Christianity (In a Nutshell)?

[Halbhh]

What is the '1/2' that is missing? And what Makes Jesus' better?

Confucius: "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself."

Confucius only says do not do to others what you don't want others to do to you.

Refrain from harming them.

Christ says more than that --
A) that we should refrain from harming them,
and
B) that we additionally should take action to do for others things we would want others to do for us.

Confucius's rule lacks B). Therefore Confucius's rule is inferior.

I didn't consider this important -- I didn't look to Confucius for my enlightenment.

I think thousands and perhaps millions of people over time have realized the better, fuller rule Christ gave. Confucius fell short, but I feel it's likely many others didn't fall short as Confucius did on this.

You kept repeating the rule from Confucius, so that's why I'm addressing it, in courtesy to you.

 

[cvanwey]

Never disregarded those passages, but as to the meaning you think they have--that is absolutely under dispute.

Okay. what do they 'really' mean? I read them as axioms.

Belief -> The beginnings to being 'saved'
Unbelief -> Condemnation for sure

Seems pretty cut and dry.

And if you find verses which state something else, which I'm sure you can, it's a big book, HOW do you then reconcile and square that apparent discrepancy? Again, seems to come from accepting the hits, and ignoring the misses, to a 'degree'....

You are operating from a fundamentalist's reading of these, a reading which is not shared by the vast majority of Christians. As the vast majority of Christians aren't fundamentalists.

No. I'm interpreting passages in which I read. Many people believe many things. But the passages provided, seem pretty straight forward.

By seriously I mean attempt to engage in honest exegesis of the texts, and to evaluate and think through things theologically. Rather than simply parrot things I heard once from some guy.

Okay, so now you are making assumptions about (my) interpretation. Great. However, regardless of my prior background, or current standing, such Biblical statements look to have a clear objective. Can you tell me why they are not?

Did it ever occur to you to even bother to ask me about what I believe, or why? Or how I read the texts, and why? Do you actually care?

-CryptoLutheran

Okay, sure, what do you believe and why?

However, my points about this thread, in a nutshell, is that belief is not a choice. And yet, we have many verses which appear to elude the the fact that unbelief warrants eternal condemnation.

Also, that if person A (whom is a believer), and person B (whom is not a believer) live clone lifestyles, i.e. perform the same 'sins' - murder, rape, adultery, etc; the distinguishing difference between the two is their belief in a very specific 'saving agent'....

And as I've stated time and time again, Christianity seems to possess traits void of 'moral application.' I.E. belief...

 

[cvanwey]

Confucius: "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself."

Confucius only says do not do to others what you don't want others to do to you.

Refrain from harming them.

Christ says more than that --
A) that we should refrain from harming them,
and
B) that we additionally should take action to do for others things we would want others to do for us.

Confucius's rule lacks B). Therefore Confucius's rule is inferior.

I didn't consider this important -- I didn't look to Confucius for my enlightenment.

I think thousands and perhaps millions of people over time have realized the better, fuller rule Christ gave. Confucius fell short, but I feel it's likely many others didn't fall short as Confucius did on this.

You kept repeating the rule from Confucius, so that's why I'm addressing it, in courtesy to you.

You are funny. When these 'thousands/millions' are asked what is the 'golden rule', what do you think their answer might be? The difference between the two then becomes negligible/non-existent.

Now getting to the meat of YOUR claim... You state that if something is true, it is always true. So now I ask you, yet again.....

Care to explore some stuff Jesus chimed in upon, which humans will likely again never adopt as 'good', or a universal truth?

Because as I stated many times to you now, even if Jesus said one or two things which moved society, how do we square that with the things He claimed, which do not appear universal?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

even if Jesus said one or two things which moved society,

He did not come to move society.

how do we square that with the things He claimed,

No need to. (Everything Jesus said/says IS FROM THE FATHER, Who is not a man that He could lie.)

 

[cvanwey]

He did not come to move society.


No need to. (Everything Jesus said/says IS FROM THE FATHER, Who is not a man that He could lie.)

Sometimes I almost 'envy' those whom can jump into a thread, chop stuff out of context, and make unfalsifiable claims willy nilly, and genuinely believe it. It must feel pretty darn satisfying...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Sometimes I almost 'envy' those whom can jump into a thread, chop stuff out of context, and make unfalsifiable claims willy nilly, and genuinely believe it. It must feel pretty darn satisfying...

Just saw an obviously false statement, and instead of going along with what is wrong, exposing it as directed in all Scripture. (so people, especially little children and the weak in faith, or seekers, do not get led further into deception)....

 

[cvanwey]

Just saw an obviously false statement, and instead of going along with what is wrong, exposing it as directed in all Scripture. (so people, especially little children and the weak in faith, or seekers, do not get led further into deception)....

I'm sure we are all glad you are here to keep all of us on the straight and narrow. Good job @yeshuaslavejeff Keep up the great work.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm sure we are all glad you are here to keep all of us on the straight and narrow. Good job @yeshuaslavejeff Keep up the great work.

Not nearly "all of us". The limits on our posting is so strained, so limited, so small, that we can only help a few, and then only as God Permits, and if they want help (woe to those who mock, though I don't know what will happen to them) .....

 

[Halbhh]

You are funny. When these 'thousands/millions' are asked what is the 'golden rule', what do you think their answer might be? The difference between the two then becomes negligible/non-existent.

Now getting to the meat of YOUR claim... You state that if something is true, it is always true. So now I ask you, yet again.....

Care to explore some stuff Jesus chimed in upon, which humans will likely again never adopt as 'good', or a universal truth?

Because as I stated many times to you now, even if Jesus said one or two things which moved society, how do we square that with the things He claimed, which do not appear universal?

False choice. Truths are universal. Regardless of your understanding today. I learned by direct testing.

 

[cvanwey]

False choice. Truths are universal. Regardless of your understanding today. I learned by direct testing.

@Halbhh Please pay careful attention here... I'm addressing something you asserted, which I agree with, back in post #177. You stated:

"Falsehoods fade out. What is true endures."

I NOW ask you... Care to test this? You state you have tested this, via 'direct testing'.

If I locate affirmations, assertions, or claims from Jesus and/or from the Bible, which do not appear to comport with 'enduring future trends, due to their lack in actually 'being correct', would you then have no choice but to reconcile that Jesus indeed endorsed (some) topics, which do not 'endure'?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Okay. what do they 'really' mean? I read them as axioms.

Belief -> The beginnings to being 'saved'
Unbelief -> Condemnation for sure

Seems pretty cut and dry.

And if you find verses which state something else, which I'm sure you can, it's a big book, HOW do you then reconcile and square that apparent discrepancy? Again, seems to come from accepting the hits, and ignoring the misses, to a 'degree'....



No. I'm interpreting passages in which I read. Many people believe many things. But the passages provided, seem pretty straight forward.



Okay, so now you are making assumptions about (my) interpretation. Great. However, regardless of my prior background, or current standing, such Biblical statements look to have a clear objective. Can you tell me why they are not?



Okay, sure, what do you believe and why?

However, my points about this thread, in a nutshell, is that belief is not a choice. And yet, we have many verses which appear to elude the the fact that unbelief warrants eternal condemnation.

Also, that if person A (whom is a believer), and person B (whom is not a believer) live clone lifestyles, i.e. perform the same 'sins' - murder, rape, adultery, etc; the distinguishing difference between the two is their belief in a very specific 'saving agent'....

And as I've stated time and time again, Christianity seems to possess traits void of 'moral application.' I.E. belief...

Alright, let's go back a bit, you said,

The number of sins, or lack-there-of, is not what gets one to heaven. Belief does.

To which my response was,

False. Belief is not a good work which one does in order to merit afterlife brownie points. Nobody is saved by having the right beliefs.

You made the claim that having the right beliefs are what merits one a place in heaven. A sentiment no where expressed in the Bible.

Your response, however, was this:

Tell that to Jesus. If you do NOT belief He is the only path to heaven, according to Him, you possess the WRONG belief

Now here is what I said,

You seem to be confusing the words of Jesus with a particular theological position. Jesus never said that holding to certain propositional beliefs earns one salvation.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but by Me" is a statement about His Person; not a statement about how to get to heaven by believing the right things.

Perhaps what I failed to do was to go further in explaining the meaning of this.

Firstly: Note that Jesus does not say, "Having the right set of beliefs merits you a place in heaven.", what Jesus does say is that He is the way to the Father.

Secondly: This statement comes within both the immediate context of Jesus' discussion with His followers, and in the broader context of John's Gospel.

Let's first address the broader context of John's Gospel, the author establishes something of a thesis statement in the prologue of the text,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This One was in the beginning with God." - John 1:1-2

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." - John 1:14

"No one has ever seen God; God, the only-begotten [Son] who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." - John 1:18

The Evangelist's thesis is that Jesus is the only-begotten Son, the Divine Logos, who has become flesh; and is the One uniquely able to show God to us. That is, through the Incarnate Son we can know God the Father.

And so, when we finally get to "No one comes to the Father but by Me" we have that broader context in which to read it. We also have the more immediate context of the conversation going on, in which Jesus also says, "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father" and "The Father is in Me, and I am in the Father."

To "come to the Father" is to know the Father, to know the One about whom Jesus speaks. To know Jesus is to know the Father, because Jesus as the Son is uniquely able to show the Father. "No one comes to the Father but by Me" is not a statement about how to go to heaven by doing the right X, Y, and Z; it's a statement about who He is, about His Person.

I cannot know the Father except that I know His Son, the One which He has sent. Apart from Christ I may have an idea about God, I may have a vague sense of what ideas like "divinity" and "deity" mean; but it is only through Jesus that I can have access to the Father--to know Him even as Jesus knows Him. That God is not an aloof and distant idea; but One who presents Himself to the world in the Person of Jesus.

"God" is a word that is therefore to be comprehended and understood through the Person and works of Jesus--the One who gives Himself, who offers Himself, who lays down His life willingly by not merely enduring the humiliating suffering of the Roman cross, but who embraces that cross, embraces that humiliation for the sake of wounded sinners.

God is One who chooses to be crucified out of love, and for the sake, of sinners. For the very people who would sentence Him to death, who would strip Him, spit on Him, mock Him. For murderers, thieves, liars, petty criminals, the arrogant, the greedy, for selfish people, for prideful people. That is, for you and me.

That, by the way, is what grace is. That is what is meant by the statement, "Saved by grace."

Let's leave things here for now. If you are willing to show good faith and respond to this--not by flippantly disregarding literally everything I have said and trying to tell me what I "actually" believe--then I'll go about addressing the other points, namely, the passages from John 3:16 et al.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Halbhh]

@Halbhh Please pay careful attention here... I'm addressing something you asserted, which I agree with, back in post #177. You stated:

"Falsehoods fade out. What is true endures."

I NOW ask you... Care to test this? You state you have tested this, via 'direct testing'.

If I locate affirmations, assertions, or claims from Jesus and/or from the Bible, which do not appear to comport with 'enduring future trends, due to their lack in actually 'being correct', would you then have no choice but to reconcile that Jesus indeed endorsed (some) topics, which do not 'endure'?

Knowing what He said, I know we generally need the context to understand what was meant for quite a lot of things, while some are clear by themselves. But a lot of people do poorly at guessing at meanings. Many do make the mistake of isolating a verse or 3 and insisting it has some meaning which a bigger context shows isn't correct. But you can ask us, and I'll be glad to help, so long as you are having a friendly discussion.

 

[cvanwey]

Perhaps what I failed to do was to go further in explaining the meaning of this.

No, where I think the conversation derailed, was that I'm addressing and very specific statement from Jesus, and you addressed another. See below.

Firstly: Note that Jesus does not say, "Having the right set of beliefs merits you a place in heaven.", what Jesus does say is that He is the way to the Father.

In that specific verse, I would agree He does not say that exact thing, but that is not the topic I"m speaking about. My most spotlighted verse(s), in this thread is John 3:16-18. And for some reason, you want to instead 'wait' to address it... Let's explore why? Read below...

Secondly: This statement comes within both the immediate context of Jesus' discussion with His followers, and in the broader context of John's Gospel.

Okay, but this does nothing to address my simple conclusion. See below...

Let's first address the broader context of John's Gospel, the author establishes something of a thesis statement in the prologue of the text,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This One was in the beginning with God." - John 1:1-2

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." - John 1:14

"No one has ever seen God; God, the only-begotten [Son] who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." - John 1:18

The Evangelist's thesis is that Jesus is the only-begotten Son, the Divine Logos, who has become flesh; and is the One uniquely able to show God to us. That is, through the Incarnate Son we can know God the Father.

And so, when we finally get to "No one comes to the Father but by Me" we have that broader context in which to read it. We also have the more immediate context of the conversation going on, in which Jesus also says, "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father" and "The Father is in Me, and I am in the Father."

To "come to the Father" is to know the Father, to know the One about whom Jesus speaks. To know Jesus is to know the Father, because Jesus as the Son is uniquely able to show the Father. "No one comes to the Father but by Me" is not a statement about how to go to heaven by doing the right X, Y, and Z; it's a statement about who He is, about His Person.

I cannot know the Father except that I know His Son, the One which He has sent. Apart from Christ I may have an idea about God, I may have a vague sense of what ideas like "divinity" and "deity" mean; but it is only through Jesus that I can have access to the Father--to know Him even as Jesus knows Him. That God is not an aloof and distant idea; but One who presents Himself to the world in the Person of Jesus.

"God" is a word that is therefore to be comprehended and understood through the Person and works of Jesus--the One who gives Himself, who offers Himself, who lays down His life willingly by not merely enduring the humiliating suffering of the Roman cross, but who embraces that cross, embraces that humiliation for the sake of wounded sinners.

God is One who chooses to be crucified out of love, and for the sake, of sinners. For the very people who would sentence Him to death, who would strip Him, spit on Him, mock Him. For murderers, thieves, liars, petty criminals, the arrogant, the greedy, for selfish people, for prideful people. That is, for you and me.

That, by the way, is what grace is. That is what is meant by the statement, "Saved by grace."

Let's leave things here for now. If you are willing to show good faith and respond to this--not by flippantly disregarding literally everything I have said and trying to tell me what I "actually" believe--then I'll go about addressing the other points, namely, the passages from John 3:16 et al.

-CryptoLutheran

Please do not think that I am 'flippantly' ignoring your response here...

I understand the claim, the story line, and what Jesus's claim is. But nothing here is addressing my point(s) I will try a different approach. It's very easy and simple. By applying one question, as the starting point.

Can someone whom does not 'believe' Jesus is ACTUALLY God, go to heaven? Yes or no?

 

[SPF]

Can someone whom does not 'believe' Jesus is ACTUALLY God, go to heaven? Yes or no?

Probably not. But God does look at the heart, so who am I to say one way or the other?

 

[cvanwey]

Probably not. But God does look at the heart, so who am I to say one way or the other?

This hits the nail on the head for this entire topic. I then reiterate... If we cannot control what we believe, (i.e.) that some of us, try as we might, do not believe in a resurrected Jesus, we are doomed, if incorrect.

Seems to be outside the scope of a moral construct...

And when you add "But God does look at the heart". Is this wishful thinking? Is there clear verse to substantiate this claim? And if so, how would this square with John 3:16-18?

 

[Halbhh]

This hits the nail on the head for this entire topic. I then reiterate... If we cannot control what we believe, (i.e.) that some of us, try as we might, do not believe in a resurrected Jesus, we are doomed, if incorrect.

Seems to be outside the scope of a moral construct...

And when you add "But God does look at the heart". Is this wishful thinking? Is there clear verse to substantiate this claim? And if so, how would this square with John 3:16-18?

The clear path that we can choose to do laid out in scriptures is to be humble, and the most key way for any of us to be humble is to listen to what Christ said with the expectation that He has things to teach us. That's humble to do.

Then we are on the stated way to faith, which happens to us -- Romans 10:17.

So you can choose, see. And this path of being unassuming/humble is one anyone respects -- the humble attitude of not thinking we already know all, but instead being curious and open to learn. It's a classic virtue, already, even before the great possibility it opens.

 

[cvanwey]

The clear path that we can choose to do laid out in scriptures is to be humble, and the most key way for any of us to be humble is to listen to what Christ said with the expectation that He has things to teach us. That's humble to do.

Then we are on the stated way to faith, which happens to us -- Romans 10:17.

So you can choose, see. And this path of being unassuming/humble is one anyone respects -- the humble attitude of not thinking we already know all, but instead being curious and open to learn. It's a classic virtue, already, even before the great possibility it opens.

Please understand my frustration here @Halbhh . Here we have @SPF , whom offered a simple answer, to a simple question. It's not a trick question. It's a direct question, based upon an axiomatic claim. He then also offered a caveat, for which I hope he will address. But that's between me and this poster. If he/she should choose to address it.

Let me reiterate, yet one more time... Please actually read what I write, verses offering something different.

I can try as a might, to believe in a resurrected Jesus. But at the end of the day, even if I believe He was born, preached some good stuff, and died, I don't think He came back from the dead, after He was murdered.

HENCE FORTH, my BELIEF is that he is a mere mortal whom stuck in history. Maybe even a wise and influential person. But that is where it stops.

So I again ask.... According to the direct claims of Jesus Himself. Do I go to heaven, (anyways), or not? If you say maybe, or yes, then please explain away John 3:16-18?

So now, I again ask you, yet again:

Does belief itself involve any sense of moral application?

Belief itself is not a choice. You can try to will a belief. But you can't. So if my lack in belief is not my fault, why is this of grave sin to Jesus?

 

[SPF]

If we cannot control what we believe, (i.e.) that some of us, try as we might, do not believe in a resurrected Jesus, we are doomed, if incorrect.

I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that we cannot control what we believe. In fact, I think the majority of actions we commit are based upon beliefs that we choose to hold. When I leave the office here in a few hours, I'm going to choose to believe that it will be safe to drive my car home. I'm choosing to believe that I won't get hit and die. Otherwise, I would find another way to get home. I'm choosing to believe that after typing this really long post that when I press "Post Reply" that it's actually going to work and you'll be able to read this. I'm choosing to believe that, even though it has failed in the past. We make choices about what we will believe and not believe all day long.

And when you add "But God does look at the heart". Is this wishful thinking? Is there clear verse to substantiate this claim? And if so, how would this square with John 3:16-18?

Sure, it might be wishful thinking, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, But the LORD weighs the motives.

"I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.

then hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive and act and render to each according to all his ways, whose heart You know, for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men,

etc etc...

As for how my wishful thinking jives with John 3:16-18, I again would say that God looks at the heart and knows our motives, our intentions, and our beliefs. There are lots of denominations with lots of conflicting theology. I can imagine a person who believed that Jesus was the first created being of God and that God the Father gave Him immense power and that Jesus then created the rest of the universe, was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died on the cross to atone for his sin, rose from the dead 3 days later, and believed that Christ had the power to forgive him of his sin, and that one day in some fashion Christ will return to redeem and restore the universe. Would they not be forgiven because they had a fundamental misunderstanding about the true nature of Jesus? I guess it's possible, but I would leave the door open and won't speak for God on that one.

I can try as a might, to believe in a resurrected Jesus. But at the end of the day, even if I believe He was born, preached some good stuff, and died, I don't think He came back from the dead, after He was murdered.

Well, if you don't believe that God exists, you certainly wouldn't believe that Jesus was who He claimed to be! I think for you, the question is even more fundamental than whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, it's starting with whether or not God even exists in the first place.

I stand by the belief that a person's block in coming to Christ is never intellectual, but always moral. Having read a number of your posts, I imagine you would certainly disagree with that idea, but I would expect you to, as does everyone else who rejects Christianity. But I of course still think it's true. You don't think you're a sinner. You don't think you need forgiveness. You don't think God exists. So nothing any Christian says to you is ever really going to make sense. It's just not. And that's to be expected.

For me, it started with belief in God. Once I was able to acknowledge that God existed, I was then able to acknowledge that He created me. I was then able to come to a point where I realized that what I did mattered. While you may not think morality matters, it does. Scripture accurately portrays the nature of God, His love for us, His plan for us, and a way for us to know Him.

But sure, if you don't believe that God exists, I can see why you can't "make yourself" believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Can someone whom does not 'believe' Jesus is ACTUALLY God, go to heaven? Yes or no?

Again, salvation isn't a theology exam. So I see no reason to think that a person who happens to have the wrong theology is somehow unable to have a place in the Age to Come. It's not about having the right beliefs, it's about God's grace, what God has done for us in and through Jesus Christ.

So, alright, let's deal with the John 3 passage,

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God." - John 3:16-21

Let's clarify a few necessary points here, the word "believe" here is πιστεύω (pisteuo), "have faith in" "trust in". The problem is with the English language, in which "belief" is frequently understood as "mental assent to an idea". One has beliefs, propositions and ideas to which one has given their assent to. But the Greek idea of faith, pistis, is generally closer to our concept of trust. In this sense it is more akin to saying to someone that you believe in them, not an idea of them, but that you trust them, their character, placing your confidence upon them that they are not leading you astray, that they are dependable, that they are faithful and that their promises are trustworthy. This is why, for example, as a Lutheran I can say that an infant can have faith in Christ; not that an infant is capable of a complicated understanding of theology, but that trust can exist (because it is a gift of God). Even in regard to natural trust an infant can have faith, such as the faith an infant has in its mother--the parent-infant bond represents a fundamental trust--a faith--from the infant toward mother. Further, Jesus Himself explicitly points to small children and infants as examples of faith, "I tell you the truth, unless you turn around and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3)

So that is critical here, it is the trustworthiness of Jesus that is essential here. To believe upon Jesus is to place one's trust upon Him. It's not a theological exam, it's not "have these set of beliefs", it's rather Jesus Himself that is to be the object of one's trust.

Further, the language is dichotomous; between light and darkness, between rescue and perishing. This language, however, is not "turn or burn"; it is instead about the divine rescue of people who are in a perilous state. The whole idea of salvation--of rescue--is rather meaningless apart from a state in which one is in need of said rescue. The rescue exists because peril exists. And the peril of which men find themselves is their own wicked actions. The condemnation is not an active condemnation, but a passive condemnation; it is the condemnation--the guilt--through one's own actions. Our own actions and works condemn us. It is not Christ who condemns us, as He says, He did not come to condemn but to rescue; condemnation exists already because men already commit wicked deeds and those wicked deeds accuse them. When light shines into the darkness, it exposes everything. So Christ's coming into the world, as light into the darkness, is not a condemnation, but rather a light shining, exposing the darkness for what it already was.

Our sinfulness is what condemns us.

Faith in this Jesus is nothing other than a man fallen into a well, trusting that the one who has come to pull him out is true to his word that he will do so. For if one has come to rescue you from the well and you trust that he shall do it, you will not resist when he does so; but if you regard the rescuer as untrustworthy, you will struggle, fight against it, and remain at the bottom of that well.

It is not a punishment that you are in that well, you yourself fell into it. The hand that reaches to pull you out is not a condemnation, a punishment, or an ultimatum--it is a hand that reaches to pull you out.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cvanwey]

I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that we cannot control what we believe. In fact, I think the majority of actions we commit are based upon beliefs that we choose to hold. When I leave the office here in a few hours, I'm going to choose to believe that it will be safe to drive my car home. I'm choosing to believe that I won't get hit and die. Otherwise, I would find another way to get home. I'm choosing to believe that after typing this really long post that when I press "Post Reply" that it's actually going to work and you'll be able to read this. I'm choosing to believe that, even though it has failed in the past. We make choices about what we will believe and not believe all day long.

Disagree. You did not 'choose' to believe you will likely arrive home safely, using this method. You are aware that, even though traffic fatalities do happen, the likelihood of it happening to you is far and few between. To demonstrate, make yourself believe that driving home is not safe. And make yourself be scared about it, as you drive home. 'Safe' is a relative term, in this case. No one is ever 100% 'safe', when driving. But we trust the odds. You know the odds.

Furthermore, since you are aware that driving home is likely 'safe', or mostly safe, you cannot make yourself believe or be scared that you will crash. Now, if you 'Uber' a ride, and an eight year-old blind kid attempts to picks you up, then you would 'believe' you are not safe. Why? Again it is not because of a 'choice', but because of the evidence in the situation.

Sure, it might be wishful thinking, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, But the LORD weighs the motives.

"I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.

then hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive and act and render to each according to all his ways, whose heart You know, for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men,

etc etc...

Okay, and based upon the above verses, what say you about a person whom admires Jesus as a man, but does not think He is a Messiah?

I'll answer preemptively. This individual is condemned; apart from Heaven. His 'heart' tells him he may even agree with Jesus' teaching, and even goes so far as to state, 'what would Jesus do in this situation?' However, again, if this individual admires Him, like he admires Gandhi, or some other admirable character depicted in history, I doubt this is enough for Jesus. Why? Because other verses state so specifically

As for how my wishful thinking jives with John 3:16-18, I again would say that God looks at the heart and knows our motives, our intentions, and our beliefs. There are lots of denominations with lots of conflicting theology. I can imagine a person who believed that Jesus was the first created being of God and that God the Father gave Him immense power and that Jesus then created the rest of the universe, was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died on the cross to atone for his sin, rose from the dead 3 days later, and believed that Christ had the power to forgive him of his sin, and that one day in some fashion Christ will return to redeem and restore the universe. Would they not be forgiven because they had a fundamental misunderstanding about the true nature of Jesus? I guess it's possible, but I would leave the door open and won't speak for God on that one.

But as stated above, this is not what I'm addressing. It's not about the 'true nature of Jesus.' It's ultimately about believing He is who He says He is, or not. Again, I could even admire everything about His convictions, teachings, etc... But if I deem Him a mere mortal, I'm doomed, according to Scripture. This conclusion would be 'deemed' regardless of whether you wish to call it, from your heart', or other...

Well, if you don't believe that God exists, you certainly wouldn't believe that Jesus was who He claimed to be! I think for you, the question is even more fundamental than whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, it's starting with whether or not God even exists in the first place.

Many believe in some sort of a deity, or deities. And yet, they don't think Jesus is THE one. These people are doomed, if Christianity is real. And this would be true even if they followed the teachings of Jesus, but merely thought He was mortal.

Thus, again, the belief that He IS the Messiah, is where it starts...

I stand by the belief that a person's block in coming to Christ is never intellectual, but always moral. Having read a number of your posts, I imagine you would certainly disagree with that idea, but I would expect you to, as does everyone else who rejects Christianity.

Yes, I do disagree. I don't currently believe this Jesus character is God. And this lack in belief has nothing to do with morality. It really stems from the same reason(s) I do not accept Muhammad as the last real prophet. It has nothing to do with the moral implications. I just don't believe he flew to heaven on a white horse, or whatever...

But I of course still think it's true. You don't think you're a sinner.

Define 'sinner' for me?

You don't think you need forgiveness.

False. I need forgiveness all the time Have you read some of my posts?

You don't think God exists.

Let's not get hasty here. I actually am on the 'fence', as to what, if anything, generated our existence?.?.?.?.?.?

But I do make the proclamation, that even if there exists some deity/deities, it's likely not from the claimed God of the Bible. And the demonstration is linked to the many topics I post here

So nothing any Christian says to you is ever really going to make sense. It's just not.

I disagree

For me, it started with belief in God. Once I was able to acknowledge that God existed, I was then able to acknowledge that He created me.

This is where we part ways severely. Even if I reconciled creation, I find virtually no logic in this presented theology/doctrine. Case and point, read my topics I have many more to come, if someone does not get me kicked off first.... :0

I was then able to come to a point where I realized that what I did mattered.

I think you would really have no choice to think this, if you believe in such a deity. A matter of fact, you would almost have no choice. God sees all. Hence, He judges everything you do.

While you may not think morality matters, it does.

Prove that 'morality' matters?

Scripture accurately portrays the nature of God, His love for us, His plan for us, and a way for us to know Him.

And the ones whom even believe in deities, and read this book and conclude it is merely the work of men alone, are condemned. Even if they were to agree with what it says, and decided to follow some of it's claimed 'moral' points. And that's my point. Morals don't really matter. Not in the sense I'm talking about.