Christianity (In a Nutshell)?

SPF · Oct 24, 2019

cvanwey said:
Disagree

Then we will have to agree to disagree. But I for one know that in my relationships with people there are times where I choose to believe the best even when I may feel differently. I suspect you aren’t married, no offense but being married and having children brings a level of maturity that I don’t see in you, so you may not be able to understand. But in relationships you often do make a choice about what to believe.

cvanwey said:
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?

That’s an entirely different man than I described. If you’re asking about the eternal fate of the person who rejects the claims Jesus made altogether, then they probably won’t be in heaven.

cvanwey said:
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.

Correct.

cvanwey said:
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.

Correct.

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

Where Salvation leads us to, yes.

cvanwey said:
And that's my point. Morals don't really matter. Not in the sense I'm talking about.

Morals, or right and wrong behavior don’t matter in the sense that possessing good morals won’t save you. But morality matters in Christianity, certainly.

cvanwey · Oct 24, 2019

SPF said:
I suspect you aren’t married, no offense but being married and having children brings a level of maturity......

Incorrect.

SPF said:
Correct.

Thank you

SPF said:
Correct.

Thank you

SPF said:
Morals, or right and wrong behavior don’t matter in the sense that possessing good morals won’t save you. But morality matters in Christianity, certainly.

If you are already a believer, you will sin from the second you are born, until the day you die. God hates all sin.

To reiterate....

If I don't believe the correct set of claims, I'm already doomed from the get-go. Hence, why 'morals' don't really matter....

On a side note, for the Christians.... Almost another topic really....

If I do believe, I need to repent of the sins I commit, regardless of how many I make. Again, it's not necessarily the morality that matters, but the belief and then the repenting. Yes, I'm repenting of 'sin', which then involves morality. However, since everyone sins, what saves you is belief in the correct deity, and then the repenting to this deity. In your case, God defines the 'sin'. In your case, whatever God does not like, is considered sin. Thus, in a 'background sense', 'sin' is the implied grievance in which God deems humans to perpetually repent for....

In your case, you could commit less sin, but not repent. Your neighbor could be a 'terrible' person, and earnestly repent, and he/she goes to heaven, and maybe you don't. Hence, why 'morality' may not matter too much here either...

Anywho, thanks for the discussion; unless you have more to add.

SPF · Oct 25, 2019

cvanwey said:
If you are already a believer, you will sin from the second you are born, until the day you die. God hates all sin.

Correct. All people, even the most sincere Christians who have deep and meaningful relationships with Christ will still sin.

cvanwey said:
If I don't believe the correct set of claims, I'm already doomed from the get-go. Hence, why 'morals' don't really matter....

Morality matters, but not in the context of Salvation. The most immoral people on this planet have just as much ability to find forgiveness as the most moral people.

What makes Christianity so unique in comparison to other religions is that Salvation is a free gift that does not involve works. Paul declares in Ephesians that Salvation comes by grace, through faith, and not by works, so that no man can boast.

So you are correct that in the specific context of Salvation, a person's moral or immoral lifestyle prior to Salvation does not matter. Works don't bring about forgiveness.

cvanwey · Oct 25, 2019

SPF said:
Correct. All people, even the most sincere Christians who have deep and meaningful relationships with Christ will still sin.

Morality matters, but not in the context of Salvation. The most immoral people on this planet have just as much ability to find forgiveness as the most moral people.

What makes Christianity so unique in comparison to other religions is that Salvation is a free gift that does not involve works. Paul declares in Ephesians that Salvation comes by grace, through faith, and not by works, so that no man can boast.

So you are correct that in the specific context of Salvation, a person's moral or immoral lifestyle prior to Salvation does not matter. Works don't bring about forgiveness.

For which I offer the following video. Yes, I might have posted this video before. But feel it is quite appropriate here. And NO, it's not meant to be offensive. And no, please DO NOT mind the fact that some minor details are not accurate. Please just watch the entire 6 minute video for the over all message. Thank you in advance. And again, thank you for post #222. That's all I was asking for, quite frankly

Chriliman · Oct 30, 2019

Chriliman · Oct 30, 2019

cvanwey said:
For which I offer the following video. Yes, I might have posted this video before. But feel it is quite appropriate here. And NO, it's not meant to be offensive. And no, please DO NOT mind the fact that some minor details are not accurate. Please just watch the entire 6 minute video for the over all message. Thank you in advance. And again, thank you for post #222. That's all I was asking for, quite frankly

I think your video ignores the distinction between the divine relationships and man’s relationship with the divine and why God would even need to send Christ in the flesh in the first place. It’s not so ‘one human for another human’ as your video suggests, which is obviously ridiculous.

cvanwey · Nov 1, 2019

Chriliman said:
I think your video ignores the distinction between the divine relationships and man’s relationship with the divine and why God would even need to send Christ in the flesh in the first place. It’s not so ‘one human for another human’ as your video suggests, which is obviously ridiculous.

I stated as such in post #224 already. But my specific points are basically verified in post #222.

But, out of curiosity, why exactly is the video 'ridiculous?' Can you get to Jesus' heaven without at least believing He is the true Messiah? And if you cannot, then does eternal punishment, for something humans cannot control, (i.e.) belief, appear of equal relation to the claimed 'crime?'

According to God, it does. However, to this day, I cannot reconcile such a conclusion, without invoking some of my own cognitive dissonance.

Thoughts?

Chriliman · Nov 1, 2019

cvanwey said:
I stated as such in post #224 already. But my specific points are basically verified in post #222.

I'm not convinced that what we believe is out of our control, so the burden is on you to convince me of that. I believe we can be presented with accurate information and choose not to believe it, in favor of that which we're familiar with, even though it's inaccurate.

cvanwey said:
But, out of curiosity, why exactly is the video 'ridiculous?' Can you get to Jesus' heaven without at least believing He is the true Messiah? And if you cannot, then does eternal punishment, for something humans cannot control, (i.e.) belief, appear of equal relation to the claimed 'crime?'

It's ridiculous because in that scenario it would be pointless to bring in Jesse and beat him up in order for forgiveness to take place between the victim and the rapist.

cvanwey said:
According to God, it does. However, to this day, I cannot reconcile such a conclusion, without invoking some of my own cognitive dissonance.

Thoughts?

Again, the burden is on you to prove that what we believe is out of our control.

cvanwey · Nov 1, 2019

Chriliman said:
I'm not convinced that what we believe is out of our control, so the burden is on you to convince me of that.

Okay. This will be a quick and simple interactive test.

Hold up a pen, and before you drop it, make yourself believe it will not fall to the ground when you let go of it. Bare in mind, to leave a clear path between the pen and the floor. If you can get yourself to successfully achieve this, then I will stand corrected.

Chriliman said:
I believe we can be presented with accurate information and choose not to believe it, in favor of that which we're familiar with, even though it's inaccurate.

Please let me know how the test goes above.

Chriliman said:
It's ridiculous because in that scenario it would be pointless to bring in Jesse and beat him up in order for forgiveness to take place between the victim and the rapist.

The point of the video was to demonstrate that belief in Jesus, as God, is what redeems the human. And the ones which do not, are condemned, per Scripture. I find this 'ridiculous.'

Chriliman said:
Again, the burden is on you to prove that what we believe is out of our control.

How did that test go?

Chriliman · Nov 1, 2019

cvanwey said:
Okay. This will be a quick and simple interactive test.

Hold up a pen, and before you drop it, make yourself believe it will not fall to the ground when you let go of it. Bare in mind, to leave a clear path between the pen and the floor. If you can get yourself to successfully achieve this, then I will stand corrected.

It's a faulty test because I already believe it will fall to the ground, I already believe the truth. You're trying to get me to believe something false, which I'm choosing not to believe.

A good example of people choosing to believe inaccurate things in the face of clear evidence to the contrary are flat earthers. Despite the accurate information/evidence that shows the earth is spherical, they choose to believe the information that suggests it's flat.

cvanwey said:
The point of the video was to demonstrate that belief in Jesus, as God, is what redeems the human. And the ones which do not, are condemned, per Scripture. I find this 'ridiculous.'

Jesus didn't have to die in order for God to forgive sinners. One example is
Mark 2:1-12 where Jesus forgives the paralyzed man.

cvanwey · Nov 1, 2019

Chriliman said:
It's a faulty test because I already believe it will fall to the ground, I already believe the truth.

The point is you cannot change what you currently believe, without some sort of catalyst to represent, or some demonstration, to your own contrary. What you believe, and what you perceive as 'true', go hand and hand. My point here is that you cannot simply choose to believe what you think is incorrect. See below.

Chriliman said:
You're trying to get me to believe something false, which I'm choosing not to believe.

My point is you cannot make yourself believe otherwise, because you cannot make yourself believe something you perceive as false. It's not a choice. See below.

Chriliman said:
A good example of people choosing to believe inaccurate things in the face of clear evidence to the contrary are flat earthers. Despite the accurate information/evidence that shows the earth is spherical, they choose to believe the information that suggests it's flat.

They either truly believe the earth is flat, or they are in direct denial of their perceived reality.

If it's the former, even though there does appear to be clear evidence of a spherical earth to you and I, they somehow do not believe it, due to conspiracies, or other. In such a case, they truly believe the earth is not a sphere. And if it's the later, then they are being dishonest with themselves. As stated above, what you believe, and what you perceive as 'true', go hand and hand.

Same goes for the moon landing of 1969 - another shinning example. Some truly think it's a conspiracy. Hence, they cannot simply believe otherwise, without some sort of catalyst. Just like you cannot will a change in the pen dropping, unless you then knew you were absent of gravity, or other...

Chriliman said:
Jesus didn't have to die in order for God to forgive sinners. One example is

Chriliman said:
Mark 2:1-12 where Jesus forgives the paralyzed man.

The point of this thread, is to demonstrate that if you do not accept/believe Jesus, as a risen God, then you have absolutely no chance of making it to heaven. And you cannot will/control this...

Chriliman · Nov 1, 2019

cvanwey said:
The point is you cannot change what you currently believe, without some sort of catalyst to represent, or some demonstration, to your own contrary. What you believe, and what you perceive as 'true', go hand and hand. My point here is that you cannot simply choose to believe what you think is incorrect. See below.

I agree there must be some sort of catalyst for belief to take place, but that catalyst can either be accepted or resisted based on what the person doing the believing/disbelieving. They may accept it without issue or resist it because it conflicts with what they currently believe.

cvanwey said:
My point is you cannot make yourself believe otherwise, because you cannot make yourself believe something you perceive as false. It's not a choice. See below.

That's fine, but you can choose between two catalysts that appear to be true or at least choose to further investigate either.

cvanwey said:
They either truly believe the earth is flat, or they are in direct denial of their perceived reality.

I think most do truly believe, but it's because they reject evidence to the contrary and this is something they consciously choose to do.

cvanwey said:
If it's the former, even though there does appear to be clear evidence of a spherical earth to you and I, they somehow do not believe it, due to conspiracies, or other. In such a case, they truly believe the earth is not a sphere. And if it's the later, then they are being dishonest with themselves. As stated above, what you believe, and what you perceive as 'true', go hand and hand.

Same goes for the moon landing of 1969 - another shinning example. Some truly think it's a conspiracy. Hence, they cannot simply believe otherwise, without some sort of catalyst. Just like you cannot will a change in the pen dropping, unless you then knew you were absent of gravity, or other...

No, it's not that they "can't simply believe otherwise", it's that they consciously reject the evidence that goes against what they want to believe and instead double down on the evidence that suggests their beliefs are true.

cvanwey said:
The point of this thread, is to demonstrate that if you do not accept/believe Jesus, as a risen God, then you have absolutely no chance of making it to heaven. And you cannot will/control this...

I understand, I just don't agree.

jayem · Nov 1, 2019

For whatever it's worth (probably not much) here's Christianity in a mathematical equation:

(GHeb ÷ 3) - (OTL613) + FJ = C

Divide the Hebrew God by 3, subtract 613 Old Testament laws, add faith in Jesus, and the result is Christianity.

cvanwey · Nov 2, 2019

Chriliman said:
I agree there must be some sort of catalyst for belief to take place, but that catalyst can either be accepted or resisted based on what the person doing the believing/disbelieving. They may accept it without issue or resist it because it conflicts with what they currently believe.

Here lies one of the cruxes of the discussion.

I'm saying we cannot control what we currently believe, without some sort of catalyst/other. And I provided evidence.

What you are stating, in which I actually agree with, is an entirely different set of premises altogether. In your example above, the recipient can choose to not truly/fully address/analyze the given information. This might likely be because they are afraid that their current belief may be somewhat fragile, or easily changeable. Because at the end of the day, they either believe it, or they don't.

So to recap. You cannot control what you currently believe. But you can choose whether or not you wish to allow new evidence to enter the equation, or, truly investigate the tenets of that current belief any further. In other words, some people protect what they currently believe, as they do not want that belief to change.

There's a difference. A huge difference.

And in other cases, they may have heard evidence to the contrary of their current beliefs, which then places that person in a precarious position.... Possible intellectual dishonesty or even cognitive dissonance... But at the end of the day, they either believe, or they don't. And it goes directly hand and hand with what they perceive as true and correct.

Chriliman said:
That's fine, but you can choose between two catalysts that appear to be true or at least choose to further investigate either.

Yes, which again goes exactly with what I stated above.

Chriliman said:
I think most do truly believe, but it's because they reject evidence to the contrary and this is something they consciously choose to do.

Yes, they can choose to reject the information. But by this, I don't mean they can choose whether or not the provided evidence appears sound. They can instead reject, by disallowing the information to penetrate. If they can't refute the provided evidence, then to continue their current belief may merely be lying to themselves.

Chriliman said:
No, it's not that they "can't simply believe otherwise", it's that they consciously reject the evidence that goes against what they want to believe and instead double down on the evidence that suggests their beliefs are true.

And by reject, as stated above, is likely because they (choose) to protect their current (belief), which they cannot choose. Which is why they soil the evidence before it's truly evaluated. They may be also aware their current belief(s) aren't be for truly 'sound' reasons.

Chriliman said:
I understand, I just don't agree.

In my case, it's simple... If I were to die right now, and if Christianity were correct in all of it's claims, would I go to heaven or hell? The answer is hell. Why? Because regardless of what I think of Jesus, as a man and teacher, I don't think He rose from the dead.

Chriliman · Nov 2, 2019

cvanwey said:
Here lies one of the cruxes of the discussion.

I'm saying we cannot control what we currently believe, without some sort of catalyst/other. And I provided evidence.

I agree that we don't necessarily control the catalysts that come our way(although we can by avoiding certain paths of investigation), choice can be involved in that.

cvanwey said:
What you are stating, in which I actually agree with, is an entirely different set of premises altogether. In your example above, the recipient can choose to not truly/fully address/analyze the given information. This might likely be because they are afraid that their current belief may be somewhat fragile, or easily changeable. Because at the end of the day, they either believe it, or they don't.

Exactly, they're controlling their beliefs, or maybe a better way to put it – they're protecting their beliefs, which is a form of control. This seems blatantly obvious to me. Again, I agree we can't necessarily control the information we're given, but once we have the information from at least two contradicting sources, we can choose which to pursue based on the available evidence.

cvanwey said:
Yes, they can choose to reject the information. But by this, I don't mean they can choose whether or not the provided evidence appears sound.

Yes, but rejecting information that appears sound is the same as controlling what you believe – you're choosing not to believe that which appears true, likely in favor of what you'd rather believe.

cvanwey said:
They can instead reject, by disallowing the information to penetrate. If they can't refute the provided evidence, then to continue their current belief may merely be lying to themselves.

Agreed. And one of us may be doing this now.

cvanwey said:
And by reject, as stated above, is likely because they (choose) to protect their current (belief), which they cannot choose. Which is why they soil the evidence before it's truly evaluated. They may be also aware their current belief(s) aren't be for truly 'sound' reasons.

Initial belief may be involuntary in the sense that we have nothing else to go on so just believe – gullible or naive might be appropriate terms, but once there's contradictory evidence to that which we already believe, we can choose to accept or reject it, as we've both stated above.

cvanwey said:
In my case, it's simple... If I were to die right now, and if Christianity were correct in all of it's claims, would I go to heaven or hell? The answer is hell. Why? Because regardless of what I think of Jesus, as a man and teacher, I don't think He rose from the dead.

If that's the case then good thing you're not dead yet.

cvanwey · Nov 3, 2019

Chriliman said:
I agree that we don't necessarily control the catalysts that come our way(although we can by avoiding certain paths of investigation), choice can be involved in that.

Exactly, they're controlling their beliefs, or maybe a better way to put it – they're protecting their beliefs, which is a form of control. This seems blatantly obvious to me. Again, I agree we can't necessarily control the information we're given, but once we have the information from at least two contradicting sources, we can choose which to pursue based on the available evidence.

Yes, but rejecting information that appears sound is the same as controlling what you believe – you're choosing not to believe that which appears true, likely in favor of what you'd rather believe.

Agreed. And one of us may be doing this now.

Initial belief may be involuntary in the sense that we have nothing else to go on so just believe – gullible or naive might be appropriate terms, but once there's contradictory evidence to that which we already believe, we can choose to accept or reject it, as we've both stated above.

If that's the case then good thing you're not dead yet.

Thus far, here is what we seem to have gathered...

- You cannot will a differing belief without some sort of catalyst, new evidence, or other, entering into the equation.
- (Some) people choose to protect their existing beliefs, by not investigating further, disallowing new evidence to enter into the picture, or other.

But the question remains, can you control what you believe? The answer is no. Now, can you protect your current belief? yes. The fact that some choose to protect their belief, lays testament to the fact that they too know you cannot control a belief.

Moving forward.... Let's issue an easy example...

A mother's son is accused of shoplifting. She genuinely does not believe her son did it. The store offers evidence to support the claim; video footage, eyewitnesses, etc. The mother refuses to see or hear any of it. The question becomes... WHY does she refuse? It's because she knows she cannot control what she believes. Hence, she contains/suppresses, to protect her current belief.

HOWEVER... In my case, I've studied the evidence for a resurrection claim quite extensively. And regardless of whether or not such evidence appears compelling to (you), it genuinely does not to me. Now, assuming I'm not lying to you right now, I ask you.....

Does lack in belief to a given claim warrant a pivotal step for eternal damnation?
Does lack in belief to a claim encompass 'morality'?

Qwertyui0p · Jun 30, 2020

cvanwey said:
If I'm somehow w/o 'sin', but do not believe in the existence of a resurrected Jesus, it is not possible to enter heaven.

If I commit 'sin', but believe in a resurrected Jesus, it is still possible to enter heaven.

1. Hence, do the concepts of 'sin' even matter at all?

2. Also, is earnest lack in belief itself considered an 'immoral' action to God? Isn't unbelief instead an amoral action/event/cognitive construct/other --- regardless of what we subjectively define as moral/immoral (or) sin/no sin?

And last, seems as though, at least from the Christian perspective anyways, that the lack in belief of Jesus deems an eternal separation from God... To instead dwell in a possible eternal place of 'discomfort'. What if the 'soul' wishes to repent, in a manor which might please God after human death? The human's fate seems sealed at human death ---> 'forever'.

3. Is this how God's 'justice' works?

No one is without sin.
I'm not sure people in hell will repent Theologian D.A. Carson: Hell Is Not Filled With People Who Repent of Sin

Christianity (In a Nutshell)?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Well-Known Member

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Well-Known Member

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Well-Known Member

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Naturalist

Well-Known Member

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency