmares for millions/billions, including Christians. And it was a force that kept people under subjugation and harassment by Christian authorities for centuries. Only after the Reformation were Christians told that they could believe the Apostle Paul:

Rom 8:1-2 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death.

The concept has been severely abused and the abusers will pay their penalty. But I'm only able to say this based on the Bible. Early Church writers believed in Apocatastasis: that a time will come when all free creatures will share in the grace of salvation. God will restore everything to a perfect condition. He could not have created souls in order to discard them. That would be wasteful, let alone unloving. And there is support for this in the Bible.

But Hades exists. It's not eternal torture but rather correction and rehabilitation. All Christians, almost, believe that Christ himself preached to the souls in Hades. There is no reason to believe that He stopped this activity. Still, Hades is not a pleasant place and it is far better to get saved in this life and enjoy fellowship with God. Eternal life started here and now.

cvanwey · Aug 9, 2020

I'm starting to notice you are addressing less and less given points. Does this mean you have no further counter points, and that you must concede in many of these points, or, are you saving them for later, or other? I will refresh these points, at the bottom.

Andrewn said:
I completely agree that Hell has been the object of nightmares for millions/billions, including Christians. And it was a force that kept people under subjugation and harassment by Christian authorities for centuries. Only after the Reformation were Christians told that they could believe the Apostle Paul:

Yet again, if God claims to be both loving and interactive, contradiction looks to present, by not bothering to clarify the concept of hell. He appears content with His given vague message - one of seemingly grave importance.

Andrewn said:
Rom 8:1-2 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death.

This response takes away nothing from my prior point. Paul presumably wrote virtually half the NT. Others wrote the Gospels. And another/others still wrote Revelation. In regards to the Gospels and Revelation, there looks to be a common theme. God was said to inspire the message(s). It would appear God is giving one message to one author, but another author is given another message?

Furthermore, I find it quite curious, that Paul's statements about 'death" are to be taken literal. But when it comes to statements from Revelation, these are figurative

Seems quite odd that God would mention 'gnashing of teeth", if you are simply annihilated?

Here's a thought, why not just clarify. Again, God seems content with the message(s), as given.

Andrewn said:
The concept has been severely abused and the abusers will pay their penalty. But I'm only able to say this based on the Bible. Early Church writers believed in Apocatastasis: that a time will come when all free creatures will share in the grace of salvation. God will restore everything to a perfect condition. He could not have created souls in order to discard them. That would be wasteful, let alone unloving. And there is support for this in the Bible.

So all Bible literalists will be punished? Where do I even begin here? First of all, God did not set the record straight. Maybe the literalists are correct?

And second, all will sin, right up until natural death. It's likely these folks believe in the resurrection, they repent, and they worship this God. Hence, I doubt they "will pay', if Christianity turns out true. What 'punishment' exists in Heaven?

Andrewn said:
But Hades exists. It's not eternal torture but rather correction and rehabilitation. All Christians, almost, believe that Christ himself preached to the souls in Hades. There is no reason to believe that He stopped this activity. Still, Hades is not a pleasant place and it is far better to get saved in this life and enjoy fellowship with God. Eternal life started here and now.

Please see above...

********************************

- Did you watch the video in post #325? If so, can you find any major flaws? If not, even if I were to 'crush' every point you make, in your attempted defense of Christianity, will this 'crushing' of your arguments even matter?

- Do you acknowledge one horn of the 'dilemma' demonstrates 'god' as a dictator. And that the other horn demonstrates the complete lack in necessity of a god, when it comes to 'moral predicates'?

- Do you acknowledge that God is the sole designer of this given landscape, and that He decided to make all, whom do not perform like He wishes, eternally punished?

- Do you acknowledge that Christianity is about worship, and lacks the necessity of 'morals'?

- Do you acknowledge that 'sin' is defined as anything which does not agree with God's nature?

- Do you acknowledge that God provides conflicting messages, in regards to the tenets for salvation?

- Do you agree that a contradiction exists from the Bible, in the sense that God basically promises to answer the call of earnest prayer, but chooses not to sometimes.

- Do you agree that Christianity is like taxation? It is a compulsory law? It is a coercive proposition? Hence, to mention free will seems bazaar.

- Do you agree that God punishes the ones for attributes they cannot control (i.e.) belief?

And most importantly, do you agree doubters, skeptics, atheists, agnostics, and deists are justified in their lack in belief to this specific agent; due to lack in evidence for His mere existence?

Andrewn · Aug 9, 2020

cvanwey said:
I'm starting to notice you are addressing less and less given points. Does this mean you have no further counter points, and that you must concede in many of these points, or, are you saving them for later, or other? I will refresh these points, at the bottom.

I figured the discussion really ended with your Grand Finale in post #325, which I rated as "like." It's obvious, as the video explains that neither one of us will change his mind. In this sequel to the discussion, I'm no longer addressing issues that we've previously discussed.

cvanwey said:
It would appear God is giving one message to one author, but another author is given another message? Furthermore, I find it quite curious, that Paul's statements about 'death" are to be taken literal. But when it comes to statements from Revelation, these are figurative Seems quite odd that God would mention 'gnashing of teeth", if you are simply annihilated? Here's a thought, why not just clarify.

I believe the message is the same in the NT. Sometimes the emphasis is on a different facet of the message. The word "death" throughout the NT most of the time refers to spiritual death. Physical death is usually referred to as "sleep."

cvanwey said:
So all Bible literalists will be punished? Where do I even begin here? First of all, God did not set the record straight. Maybe the literalists are correct?

Jam 3:1-2 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body.

Mat 7:22-23 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

2Pe 2:1-3 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you. They will secretly bring in destructive heresies. They will even deny the Master who bought them—bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their immoral ways, and as a result the way of the truth will be maligned. In their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction does not slumber.

cvanwey said:
And second, all will sin, right up until natural death. It's likely these folks believe in the resurrection, they repent, and they worship this God. Hence, I doubt they "will pay', if Christianity turns out true. What 'punishment' exists in Heaven?

You can't torture people and burn them to death and then say, "I'm sorry." You can't swindle people's money to pay for Indulgences and then say, "I'm sorry." That's ridiculous. There are sins against others and sins against one's soul. The latter can be forgiven with repentance. Capital sins need repentance to those who were offended.

cvanwey said:
- Do you acknowledge one horn of the 'dilemma' demonstrates 'god' as a dictator. And that the other horn demonstrates the complete lack in necessity of a god, when it comes to 'moral predicates'?

No, not at all. You can see lists of theologians who supported each side of the dilemma without a problem.

cvanwey said:
- Do you acknowledge that God is the sole designer of this given landscape, and that He decided to make all, whom do not perform like He wishes, eternally punished?

Like I said before, He's the rule maker but not the rule enforcer.

cvanwey said:
- Do you acknowledge that Christianity is about worship, and lacks the necessity of 'morals'?

No.

cvanwey said:
- Do you acknowledge that 'sin' is defined as anything which does not agree with God's nature?

Yes.

cvanwey said:
- Do you acknowledge that God provides conflicting messages, in regards to the tenets for salvation?

Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia

cvanwey said:
- Do you agree that a contradiction exists from the Bible, in the sense that God basically promises to answer the call of earnest prayer, but chooses not to sometimes.

God can answer with yes, no, or wait.

cvanwey said:
- Do you agree that God punishes the ones for attributes they cannot control (i.e.) belief?

No, I believe God will give everyone sufficient chance to believe. Suppose I build computers. Does it make sense to keep building computers and hope that some of the work? No, I would be trying to fix each and everyone. Otherwise I'm wasting my time and all the material I used, let alone all the waste I'll be producing.

cvanwey said:
And most importantly, do you agree doubters, skeptics, atheists, agnostics, and deists are justified in their lack in belief to this specific agent; due to lack in evidence for His mere existence?

Only God can answer this question.

cvanwey · Aug 9, 2020

Andrewn said:
I figured the discussion really ended with your Grand Finale in post #325, which I rated as "like."

Then let's proceed... We can go back and forth, endlessly on all given points.... And as a side-bar, I would like to point out, that unfalsifiable assertions are rather easy to 'defend' (i.e.):

Does Lucifer Have Free Will?

************************

So let's focus on this one exclusively. You stated "it's obvious neither one of us will change our minds."

Now, we can successfully fuse posts #264 and #325 together. They are really one in the same. My current epistemology has lead me to severe doubt. Since I have not felt direct contact, I am left with logic/reason/arguments/exploration.

You, on the other hand, likely feel you have received contact from the divine. Hence, all logic/reason/arguments/exploration, is merely an exercise in futility. As I stated prior in post #264, had I received contact, I likely would be arguing from your side; even IF I found flaws in it's reason and logic - to demonstrate the contrary.

For you, the topic of 'God and Sin', or any other topic about God's attributes, really is of little concern. Like you, we would likely both conclude that God can do whatever He wants, and that anything we do not currently understand is either beyond our scope, or we are not smart enough, or sin is blocking our pathways, or even other. I've seen you run from this camp for many posts now....

I have to ask.... Why debate here? As the video suggests, apologetics looks to be a direct violation to philosophical inquiry. --- Which is to ask questions, challenge assumptions, and follow the evidence accordingly - without as much bias as possible. You think you are right. You come here with a direct a priori. No-matter-what, you will defend this presupposition, at all costs.

I'm sure you could say the same thing about me. That I have a direct bias that 'god' does not exist.

Yes. I have doubt. Why? Because I have never received contact. I asked for it, countless times. Nothing. Seems reasonable to hold to the position that I do. Wouldn't you agree?

So, if you believe in intercessory prayer at all, since petitionary prayer did not seem to work for me directly, please pray for Him to contact me in a way in which I cannot deny. Apparently, He has the power to do so (i.e.) "For it is written, As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God."

Please also lightly skim the thread above. Say I actually believed my assertion - 'that the devil impersonated a messiah'. See how easy it is, for me, to use the Bible, to argue my position?

In closing, you volunteered the topic of logic. Do you find it 'logical' to base your entire epistemology about the concept of 'God', upon a set of 'anecdotal personal experiences'?

Andrewn · Aug 9, 2020

cvanwey said:
You think you are right. You come here with a direct a priori. No-matter-what, you will defend this presupposition, at all costs.

I'm happy with my delusions, if what billions of people who believed in God throughout history are deluded. I like my bias and have no reason to replace it. In fact, I like it so much that I'm willing to die for it. So, "why debate here?" Actually, I gained a lot of information from you, which got me thinking and reading articles and gaining knowledge that I would not have acquired otherwise. Also, I hope that you acquired some new thoughts also.

cvanwey said:
For you, the topic of 'God and Sin', or any other topic about God's attributes, really is of little concern. Like you, we would likely both conclude that God can do whatever He wants, and that anything we do not currently understand is either beyond our scope, or we are not smart enough, or sin is blocking our pathways, or even other. I've seen you run from this camp for many posts now....

I view understanding God's attributes as a most important topic. I don't understand what you're saying here.

cvanwey said:
Yes. I have doubt. Why? Because I have never received contact. I asked for it, countless times. Nothing. Seems reasonable to hold to the position that I do. Wouldn't you agree?

I certainly agree.

cvanwey said:
So, if you believe in intercessory prayer at all, since petitionary prayer did not seem to work for me directly, please pray for Him to contact me in a way in which I cannot deny. Apparently, He has the power to do so (i.e.) "For it is written, As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God."

Exactly, pertinent quotation. I certainly will and have absolutely no doubt that God will contact you. He wants that all people have eternal life.

cvanwey said:
In closing, you volunteered the topic of logic. Do you find it 'logical' to base your entire epistemology about the concept of 'God', upon a set of 'anecdotal personal experiences'?

What do you think? Perhaps they work together, like we walk by taking one step with the right foot then one step with left. Proper understanding of God's character depends on logic, but also experience. In understanding the Bible, I'm not a literalist:

2Co 3:6 [God] made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Your question about Satan: Satan is capable of a lot of deceit. He can even convince terrorists to commit suicide in order to kill innocent people. This is got to be quite an influence.

It is a privilege to converse with you.

cvanwey · Aug 10, 2020

Andrewn said:
I'm happy with my delusions

Do you even care if your belief is correct? If so, how exactly do you validate it being correct, or to at least conclude a high degree or level of confidence?

Andrewn said:
if what billions of people who believed in God throughout history are deluded. I like my bias and have no reason to replace it.

Liking something is good enough? Do you even care if it's true?

Please recall what the video stated here. Evolution is on your side. This is why a vast majority of humans believe in an interactive higher power.

"In statistical hypothesis testing, a type I error is the rejection of a true null hypothesis (also known as a "false positive" finding or conclusion), while a type II error is the non-rejection of a false null hypothesis (also known as a "false negative" finding or conclusion)."

The ones exclusively, or predominantly committing the type 1 errors alone, have been virtually weeded out.

This is why theists, deists, atheists, etc, at some times and others, tend to want to invoke intentional agency; only to sometimes find out there was none. To be proven wrong here is usually not life threatening, and is benign. Some possible errors are never unproven, (i.e.) gods, alien sightings, ghost sightings, etc...

Example. I hear a noise in my house at night, and immediately, my first thought to decipher is... 'Is it an intruder?'

Andrewn said:
In fact, I like it so much that I'm willing to die for it. So, "why debate here?"

People die for wrong beliefs all the time. Do you even care if your belief is truly justified? If so, how did you justify your belief? You already agreed with me, that my lack in belief looks warranted. I, on the other hand, am not so sure your belief is justified??? Care to share?

Andrewn said:
Actually, I gained a lot of information from you, which got me thinking and reading articles and gaining knowledge that I would not have acquired otherwise. Also, I hope that you acquired some new thoughts also.

Thank you. And yes, me too.

I think one of the reasons I like debating theological matters, is because it seems to bring up all kinds of topics. Ones for which you would likely not volunteer any study time on your own.

Andrewn said:
I view understanding God's attributes as a most important topic. I don't understand what you're saying here.

When I press you for topics of question, ones of which you too do not know, it's easy to just say...

'Only God knows'. Or, 'we will find out after we die.' Or, 'God has a plan for all of us.' Or, 'God's ways are higher than ours.' Or, 'God has not contacted you yet because....' Or, 'you are not reading that passage right,' or, or, or.........

You believe He is real, and can furnish an infinite number of unfalsifiable excuses, as to why things are not as they are claimed from the Bible - which might otherwise represent direct contradiction.

I see this as 'belief preservation' -- "the tendency to cling to one's initial belief even after receiving new information that contradicts or disconfirms the basis of that belief. Everyone has tried to change someone's belief, only to have them stubbornly remain unchanged."

Andrewn said:
Exactly, pertinent quotation. I certainly will and have absolutely no doubt that God will contact you. He wants that all people have eternal life.

With all due respect, you are not the first one here in this forum arena to state you will do this. I have developed at least a basket ball team's worth I think, with maybe even a few extras, thus far

But news flash..., nothing yet. Fingers crossed.

Andrewn said:
What do you think? Perhaps they work together, like we walk by taking one step with the right foot then one step with left. Proper understanding of God's character depends on logic, but also experience. In understanding the Bible, I'm not a literalist:

2Co 3:6 [God] made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Well, you clearly admit that reason and logic is not why you are a believer. You are a believe because of personal experience. Please note 'external world skepticism'

"No synthetic proposition can ever truly be known with absolute unwavering certainly, because there will always exist an infinite multitude of possible explanations for sense data."

- What exactly was your personal experience(s)?
- Why did you immediately attribute this experience to your chosen God?
- What say-you to the ones whom attribute their personal experiences to a differing asserted God/other?

Andrewn said:
Your question about Satan: Satan is capable of a lot of deceit. He can even convince terrorists to commit suicide in order to kill innocent people. This is got to be quite an influence.

The entire point of that thread, was to demonstrate that I too can use the Bible to 'support' or substantiate my assertion

My point was to demonstrate that the Bible is not clear on virtually any of it's message(s). God seems to be okay with this? Bazaar.

It is really nothing more than a cherry on top, to point out that there is really no way to assure/disprove that Jesus was 'nothing more than an imposter.'

Andrewn said:
It is a privilege to converse with you.

No! The privilege is all mine. I know we hijacked this thread. But oh well

Andrewn · Aug 10, 2020

cvanwey said:
Do you even care if your belief is correct? If so, how exactly do you validate it being correct, or to at least conclude a high degree or level of confidence?

I know my belief is correct through Reason. There is enough evidence for God out there. It may not be irrefutable but it enough for me. I validate its truth through experience and the Bible. This will sound like circular logic to you but I suspect that you've asked this to other Christians and their answers were not very different.

cvanwey said:
Please recall what the video stated here. Evolution is on your side. This is why a vast majority of humans believe in an interactive higher power.

"In statistical hypothesis testing, a type I error is the rejection of a true null hypothesis (also known as a "false positive" finding or conclusion), while a type II error is the non-rejection of a false null hypothesis (also known as a "false negative" finding or conclusion)."

The ones exclusively, or predominantly committing the type 1 errors alone, have been virtually weeded out.

This is true. But remember that I believe that evolution is directed by God.

cvanwey said:
This is why theists, deists, atheists, etc, at some times and others, tend to want to invoke intentional agency; only to sometimes find out there was none. To be proven wrong here is usually not life threatening, and is benign. Some possible errors are never unproven, (i.e.) gods, alien sightings, ghost sightings, etc...

Example. I hear a noise in my house at night, and immediately, my first thought to decipher is... 'Is it an intruder?'

It's safer to assume there is an intruder until proven otherwise. It's also safer to assume there is God until proven otherwise. I understand that and would rather believe and trust in a loving Agent.

cvanwey said:
People die for wrong beliefs all the time. Do you even care if your belief is truly justified? If so, how did you justify your belief? You already agreed with me, that my lack in belief looks warranted. I, on the other hand, am not so sure your belief is justified??? Care to share?

My belief is justified by Nature and by Revelation. You find more support for spontaneous evolution and no revelation. The world is so well designed that I cannot imagine the laws of mathematics and physics and the development of physical and mental realities without God.

cvanwey said:
When I press you for topics of question, ones of which you too do not know, it's easy to just say...

'Only God knows'. Or, 'we will find out after we die.' Or, 'God has a plan for all of us.' Or, 'God's ways are higher than ours.' Or, 'God has not contacted you yet because....' Or, 'you are not reading that passage right,' or, or, or.........

You believe He is real, and can furnish an infinite number of unfalsifiable excuses, as to why things are not as they are claimed from the Bible - which might otherwise represent direct contradiction.

There is usually a logical explanation. But I have to confess that I'm not aware of any logical laws for "prayer." There are probably important attitudes of the mind / heart. Thanksgiving and praise, stillness and trust, doing the right things. Allowing the Holy Spirit pray on our behalf. But I haven't found a sufficient explanation.

cvanwey said:
I see this as 'belief preservation' -- "the tendency to cling to one's initial belief even after receiving new information that contradicts or disconfirms the basis of that belief. Everyone has tried to change someone's belief, only to have them stubbornly remain unchanged."

This statement can go both ways: I don't think your evidence is sufficient for me. You don't think my evidence is sufficient for you.

cvanwey said:
Well, you clearly admit that reason and logic is not why you are a believer. You are a believe because of personal experience. Please note 'external world skepticism'

"No synthetic proposition can ever truly be known with absolute unwavering certainly, because there will always exist an infinite multitude of possible explanations for sense data."

A synthetic proposition becomes knowable if there is sufficient external evidence. I find sufficient evidence in Nature and Revelation, and of course the witness of the Holy Spirit.

cvanwey said:
- What exactly was your personal experience(s)?
- Why did you immediately attribute this experience to your chosen God?

I was born to Christian parents, which is a blessing that I can take no credit for. I never really doubted the existence of God but for some time I doubted his relevance. So, this is like being a Deist. In fact, I remember telling God my feelings exactly. I guess this is typical in early adulthood, stage 4 according to the Stages of Faith I quoted before.

Few years later, when I was in really bad circumstances that I had no control of, I found that God was the one who lead me and comforted me. I started going to church, again, but this time to a Pentecostal / Assemblies of God churches. I met true believers and joined home Bible studies where they introduced me to the Holy Spirit. He has made all the difference in the world. I guess there is some sort of a continuum from theist - deist - agnostic - atheist.

Following stage 4 of faith one may revert to stage 3, go on to stage 5"

"Conjunctive faith: in this stage people realize the limits of logic and, facing the paradoxes or transcendence of life, accept the "mystery of life" and often return to the sacred stories and symbols of the pre-acquired or re-adopted faith system. This stage is called negotiated settling in life (mid-life)."

or become a full-fledged agnostic or atheist. Thank God, I never became a full-fledged atheist and I find the idea most abhorrent. It contradicts Nature, in my opinion.

cvanwey said:
- What say-you to the ones whom attribute their personal experiences to a differing asserted God/other?

Since I don't believe there is a different God, I view all religions as attempts to understand and worship the One God. The exceptions would be some forms of atheistic and animistic Buddhism, Pagans / Wicca, and of course different forms of Satanists.

cvanwey said:
The entire point of that thread, was to demonstrate that I too can use the Bible to 'support' or substantiate my assertion My point was to demonstrate that the Bible is not clear on virtually any of it's message(s). God seems to be okay with this? Bazaar.

It is really nothing more than a cherry on top, to point out that there is really no way to assure/disprove that Jesus was 'nothing more than an imposter.'

We haven't talked about Jesus in this thread. We've talked about God and the Spirit of God, who are perhaps common to most religions. Perhaps it is time to talk about Jesus.

Is Jesus an imposter? Was he a liar or a lunatic? Why would anyone even think so? When I read the Gospels I fall in love of Jesus, the character portrayed there. His statements are logical. He doesn't go on targets and long meandering talks like schizophrenics do. His disciples, and they're in the hundreds, find him logically appealing. And they continued to preach his salvation after his ascension. Were they also lunatics?

cvanwey · Aug 10, 2020

Andrewn said:
I know my belief is correct through Reason. There is enough evidence for God out there. It may not be irrefutable but it enough for me. I validate its truth through experience and the Bible. This will sound like circular logic to you but I suspect that you've asked this to other Christians and their answers were not very different.

When you say "there is enough evidence out there", give me your biggest one specifically? And if I refute this 'reason', even to [your] complete satisfaction, will you change your position or belief at all? If not, then it's really not your biggest reason

Which means we are likely right back to "having a personal experience" as your reason. Which is not really under the umbrella of 'logic and reason', as you would seem to want to elude to..?

Andrewn said:
This is true. But remember that I believe that evolution is directed by God.

Please remember what you stated here - "if what billions of people who believed in God throughout history are deluded". Your assertion, "I believe that evolution is directed by God," does not follow for three reasons.

1. Genesis states God made humans in His image. This would mean that all have the same innate instinct to invoke intentional agency, not just some. Please remember there exists some reflexive/protective traits for which we cannot suppress or control.

2. If you accept evolution by natural selection, going back again to Genesis, you mean to tell me God 'created' Adam through the process of macroevolution? If God made Adam in His image, I trust I do not need to tell you what the earliest homo sapiens looked like.

3. If God's plan was for humans to be His top priority creation, why the process of convoluted macroevolution?

Andrewn said:
It's safer to assume there is an intruder until proven otherwise. It's also safer to assume there is God until proven otherwise. I understand that and would rather believe and trust in a loving Agent.

Unlike the invoked intruder, which is either confirmed verified or misdiagnosed, some 'errors' are never confirmed nor misdiagnosed. Meaning, our perceptions do not confirm them 'true' (or) 'false' --- but merely remain unknowable or unsolved.

Like I stated prior, "some possible errors are never unproven, (i.e.) gods, alien sightings, ghost sightings, etc..."

Perhaps we should discuss some of 'Pascal's Wager'? Furthermore, why assume it MUST be from the God for which you were brought up within? Don't you think that if you were exposed, early enough, to a completely opposing 'god concept(s)', that you would be invoking the same conclusions to this opposing 'one true God or set of god(s)?'

Andrewn said:
My belief is justified by Nature and by Revelation. You find more support for spontaneous evolution and no revelation. The world is so well designed that I cannot imagine the laws of mathematics and physics and the development of physical and mental realities without God.

I gather it is purely revelation alone, and has virtually nothing to do with your perception of 'design'. Why can I assert this? If I was to raise so much doubt, enough to where you have no choice but to abandon your prior notion(s) of 'the world is so well designed', would you even start to think there is no creator? I doubt it...

Please be honest

Andrewn said:
There is usually a logical explanation. But I have to confess that I'm not aware of any logical laws for "prayer." There are probably important attitudes of the mind / heart. Thanksgiving and praise, stillness and trust, doing the right things. Allowing the Holy Spirit pray on our behalf. But I haven't found a sufficient explanation.

Then why do you cleave to the notion of what the Bible expressed about prayer anyways? I'll tell you why preemptively. For the exact same reason I mentioned prior. "You believe He is real, and can furnish an infinite number of unfalsifiable excuses." Hence, when asked about unanswered prayer, your response is 'not yet.'

However, please bare in mind your given answer is categorically false, as such studies indicate some prayers do go unanswered - (which is why you will now likely invoke additional ad hoc/post hoc rationalization(s), as necessary): Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer - PubMed

Care to give me another answer? Why not just abandon the concept of prayer, which then brings into question all other unfounded assertions from the Bible? See below... It gets more interesting

Andrewn said:
This statement can go both ways: I don't think your evidence is sufficient for me. You don't think my evidence is sufficient for you.

Unfortunately for you, it does not go both ways. I lack belief. If such a definition even exists, I doubt the definition for 'lack-of-belief-preservation' has the same description as yours

Furthermore, your given response does not follow. You are stating that you don't think my evidence is sufficient. But when I responded "Yes. I have doubt. Why? Because I have never received contact. I asked for it, countless times. Nothing. Seems reasonable to hold to the position that I do. Wouldn't you agree?" And then in post #335, you stated --- "I certainly agree."

Andrewn said:
A synthetic proposition becomes knowable if there is sufficient external evidence. I find sufficient evidence in Nature and Revelation, and of course the witness of the Holy Spirit.

(Rinse/repeat from above) - I gather it is purely revelation alone, and has virtually nothing to do with your perception of 'design'. Why can I assert this? If I was to raise so much doubt, enough to where you have no choice but to abandon your prior notion(s) of 'the world is so well designed', would you even start to think there is no creator? I doubt it...

Please be honest

Andrewn said:
I was born to Christian parents, which is a blessing that I can take no credit for. I never really doubted the existence of God but for some time I doubted his relevance. So, this is like being a Deist. In fact, I remember telling God my feelings exactly. I guess this is typical in early adulthood, stage 4 according to the Stages of Faith I quoted before.

Few years later, when I was in really bad circumstances that I had no control of, I found that God was the one who lead me and comforted me. I started going to church, again, but this time to a Pentecostal / Assemblies of God churches. I met true believers and joined home Bible studies where they introduced me to the Holy Spirit. He has made all the difference in the world. I guess there is some sort of a continuum from theist - deist - agnostic - atheist.

Following stage 4 of faith one may revert to stage 3, go on to stage 5"

"Conjunctive faith: in this stage people realize the limits of logic and, facing the paradoxes or transcendence of life, accept the "mystery of life" and often return to the sacred stories and symbols of the pre-acquired or re-adopted faith system. This stage is called negotiated settling in life (mid-life)."

or become a full-fledged agnostic or atheist. Thank God, I never became a full-fledged atheist and I find the idea most abhorrent. It contradicts Nature, in my opinion.

Please note the areas of your response I highlighted in bold.

What if you had been brought up in a Hindu household, and was predominantly surrounded by Hindus?

Furthermore, let's even take a large step back. Why deism and not atheism? I ask this in light of the since mentioned and presented terms and concepts given thus far -- (external world skepticism; intentional agency; and belief preservation). Furthermore, is liking something validation enough for it's truth?.

Please also check out the "psychology of belief in god." In essence, there looks to be at least 5 reasons. One of them is suffering.

Unexplained suffering increases the belief in their proposed god. Ironically enough, suffering often increases the tendency for belief in god. The more unexplained the tragedy, the higher the probability the believer will associate the act as god's will. Meaning, a tornado killing an innocent child may be viewed as god's will. Alternatively, someone loosing their job may be from their own accord and is fully explainable; not being necessarily linked to a divine plan

Andrewn said:
Since I don't believe there is a different God, I view all religions as attempts to understand and worship the One God. The exceptions would be some forms of atheistic and animistic Buddhism, Pagans / Wicca, and of course different forms of Satanists.

What say-you to all the ones whom are just as earnest, in their contact of their claims of contact from an external agency - which opposes yours? How are you to verify theirs is counterfeit, and yours is real? And before you answer, please remember the sole reason [you] likely believe - Revelation. -- A sole concept many opposing believers likely ascribe to as well.

Andrewn said:
We haven't talked about Jesus in this thread. We've talked about God and the Spirit of God, who are perhaps common to most religions. Perhaps it is time to talk about Jesus.

Is Jesus an imposter? Was he a liar or a lunatic? Why would anyone even think so? When I read the Gospels I fall in love of Jesus, the character portrayed there. His statements are logical. He doesn't go on targets and long meandering talks like schizophrenics do. His disciples, and they're in the hundreds, find him logically appealing. And they continued to preach his salvation after his ascension. Were they also lunatics?

We can prolly agree Jesus was born, lived, traveled, preached, and was executed for claims of heresy. Above and beyond this, I doubt it has anything to do with C.S. Lewis's 'Lord, Liar, Lunatic theory'. Looks to more-so involve Legend.

Do I think He was an 'imposter'? NO. I think legend built up around Him.

My point of the thread, however, was to demonstrate exactly what you are doing here. Which is to use the Bible to 'validate' virtually any assertion you can make about salvation/sin/other/other. And in my case, I can also use it equally as well to make 'bad' claims. And this is God's way to communicate to His people?

Andrewn · Aug 10, 2020

cvanwey said:
We can prolly agree Jesus was born, lived, traveled, preached, and was executed for claims of heresy. Above and beyond this, I doubt it has anything to do with C.S. Lewis's 'Lord, Liar, Lunatic theory'. Looks to more-so involve Legend.

Do I think He was an 'imposter'? NO. I think legend built up around Him.

In his book Did Jesus Exist?, Bart Ehrman [who is an agnostic] surveys the arguments "mythicists" have made against the existence of Jesus since the idea was first mooted at the end of the 18th century. As for the lack of contemporaneous records for Jesus, Ehrman notes no comparable Jewish figure is mentioned in contemporary records either and there are mentions of Christ in several Roman works of history from only decades after the death of Jesus.[373] The author states that the authentic letters of the apostle Paul in the New Testament were likely written within a few years of Jesus' death and that Paul likely personally knew James, the brother of Jesus. Although the gospel accounts of Jesus' life may be biased and unreliable in many respects, Ehrman writes, they and the sources behind them which scholars have discerned still contain some accurate historical information.[373] So many independent attestations of Jesus' existence, Ehrman says, are actually "astounding for an ancient figure of any kind".[368] Ehrman dismisses the idea that the story of Jesus is an invention based on pagan myths of dying-and-rising gods, maintaining that the early Christians were primarily influenced by Jewish ideas, not Greek or Roman ones,[368][373] and repeatedly insisting that the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus is not seriously considered by historians or experts in the field at all.[373]

Christ myth theory - Wikipedia

cvanwey · Aug 10, 2020

Andrewn said:
In his book Did Jesus Exist?, Bart Ehrman [who is an agnostic] surveys the arguments "mythicists" have made against the existence of Jesus since the idea was first mooted at the end of the 18th century. This is fine. As for the lack of contemporaneous records for Jesus, Ehrman notes no comparable Jewish figure is mentioned in contemporary records either and there are mentions of Christ in several Roman works of history from only decades after the death of Jesus.[373] See point 1.) The author states that the authentic letters of the apostle Paul in the New Testament were likely written within a few years of Jesus' death and that Paul likely personally knew James, the brother of Jesus. See point 2). Although the gospel accounts of Jesus' life may be biased and unreliable in many respects, See point 3). Ehrman writes, they and the sources behind them which scholars have discerned still contain some accurate historical information.[373] So many independent attestations of Jesus' existence, Ehrman says, are actually "astounding for an ancient figure of any kind". See point 4). [368] Ehrman dismisses the idea that the story of Jesus is an invention based on pagan myths of dying-and-rising gods, maintaining that the early Christians were primarily influenced by Jewish ideas, not Greek or Roman ones,[368][373] and repeatedly insisting that the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus is not seriously considered by historians or experts in the field at all.[373] See point 5).

Christ myth theory - Wikipedia

Please bare in mind 'Wiki' can be edited. It is not a 'reliable source' in 'academia-land'. However, let's attribute everything here as true anyways

Please note as I go through the published piece and offer my 'conclusions' in red.

1). Later publications, which mention earlier followers of a man named Jesus, only validates just that.... That earlier people followed a Jewish rabbi. Okay, so? We already agree He existed.

2). I don't recall Paul ever meeting Jesus, prior to 'postmortem revelation'. He may or may not have met 'James', so?

3). Why gloss right over this point? Doesn't this raise major pause? We are only speaking about the 'greatest claim(s)' in human history here. The Gospels ARE the accounts of His resurrection, according to Christians. If they ARE 'biased and unreliable in many respects', then why even continue?

4). Like other works from antiquity, a publication can 'get right' the places they were, people of verified existence, etc... But does all this then immediately validate claims of the supernatural? If so, then why do you discredit all others, outside the Bible?

5). This religion truly took off after Emperor Constantine.

God and Sin

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads