Argument for God's existence.

[createdtoworship]

No, you need to demonstrate the truth of the claims made in the video. I don’t have to prove it’s wrong to doubt it. The fact that the people in the video make claims about their experiences isn’t evidence. The fact that the doctor makes claims about the people’s experiences isn’t evidence. You could stand in front of me and say you had such an experience. That’s not evidence. That’s a claim. And you can’t demonstrate something that only you experienced. And you definitely can’t demonstrate any connection between your alleged experience and some supposed God.

I’m sorry if you’re not lying at this point, but honestly that’s the more charitable explanation of why you’re continuing along this line. Block me or don’t, but this whole business of passive-aggressive threats to withdraw and lectures about emotion are getting old.

eye witness testimony, closed case.

We are done here on this topic, let me know if you want to talk about something else.

I would recommend questioning how a person in a near death experience is an eye witness. I would look up the definition of eye witness and try to find a connection. Thus proving I am not attacking the general concept of eye witnesses. Just a tip.

I only block people when they start insulting. But again you usually don't do that, that is why I mentioned not getting emotional. Because when we take things personally here, it can lead to bitterness, anger, and eventually insulting. I hope that this has been a positive experience for you, it has for me.

 

[gaara4158]

eye witness testimony, closed case.

We are done here on this topic, let me know if you want to talk about something else.

I would recommend questioning how a person in a near death experience is an eye witness. I would look up the definition of eye witness and try to find a connection. Thus proving I am not attacking the general concept of eye witnesses. Just a tip.

I only block people when they start insulting. But again you usually don't do that, that is why I mentioned not getting emotional. Because when we take things personally here, it can lead to bitterness, anger, and eventually insulting. I hope that this has been a positive experience for you, it has for me.

It’s a shame you can’t step back and view this conversation without your personal investment clouding your judgment, but perhaps that’s a mercy for you. Your refusal to engage the point has been noted. I think you know that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, but that’s utterly beside the point seeing as there is no eyewitness testimony in your video in the first place. I didn’t take the bait. Better luck next time.

 

[createdtoworship]

It’s a shame you can’t step back and view this conversation without your personal investment clouding your judgment, but perhaps that’s a mercy for you. Your refusal to engage the point has been noted. I think you know that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, but that’s utterly beside the point

No I don't know the eye witness testimony is unreliable. Typically it's not, in the court of law, an eye witness is considered direct evidence, secondary evidence is considered circumstantial. I have not researched a weakness to my theory because I adhere to it. You do the same for your beliefs. You don't research all the pro's and cons of a multiverse theory before adhering to it. It's the only egg in the basket for you. So you have no choice but to adhere to it. Note I am not saying you are honest or dishonest. I am not going there. I am not taking the opportunity to ridicule you for your belief. Even though it has no evidence and is unproven. This is the difference between christian debate and atheist debate. The use of ad hominems or not.

seeing as there is no eyewitness testimony in your video in the first place.

the first guy interviewed in the video, was an eye witness to Hell. He literally saw it and felt the flames. So how can you say there are no eye witnesses in the movie? That's the majority of the video, is interviews with people who actually experienced hell first hand, before being revived.

I didn’t take the bait. Better luck next time.

maybe you should actually watch it first, before claiming you know what is in it.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I believe you honestly don't know where the universe came from, but you have offered no reason or origin for the universe.

Correct. I specificaly said "I don't know".

Yet you are for certain that God did not do it.

Once again, incorrect. And since I've said this over and over, I don't know of a good reason why you would keep claiming this.

Because why would someone who believed God did it, fight so hard against, the evidence given.

You do realize that there's a difference between not believing in X, and believing that X is false, right? Because if you don't, you'd have a serious issue with your reasoning skills.

Because I haven't said that I'm certain a god didn't create the universe doesn't mean that I do believe that a god did it.

You get that... right?

that is only because you are biased against God existing, as I have shown.

You've done nothing of the sort. You're just putting words in my mouth again. Which I feel is dishonest. I would believe a god exist if given sufficient evidence, because I'm a logical person.

I the response was that you didn't know. That is not the response, I was talking about. I was saying you did not give a response, because you didn't know.

"Giving a response" simply means that as a consequence of your typing a question, I typed in an answer. That's literally all it means. You said I didn't. This is untrue.

I honestly don't see this as false at this point, you will have to explain further.

Show me where I've specifically said that I'm sure a god didn't create a universe, or retract the mischaracterization.

I could take a poll of thiests, who would unanimously believe it as solid evidence. So how accurate would that be? If not accurate, then neither would asking someone biased against God, be accurate. In the same way asking someone who is biased for God would not be accurate. And if I did a poll for everyone, more atheists would respond, because more atheists are active in this thread than theists. Theists think this is a boring topic, because it is solid fact already, nothing to discuss. So that would be why theists are not active here. So asking both atheists and theists to take a poll will be biased to the atheists, because there are more of them active here.

I have Christian friends. I've shown two of them this thread. They both think your arguments are terrible. So your idea that theists would "unanimously" consider your evidence solid is incorrect. But the point is that you're in the apologetics forum, which is basically meant to provide evidence of your god that non believers would find compelling. If the point was to "preach to the choir", then the entire forum seems pointless. If the atheists think your arguments are terrible (and it seems as though they do), then you're not accomplishing anything positive.

I do, absolutely. Yes.

So, if what you're posting is turning people away from Christianity (which it is), that's your definition of "glorifying"? When I was a Christian, we talked a lot about "soul winning". Turning people away from Christianity would be the exact opposite of that, and would be considered a failure.

 

[gaara4158]

No I don't know the eye witness testimony is unreliable. Typically it's not, in the court of law, an eye witness is considered direct evidence, secondary evidence is considered circumstantial. I have not researched a weakness to my theory because I adhere to it. You do the same for your beliefs. You don't research all the pro's and cons of a multiverse theory before adhering to it. It's the only egg in the basket for you. So you have no choice but to adhere to it. Note I am not saying you are honest or dishonest. I am not going there. I am not taking the opportunity to ridicule you for your belief. Even though it has no evidence and is unproven. This is the difference between christian debate and atheist debate. The use of ad hominems or not.


the first guy interviewed in the video, was an eye witness to Hell. He literally saw it and felt the flames. So how can you say there are no eye witnesses in the movie? That's the majority of the video, is interviews with people who actually experienced hell first hand, before being revived.


maybe you should actually watch it first, before claiming you know what is in it.

For like the tenth time now, you can’t consider someone an eyewitness to an event that was never demonstrated to have happened. Any eyewitness account alone is nothing but a claim. I am sure the man interviewed as well as the rest of NDE patients in his research are being honest in their accounts of their experiences. That doesn’t mean there’s an actual Hell. It means they had an experience. So they’re not necessarily eyewitnesses to Hell, they’re eyewitnesses to their own subjective experiences. Which demonstrates nothing. People experience mirages, illusions, hallucinations, and all kinds of things that don’t line up with reality. It’s not my job to prove either one of those are the case in these subjects, it is the doctor’s job to rule them out if he’s claiming they’re evidence of Hell, and he doesn’t do that. Both the blogger I cited and the critic he cited understood this.

It’s clear you just didn’t understand this earlier, so I apologize for accusing you of lying, but now that I’ve explained it to you you’re without excuse.

 

[createdtoworship]

Correct. I specificaly said "I don't know".



Once again, incorrect. And since I've said this over and over, I don't know of a good reason why you would keep claiming this.



You do realize that there's a difference between not believing in X, and believing that X is false, right? Because if you don't, you'd have a serious issue with your reasoning skills.

Because I haven't said that I'm certain a god didn't create the universe doesn't mean that I do believe that a god did it.

You get that... right?



You've done nothing of the sort. You're just putting words in my mouth again. Which I feel is dishonest. I would believe a god exist if given sufficient evidence, because I'm a logical person.



"Giving a response" simply means that as a consequence of your typing a question, I typed in an answer. That's literally all it means. You said I didn't. This is untrue.



Show me where I've specifically said that I'm sure a god didn't create a universe, or retract the mischaracterization.



I have Christian friends. I've shown two of them this thread. They both think your arguments are terrible. So your idea that theists would "unanimously" consider your evidence solid is incorrect. But the point is that you're in the apologetics forum, which is basically meant to provide evidence of your god that non believers would find compelling. If the point was to "preach to the choir", then the entire forum seems pointless. If the atheists think your arguments are terrible (and it seems as though they do), then you're not accomplishing anything positive.



So, if what you're posting is turning people away from Christianity (which it is), that's your definition of "glorifying"? When I was a Christian, we talked a lot about "soul winning". Turning people away from Christianity would be the exact opposite of that, and would be considered a failure.

well I fear this conversation has turned from a honest debate, to an insult fest. So I will bow out. But I do want you to think further on this:

"You do realize that there's a difference between not believing in X, and believing that X is false, right? Because if you don't, you'd have a serious issue with your reasoning skills."

"not believing in" can be a synonym for " something being false" as in a premise. So you question my reasoning skills, but at this point, I question yours.

I truly believe that deep down you have rejected God, and thus are biased against Him. So unless you see proof you won't believe, even though sufficient evidence is given. You reject that evidence. So to me, you are assured as to if God exists. You have an argument that He does not exist, and you have it internalized and operating in your mind, but you won't verbalize it. This shows that you don't want it scrutinized, as it is very precious to you. I suggest letting go of that. And As far as christians rejecting the thread ,most likely you didn't give them the OP, you gave them some post in the middle, perhaps where I didn't word it properly. After all the Bible says, with much words there is sin. Proverbs 10:19. That means the more you talk, the more likely you will sin. That is why I usually block people who are insulting. But God is telling me not to defend myself, to let His words defend Him. So I would have to see exactly what was given as a sample of this thread. That may explain exactly why they are rejecting it, nothing more.

 

[createdtoworship]

For like the tenth time now, you can’t consider someone an eyewitness to an event that was never demonstrated to have happened. Any eyewitness account alone is nothing but a claim. I am sure the man interviewed as well as the rest of NDE patients in his research are being honest in their accounts of their experiences. That doesn’t mean there’s an actual Hell. It means they had an experience. So they’re not necessarily eyewitnesses to Hell, they’re eyewitnesses to their own subjective experiences. Which demonstrates nothing. People experience mirages, illusions, hallucinations, and all kinds of things that don’t line up with reality. It’s not my job to prove either one of those are the case in these subjects, it is the doctor’s job to rule them out if he’s claiming they’re evidence of Hell, and he doesn’t do that. Both the blogger I cited and the critic he cited understood this.

It’s clear you just didn’t understand this earlier, so I apologize for accusing you of lying, but now that I’ve explained it to you you’re without excuse.

But the eye witness account is demonstration that it happened, I have said this over and over again. That is why it is considered direct evidence in a court case, not circumstantial. Sometimes I feel like you don't read my posts.

 

[gaara4158]

But the eye witness account is demonstration that it happened, I have said this over and over again. That is why it is considered direct evidence in a court case, not circumstantial. Sometimes I feel like you don't read my posts.

And you’ve been absolutely incorrect every single time you repeated it. The “eyewitness” account is a *claim* that it happened, which I am willing to grant that they *believe* they’re telling the truth, but the fact remains that all we can glean from their accounts is that they all had *experiences.* Those experiences do not demonstrate that any Hell actually exists, as the doctor wants to argue. That’s what you’re refusing to acknowledge.

 

[createdtoworship]

And you’ve been absolutely incorrect every single time you repeated it. The “eyewitness” account is a *claim* that it happened, which I am willing to grant that they *believe* they’re telling the truth, but the fact remains that all we can glean from their accounts is that they all had *experiences.* Those experiences do not demonstrate that any Hell actually exists, as the doctor wants to argue. That’s what you’re refusing to acknowledge.

I believe at this point looking up the legal definition of eye witness testimony would help you. I don't think you know.

 

[createdtoworship]

I read this verse this morning Jesus had the opportunity to give a sign in which everyone would see solid proof He was God and savior. But instead He hides the truth from them. My point is this, are you certain God is not hiding himself from you? God could at any time show himself but He doesnt. So apparently He wants some to believe and others not to. All I am saying is read this passage, see How Jesus deceives them, with truth. But knowing they would misunderstand and mock Him. There was only one sign given that Jesus message was true. The resurrection. But when relaying that information to some group of skeptics, He encoded the message so that they would not believe. How do you know God is not hiding from you, because of His own purposes. Maybe God does not want you saved. (Possibly)
"So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?” Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple of His body. Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said."
John 2:18‭-‬22 NKJV

I would pray and plead with God. Ask Him to prove himself to you while humbly turning from known sin and preparing your heart to receive Him. This will allow God to perhaps grant mercy toward you and perhaps He will grant the faith. One can only pray. Faith is a gift from God. Some have it and others do not.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It is one thing to claim to be an eye witness to an event no one else has evidence for; it is another when there is a body.

 

[gaara4158]

I believe at this point looking up the legal definition of eye witness testimony would help you. I don't think you know.

This isn’t a legal trial, so I don’t know why you’re bringing the law into this. The doctor is trying to make a scientific case for the existence of Hell, using these people’s testimony. That’s not at all how science works. What is or isn’t permissible as evidence in court has absolutely no bearing on what constitutes scientific evidence. Here are some references for your edification:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence

You will of course find some way to insist these articles are biased, but I’ve done my part by leading you to the correct information.

Furthermore, even if we do go by the legal standards you’re insisting are relevant here, no court would allow as evidence a testimony of a witness’s experience while the witness was unconscious. All of the doctor’s “witnesses” were individual cases of people who are recounting experiences they had while they were nearly dead. Eyewitness accounts are accounts of actual events that happened, and the only event that is established to have happened is these people nearly died. No one else witnessed them going to Hell, and it is generally understood that people who are conscious have better awareness and reliability than people who aren’t. So why favor their accounts over that of the others in the room?

In conclusion, you’re applying irrelevant standards of evidence to the doctor’s work and even under those standards the evidence provided fails. And this is supposedly convincing to you?

 

[createdtoworship]

It is one thing to claim to be an eye witness to an event no one else has evidence for; it is another when there is a body.

but there are dozens of corroborating the exact same thing. There is a book of 2 dozen cases. One cannot automatically rule out fraud or deliberate deception. People do lie, and for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it is for financial gain—such as in order to sell books, movies, or to line up paid speaking engagements. In other cases it may be to gain celebrity status, popularity, or notoriety. But for 20 people to lie when not receiving anthing in return would be odd. For example they did not receive any compensation for the book. As they did not author it.

here is the book of the 20 people that seen hell:

Amazon.com: Buying Choices: Beyond Death's Door

I haven't read the book but this is a quote from a guy who did read it:

"
Dr. Maurice Rawlings, a cardiologist, has witnessed numerous patients during and after their near-death experiences and reported his findings in Beyond Death’s Door. After interviewing 300 patients immediately after resuscitation, Dr. Rawlings says that nearly half of them reported seeing a lake of fire, devil-like figures, and other sights reflecting the reality of hell. “There is a life after death,” Rawlings said, “and if I don’t know where I’m going, it’s not safe to die.
"
above quote from : one heartbeat away- mark cahill

 

[ToddNotTodd]

well I fear this conversation has turned from a honest debate, to an insult fest. So I will bow out. But I do want you to think further on this:

If it were me, and I was caught putting words in people's mouths, I'd bow out as well.

"not believing in" can be a synonym for " something being false" as in a premise. So you question my reasoning skills, but at this point, I question yours.

It's illogical to assume that "I don't believe in X" equals "X is false". I thought you were a "logical debater".

I truly believe that deep down you have rejected God, and thus are biased against Him.

False

So unless you see proof you won't believe, even though sufficient evidence is given. You reject that evidence.

As I've already said, you haven't presented anything that I would regard as evidence that you claim is correct.

So to me, you are assured as to if God exists. You have an argument that He does not exist, and you have it internalized and operating in your mind, but you won't verbalize it.

False

This shows that you don't want it scrutinized, as it is very precious to you.

False

And As far as christians rejecting the thread ,most likely you didn't give them the OP, you gave them some post in the middle, perhaps where I didn't word it properly. After all the Bible says, with much words there is sin. Proverbs 10:19. That means the more you talk, the more likely you will sin. That is why I usually block people who are insulting. But God is telling me not to defend myself, to let His words defend Him. So I would have to see exactly what was given as a sample of this thread. That may explain exactly why they are rejecting it, nothing more.

I gave my Christian friends the URL of thread, nothing more. They looked at your posts in that thread, and other threads you've posted in, and came up with their conclusions. I respect both of them deeply, as they're both very learned people.

I asked one of them if they thought that what you were doing was actually hurting rather than helping. He answered "absolutely". He said it was the equivalent to street preaching and punching everyone in the face before asking them if they'd like to hear your testimony.

Now, I don't expect you to change the way you post based on my friend's reply, or my acquaintance who is now saying she can't call herself a Christian anymore, if you follow the pattern I've seen with other apologists through the years.

That's the part that's absolutely fascinating to me.

 

[createdtoworship]

If it were me, and I was caught putting words in people's mouths, I'd bow out as well.


It's illogical to assume that "I don't believe in X" equals "X is false". I thought you were a "logical debater".



False



As I've already said, you haven't presented anything that I would regard as evidence that you claim is correct.



False



False



I gave my Christian friends the URL of thread, nothing more. They looked at your posts in that thread, and other threads you've posted in, and came up with their conclusions. I respect both of them deeply, as they're both very learned people.

I asked one of them if they thought that what you were doing was actually hurting rather than helping. He answered "absolutely". He said it was the equivalent to street preaching and punching everyone in the face before asking them if they'd like to hear your testimony.

Now, I don't expect you to change the way you post based on my friend's reply, or my acquaintance who is now saying she can't call herself a Christian anymore, if you follow the pattern I've seen with other apologists through the years.

That's the part that's absolutely fascinating to me.

I would love to speak to him, have him message me, with clips of where I "punched people in the face." Most likely he either wont, or he does not want to invest much time into it. If I really believed what he said I would have went in the thread, and or messaged myself rebuking him for lack of love. But if I didn't care much about it I would reply to you and do nothing about it. That appears to be what happened. But using the law is not popular in christianity. Neither is young earth creationism, or fundamentalism. All of this does have a biblical precedence. So I listen to people, I do. But I listen to the Bible more. The methods I have used many times are directly from the word. So if you want, let him message me or point out his concern here. Most will not. I welcome all criticism. I have absolutely nothing to hide before God or man. All of my methods are beyond reproach. So again, by all means invite them to reply or again, have them message me. I talk to christians old and new every day. Non christians too. I care about them all. regarding my views, if you know someone is driving their car off a cliff, you either help them steer to safety, or you provide a parachute. You don't watch them perish. You are responsibLe for them perishing, so you take partial responsibility if you have a parachute and you don't provide it. But christians can disagreen with fundamentalism.. most evangelicals are staunch republican for example. If Jesus was president he would let in all the immigrants but then force them to get a job if they wanted food. That puts him at odds with democrat and republican. I am more inline with Ron paul, but I really don't know much about him. But the point is that christianity is so vast that you have people from all walks of life represented by christianity. There are christians that believe in social justice (democrats) as in the christian black community. They can be on fire christians, then you have the christian right novement. They can be on fire christians. But when they talk politics. The devil comes out and they cant unite over squat. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I just think the true Jesus following puts you at odds with most of man's systems.

 

[createdtoworship]

This isn’t a legal trial, so I don’t know why you’re bringing the law into this. The doctor is trying to make a scientific case for the existence of Hell, using these people’s testimony. That’s not at all how science works. What is or isn’t permissible as evidence in court has absolutely no bearing on what constitutes scientific evidence. Here are some references for your edification:
Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts

Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence

You will of course find some way to insist these articles are biased, but I’ve done my part by leading you to the correct information.

Furthermore, even if we do go by the legal standards you’re insisting are relevant here, no court would allow as evidence a testimony of a witness’s experience while the witness was unconscious. All of the doctor’s “witnesses” were individual cases of people who are recounting experiences they had while they were nearly dead. Eyewitness accounts are accounts of actual events that happened, and the only event that is established to have happened is these people nearly died. No one else witnessed them going to Hell, and it is generally understood that people who are conscious have better awareness and reliability than people who aren’t. So why favor their accounts over that of the others in the room?

In conclusion, you’re applying irrelevant standards of evidence to the doctor’s work and even under those standards the evidence provided fails. And this is supposedly convincing to you?

scientiests don't like eye witnesses? That's ok. But don't they realize that they are eye witnesses to their own tests? No one writes it down for them, no one double checks the test's accuracy. So this argument is self refuting. A scientist, who is an eye witness to his own tests, says eye witnesses are innacurate. the irony.

 

[gaara4158]

scientiests don't like eye witnesses? That's ok. But don't they realize that they are eye witnesses to their own tests? No one writes it down for them, no one double checks the test's accuracy. So this argument is self refuting. A scientist, who is an eye witness to his own tests, says eye witnesses are innacurate. the irony.

I think you need to read the articles I posted. You don’t understand what eyewitness testimony is, you don’t understand what science is, and you’re too proud to consider that any perspective other than yours is correct. As a result, you find yourself in a world where debate forums are full of “mean” or “stubborn” people and the world’s top scientists, psychologists and lawyers all fall victim to silly, self-defeating principles. Doesn’t that ring any alarms for you? Or does your pride make it easy to believe that you're catching things that all the experts are missing?

As a favor to you, I’m going to go down every line and correct your errors.

scientiests don't like eye witnesses? That's ok. But don't they realize that they are eye witnesses to their own tests?

Yes. That's why scientists go to great pains recording every conceivable detail of the test's construction, execution, and surrounding conditions (this is called the test's methodology). When they submit these recordings to peer review, they want others to be able to replicate the exact same test to see if they get the exact same results.

No one writes it down for them, no one double checks the test's accuracy.

What exactly did you think peer review was? Other scientists just checking the grammar of the abstract? No. Peer review involves not only critique of a scientist's test methodology, but re-creation of that scientist's test, in order to compare results. If other scientists around the world trying to find some fault in the original scientist's test end up getting the same results, the data is considered valid. Did you really think scientists just fiddled with chemicals in their backyards, thought about it for a while, then submitted authoritative papers declaring some scientific truth? No wonder you don't trust science. You have no idea how it works.

So this argument is self refuting. A scientist, who is an eye witness to his own tests, says eye witnesses are innacurate. the irony.

Indeed, the irony. You dismiss science for being silly and self-refuting and yet it's you who has the misconception. Eyewitness testimonies are unreliable because they can't be held to the same rigorous standards as physical evidence. They are too easily subject to manipulation, biases, and expectations.

So, now that we have established exactly what's wrong with using eyewitness testimony as the main source of data in a scientific test, do you really still wish to push this doctor's book as compelling evidence, or will you admit you made a mistake?

 

[createdtoworship]

duplicate

 

[createdtoworship]

What exactly did you think peer review was? Other scientists just checking the grammar of the abstract? No. Peer review involves not only critique of a scientist's test methodology, but re-creation of that scientist's test, in order to compare results. If other scientists around the world trying to find some fault in the original scientist's test end up getting the same results, the data is considered valid. Did you really think scientists just fiddled with chemicals in their backyards, thought about it for a while, then submitted authoritative papers declaring some scientific truth? No wonder you don't trust science. You have no idea how it works.

I proved it's self refuting. Observation is used in the very definition of the scientific method.

They trust their eyes. No one else, their eyes. So we are trusting in what they saw with their eyes as an eye witness. Then it goes to peer review, which makes the same mistake. They trust in the original eye witness. They assume what he saw as an eye witness was accurate, and He made no mistakes and that He is not forging or lying to make money. They trust in the original eye witness. So again science saying that eye witness testimony, is unreliable is self refuting to science as a whole. But I do congratulate you that you went and did your homework, and found some citations. that is good on your part. And thank you for that. That is unusual for you.

 

[createdtoworship]

I read this just now and it hit home.

Joshua chapter 23
The gods of the conquered people claimed to be modern and ‘scientific’ – with true control over agriculture, fertility and sex. The people of Canaan felt themselves intellectually and culturally miles ahead of the Israelites. But Joshua stresses the shortcomings of the ‘other gods’ as against the goodness and the power of God (vv.3–13).

You have to make a choice. You cannot just drift. Many people just drift through life, never making a conscious decision.

Joshua, like all good leaders, leads by example. He makes a deliberate, personal choice to worship and serve the Lord. He says, ‘But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord’ (v.15).

The people answered, ‘We too will serve the Lord, because he is our God’ (vv.18,21,24). Joshua said, ‘You have chosen to serve the Lord’ (v.22). As a result, ‘Israel served the Lord throughout the lifetime of Joshua’ (v.31). While Joshua and the elders – trained presumably by him – were leading Israel, Israel served the Lord. Leadership is key.

Joshua called the people to repentance and faith. This is always what God requires. First, repentance: ‘throw away the foreign gods’ (v.23a). Get rid of the bad stuff. Second, faith: ‘yield your hearts to the Lord’ (v.23b) – put your whole life into the hands of the Lord.