Purveyor of Confusion

[cvanwey]

If I am with the real God, it is not at all because I have been worthy. Our Apostle Paul says all of us have been >

"by nature children of wrath, just as the others" (in Ephesians 2:3).

In my case, I did not try to set the terms for how God had to reveal Himself to me. But I was very conceited and critical against people. That was how I managed to fool myself, very well.

And I had plenty of evidence and proof of how I was getting worse and worse, not getting myself anywhere. I couldn't prove God, but I was proof of how I was my own main problem. And that got to me, so then I was ready to admit that my only hope was if God is in control. And with that I read Romans 9, which was a stunner.

But humans can worship having their own control. But God is not conceited about having control. Jesus could have stayed in Heaven; but because Jesus is not at all conceited . . . even though He is so superior, Jesus had compassion for us and came here to reach us and save us and share His own good with us.

But people make themselves the judges of Jesus. But Jesus knows how people are; and He has compassion for anyone >

"'Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.'" (Matthew 11:28-30)

So, Jesus feels for us. But we can fail to feel for our own selves; we can drive ourselves and waste ourselves. We can keep on in weakness for pleasures and excitement, and the weakness for this makes us keep on being weak so we can also suffer in anger and frustration and hurts and unforgiveness and arguing and other abuse > anti-love stuff.

This is not the way to trust God to reveal Himself.

Anyway, my personal experience is that God is quiet; so it works for me to be quiet and trust Him to do what He wants with me. And it doesn't matter how long I wait. It seems, though, I don't have to wait long, but . . . for that matter . . . right now, I am making some major cuts in my life, in order to be with Him in His peace and creativity. In quietness with Him, He can require things of me, like now to trust Him to take care of my lady friend who is in another town and has trusted a certain pastor to be her pastor. So, I have to dump how pride would have me demanding that she trust me and let me help her. I would say I have acted in pride and maybe competed with ones she has chosen to trust.

So, I mean . . . in order to be with God, we will have things required of us . . . so we are truly submissive with Him in His peace. And, even now, no matter what I might say, God is the One who really knows if I am with Him or not. There is room for question, indeed, since I have tried to control people and make myself a big shot. Pride and conceit can keep us from real loving, indeed.

Sounds to me like you are essentially saying, that I harbor pride. And that is why I have not felt God's contact, in prayer? Or, further, that I am requesting His contact on my terms.

Welp, like I stated prior, a large point you failed to address... I trust you believe petitionary/intercessory prayers sometimes work? If not, then we have even further conflicts, regarding the passages you did not address in your last post (i.e) Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23.

 

[dcalling]

Then you would be incorrect. Here's why...

First, I have genuine doubt that a man rose from the dead. You claim I'm lying. Okay, I guess you really got me there, please!

Further, to add to the rest of your reply....The Qur'an is also a collection of evidence, in the sense that I'm sure there exists (some) stuff which can likely be corroborated. But it's another to assume that, because we can verify some physical evidence from the Qur'an, as claimed from the Qur'an, that we can then [also] assume that a man named Muhammad flew up to heaven on a white horse.

At one point I was asking the same thing, so I studied Islam in detail. Fund multiple issues (i.e. Muhammad married his adopted son's wife and Allah send a verse made it legal), but none is critical, till I found verse like surah 5:68 and other that literaly says Christians got nothing to stand on except held the Gospel, or if Muhammad have doubts consult the people of the book (Jews/Christians), which contradict their assertion that Gospel/Torah is corrupt, and Quran/Torah differs a lot, so it can only draw one logical conclusion.

So again, what 'testimony' affirms <100's> seeing a postmortem Jesus? And before you answer, I trust we are in agreement that there exists a fairly large difference between 100's of individuals independently claiming the same witnessed event, verses, one claiming many others saw something - without any sort of documented corroboration, right?

Nope. The Bible is the claim, where a resurrection is concerned. Just like the Qur'an is the claim, for a man flying up to heaven on a white horse. Without the Bible, there exists no claim of a man rising from the dead, via eye-witness attestation. But until you explain to me how we have 100's of verified independent eye-witness accounts, of a man rising from the dead, as you assert; we appear to have a problem.



You use this example a lot. But let me tell you why this fails.

My objective here is to point out that it appears we have conflicting assertions for salvation. You say it's this, others disagree. My point, is that there really exists no way for either you nor them to verify who is correct/incorrect. Why, because as I'm currently telling another, in one passage, God states the saved/unsaved will be separated by their works (Matthew 25:31-45). In another, God is clear that the rich need to give up all possession to be a follower (Luke 14:25-33). In other passages, God tells you to believe and have faith (John 3:16-18). Or maybe you need to keep the commandments, which is also works based.

Thus far, I would at least agree that without faith, the rest doesn't matter. I sincerely doubt an atheist can 'earn' their way to heaven. Or can they???? However, in many cases, belief/faith/repent alone does not appear to be enough. So is it, or not???????

Remember, the title of this thread is 'purveyor of confusion.' I'm not accusing you of being wrong. I'm not accusing you of anything really. My accusation is to the author(s). Which, in my estimation, is the claims of a dead preacher, at best. And at worst, were augmented, added to, etc from many later authors... (In which I could make a case for that, in another thread...)

Is it belief alone? Are any works required? etc...?



Oh goodie! I'm dishonest in a third way....

Please see above. I care not to repeat myself.

about resurrection. I have always wondered at what time some living things is considered dead, and why we (humans) can't make them live again. Have you ever see a cell die? And if you believe in evolution, if cells can form naturally, once a cell disintegrate, why can't it be "resurrected" again by accident (just like how life is initially created by accident as evolution leads to)?

 

[John Helpher]

One of MY points is that, like I told another, a few posts back, I could read the Bible many times, and still be confused regarding salvation.

While it is true that you could read the bible many times and still be confused, this logic could be used for just about anything. I could read a calculus book many times and still be confused. I could watch a tutorial on computer programming many times and still be confused. The problem in these circumstances is not with the subject matter, but with the person doing the studying.

Furthermore, no human is perfect. Hence, you are not always going to give everything, all the time, as much as you possibly can... Hence, you will always fall short, in comparison to all His said instructions... Namely, the Commandments, Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 14:25-33, John 3:16-18, etc etc etc etc etc etc....

The standard is perfection. There's no compromising on that. Perfection is God's intention for us. Yes, we will fall short over and over again along the way, but this is what forgiveness is for. When we fail, we don't need to feel condemned or hopeless, because God gives us another chance to keep trying.

You seem to view this as some kind of trick on God's part, that he commands us to be perfect knowing that we will fail along the way, but this attitude is evidence that you have given up (or that you're in the process of giving up). The fact that we will make mistakes should never become an excuse for us to seek less than what God believes to be best for us.

So again, which commands are not as important, and which ones must you remain steadfast, all-the-way????? See below...

All of Jesus' teachings are important for spiritual growth. Jesus made it clear that the two most important commands are to love God, and love our neighbor. All the other teachings of Jesus (those found in the testimony of his life, which we commonly refer to as the four gospels) demonstrate how to fulfill these two commands. They all work together for a common goal. The application of these teachings is a demonstration of the values of the Kingdom of Heaven. When you genuinely believe that, you will not haggle with God over which ones are important and which ones are not.

How do you know faith/belief is absolutely required?

This is the haggle again. If you weren't so busy playing the part of a skeptic you'd realize just how ridiculous this question is. If you were buying a car from a guy and he said, "Just to be clear, you don't require absolute faithfulness from me regarding what I've told you about the condition of this car, right"? you'd see a problem right away.

If you were about to marry and your partner said to you, "You're not expecting absolute faithfulness from me, right"? you'd see the problem with the question right away. But, when it comes to God, suddenly you think the question is reasonable. This is why I keep saying you're not sincere.

Case/point, you might state you need 100% faith that Jesus is Lord. So why then is it not the case that, if you do not follow Luke 14:25-33 100%, maybe it's still okay?

People should stop worrying about the quantity of faith they either have or don't have, and just get busy obeying Jesus because he said to. If you don't want to obey Jesus, then don't be a Christian. If you want to be a Christian, then obedience is required, not because God just enjoys throwing lists of rules at people, but because the teachings of Jesus are a demonstration of the values of the kingdom of Heaven. How can you be a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven but not follow its values? That would make no sense.

Alternatively, maybe if I, deep down, have a sneaking suspicion that maybe Jesus [could] be the Messiah, but remain doubtful and/or on the fence, but work for the Peace Corps, maybe that's enough?

The point of the commands is not to lump people into tidy boxes of saved or unsaved. That's what we humans tend to do with such outward appearances, but God is different. The point of the command is that commands are sometimes necessary to get people moving in the right direction. We don't give children the option to not brush their teeth, because we recognize that they don't understand the intricacies of tooth decay and gum disease. They lack the experience to understand why tooth brushing should be done, so we command them to brush because we, as the adults, understand what is good for them even though they do not. As they grow older and learn the reason behind the command, then the command becomes less necessary; they will brush their teeth because they don't want cavities. The purpose behind the command remains while the need for it to be a command does not.

It is the same with something like forsaking all. God understands our greed and fears. He understands our concerns regarding material provision. He knows how difficult it is for us to trust and that if he left it us to us, we'd almost certainly not just naturally do what is right, so he, as the loving parent who knows better than we do, gives us a command. Those who obey the command will have a point of view far different from those who, out of fear, never do. As they experience the results of practicing Jesus' commands, they will come to appreciate the reason behind those teachings and, over time, will require less of the command as their motivation for practicing the values of the Kingdom of Heaven.

You see, it's really hard to say, even under your assertions. Why? Because I'm sure you do not give everything away, that you do not need immediately for basic survival in that moment. Hence, does that mean the items you decide to keep are direct adversaries to Jesus? Sounds kind of absurd to me????

Judging the teachings of Jesus based on what you presume other people do or don't do with them will not clear up your confusion. The opposite is true. The teachings of Jesus are a set of values and principles which would still be good even if not a single person on the planet practiced them. If you were to approach them from that perspective, instead of this bitterness thing you have where you accuse everyone else of not being faithful enough to appease your doubts, I think you would come across as more sincere.

 

[cvanwey]

While it is true that you could read the bible many times and still be confused, this logic could be used for just about anything. I could read a calculus book many times and still be confused. I could watch a tutorial on computer programming many times and still be confused. The problem in these circumstances is not with the subject matter, but with the person doing the studying.

You have misunderstood what I was saying. The evidence speaks for itself - (we have thousands of opposing claims and beliefs).

As @Loversofjesus_2018 also pointed out...

1) Many Chriistians 'think' their interpretation is the correct one; including you I happily admit I'm confused.

2) I do see conflict/contradiction. Hence, reading any book, which presents such conflict, or having apologists 'explain' how there are not conflicts/contradictions, will not reconcile the contradiction. See below for further explanation of this proclamation...

And further still, as I asked @SPF , 3) who is teaching the right path for salvation, the Catholics, the Protestants, other other other? I trust you understand that the tenets for salvation, between those two factions alone, differ.

The standard is perfection. There's no compromising on that. Perfection is God's intention for us. Yes, we will fall short over and over again along the way, but this is what forgiveness is for. When we fail, we don't need to feel condemned or hopeless, because God gives us another chance to keep trying.

You seem to view this as some kind of trick on God's part, that he commands us to be perfect knowing that we will fail along the way, but this attitude is evidence that you have given up (or that you're in the process of giving up). The fact that we will make mistakes should never become an excuse for us to seek less than what God believes to be best for us.

Let's test this... Since it would appear you think you know, and likely think you are bound for heaven; maybe you can solved this riddle for me?

What if it is ingrained in my nature to help others? But, I doubt a man rose from the dead, due to lack in evidence? Or, that I do not believe in the supernatural? Can I force myself to believe it anyways? Just the same... if I were to study the evidence for Muhammad, and his claims, over and over and over again, listen to educated people, claiming they know, maybe I would then believe Muhammad did fly up on a white horse? You see where I'm going with this yet?

If I have studied all given pieces of 'evidence' for a resurrection, and find it falls short, but I..

1) still help others when I can, and also...
2) treat others like I want to be treated, is that enough?

Welp, not according to John 3:16-18, which is listed directly upon your avatar

Thus, belief appears mandatory. But, how much belief is required? A mustard's seed of belief/faith, like I doubt aliens have made contact here, but cannot disprove a one time anecdotal claim from the past? Or, full blown belief/faith like I believe my mom exists, or, somewhere in the middle?

All of Jesus' teachings are important for spiritual growth. Jesus made it clear that the two most important commands are to love God, and love our neighbor. All the other teachings of Jesus (those found in the testimony of his life, which we commonly refer to as the four gospels) demonstrate how to fulfill these two commands. They all work together for a common goal. The application of these teachings is a demonstration of the values of the Kingdom of Heaven. When you genuinely believe that, you will not haggle with God over which ones are important and which ones are not.

Beg to differ.

I was brought up in Christianity. I was taught the golden rule, and still apply it, as much as I can, to this day. Do I fall short? Of course. I was taught to help others, and I do, when I can. Do I fall short? Of course.

However, I was also taught that a man rose from the dead. I studied the evidence for this claim. I found it lacking, like I do for all opposing claimed deities and their supernatural claims. Hence, what now? How am I supposed to profess a relationship, especially love, for a deity for which I do not think exists?

And further still, if this God does exist, is God cool with that; in light of the fact I still attempt to adhere to the golden rule, and try not to steal, trespass, lie, etc etc etc etc etc? Is God cool and okay with the fact that I believe in His present existence, about as much as I believe in Vishnu's? Which is to say, it is not 100% off the table, but I have severe doubts?

So again, how much belief is enough? How much of the golden rule is enough? How much of helping others, is enough?

So we can again loop right back to my former question... How do you know Luke 14:25-33 does not really apply to you as much so as John 3:16-18?

This is the haggle again. If you weren't so busy playing the part of a skeptic you'd realize just how ridiculous this question is. If you were buying a car from a guy and he said, "Just to be clear, you don't require absolute faithfulness from me regarding what I've told you about the condition of this car, right"? you'd see a problem right away.

Addressed above

If you were about to marry and your partner said to you, "You're not expecting absolute faithfulness from me, right"? you'd see the problem with the question right away. But, when it comes to God, suddenly you think the question is reasonable. This is why I keep saying you're not sincere.

This is a false analogy. There exists a huge difference here in your reply. As I told you prior, I'm now just a casual observer, in a sense. Why? Because I doubt this dead preacher still lives today. You think this assessment is insincere do you????

I don't think He rose from the dead to 'save' us. Could I be wrong? Of course. However, the given analogy is a non-starter. Where as, if I were to marry someone, I would at least first 'know' they exist

I again ask though... How much faith is enough (John 3:16-18)? How much of the golden rule is enough (Matthew 7:12)? How many works are enough (Matthew 25:31-46)? How much of giving away all positions, as they demonstrate your love of possessions instead of God, enough (Luke 14:25-33)? Etc...

People should stop worrying about the quantity of faith they either have or don't have, and just get busy obeying Jesus because he said to. If you don't want to obey Jesus, then don't be a Christian. If you want to be a Christian, then obedience is required, not because God just enjoys throwing lists of rules at people, but because the teachings of Jesus are a demonstration of the values of the kingdom of Heaven. How can you be a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven but not follow its values? That would make no sense.

Why should they stop 'worrying'? Isn't Jesus the one whom introduced the concept of eternal condemnation for not following correctly? Yes. I believe He was. Heck, it's only the comfort of our eternity we're speaking about here. Yea, you are right... Why should Christians 'worry' or pose question?

Again, I don't agree. Like I stated above. I was taught to be kind to others. I was taught to help others. Those things I still do as much as I can. Is this enough? If not, then it may seem 'morals' are irrelevant, where Christianity is concerned. Unless you want to make the argument that not believing a claim is 'immoral'???

Again, I was also taught that a man rose from the dead. And once I studied for myself, I found this claim lacking. Hence, have as much doubt for Jesus, as I do for other claimed gods.

 

[John Helpher]

Why should I stop 'worrying'?

Exactly; if you stopped worrying about all these arguments and disagreements, and just listened to Jesus as though he meant what he said, your confusion would clear up. But you don't want that. You want the strife and the argument because those things are essential for your identity as a skeptic.

 

[cvanwey]

Exactly; if you stopped worrying about all these arguments and disagreements, and just listened to Jesus as though he meant what he said, your confusion would clear up. But you don't want that. You want the strife and the argument because those things are essential for your identity as a skeptic.

It seems you have either not read most of my response, or refuse to heed such proclamations. Once again, I believe Jesus (postmortem), about as much now as I believe in Vishnu.

This is an apologetics forum. If you care to address my argument(s), please do. But continuing to call me a liar does not deem you victorious; especially when you cannot prove it

Post #64 please...

 

[cvanwey]

At one point I was asking the same thing, so I studied Islam in detail. Fund multiple issues (i.e. Muhammad married his adopted son's wife and Allah send a verse made it legal), but none is critical, till I found verse like surah 5:68 and other that literaly says Christians got nothing to stand on except held the Gospel, or if Muhammad have doubts consult the people of the book (Jews/Christians), which contradict their assertion that Gospel/Torah is corrupt, and Quran/Torah differs a lot, so it can only draw one logical conclusion.

Claims of a man rising from the dead, or the claims of a man ascending to heaven on a horse, are completely disconnected to what they taught or did, while on earth. Right?

You must investigate the claims of a man rising from dead, in and of itself. Have you done that? I have. And at present, I don't buy the story. Hence..., makes it kind of hard to be told to 'love' something I don't think exists, right?

But sure, I still question the conflicting assertions in the Bible, as a casual observer, and do so here (in the appropriate arena)... Just like I might of the Qur'an, Rigveda, etc.....

about resurrection. I have always wondered at what time some living things is considered dead, and why we (humans) can't make them live again. Have you ever see a cell die? And if you believe in evolution, if cells can form naturally, once a cell disintegrate, why can't it be "resurrected" again by accident (just like how life is initially created by accident as evolution leads to)?

Nothing in this response pertains to my request, for which you quoted? Do you care to substantiate the claim, that 100's of eye-witnesses saw Jesus after His dead? Because @John Helpher doesn't seem to want to partake; as he skipped right over it?

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Exactly; if you stopped worrying about all these arguments and disagreements, and just listened to Jesus as though he meant what he said, your confusion would clear up. But you don't want that. You want the strife and the argument because those things are essential for your identity as a skeptic.

Hold on a second this isn’t fair at all. Why is it that we all act as if a skeptic has no reason at all to feel the way that they feel? Not only is this persons questions 100% understandable they are 100% necessary. I’m curious why everyone isn’t asking these questions. It doesn’t have to change what you choose to believe in but at the very minimum it could cause us all to be humble and gentle with dealing with people with opposing beliefs. I have been searching these forums for a long time and I see a lot of people trying to explain things with their own opinions. Why we could ever think our opinion is the final authority for religious doctrine is a little weird to me nevertheless that’s mostly what I see. I hear things like, “you must know the context” or “that’s not what Jesus meant” or “that’s not what Paul meant”. These are very strong statements of opinions that help no one in getting to the truth. However it doesn’t have to controversial either if we realize our opinions don’t allow us to be judgmental to people with differing opinions, it’s extremely arrogant. I have thought about the op questions myself and although I clearly hold some differences in beliefs since I’m not an atheist I still cannot answer the questions because there is some confusion. It’s not wrong to be honest about it. It doesn’t mean we have to throw all beliefs out the window. But knowing it’s a belief system should give us all the motivation we need to show humility and be gentle with people who may be unwilling to accept the same evidence for truth as you or me. Love can still remain throughout all this.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

While it is true that you could read the bible many times and still be confused, this logic could be used for just about anything. I could read a calculus book many times and still be confused. I could watch a tutorial on computer programming many times and still be confused. The problem in these circumstances is not with the subject matter, but with the person doing the studying.



The standard is perfection. There's no compromising on that. Perfection is God's intention for us. Yes, we will fall short over and over again along the way, but this is what forgiveness is for. When we fail, we don't need to feel condemned or hopeless, because God gives us another chance to keep trying.

You seem to view this as some kind of trick on God's part, that he commands us to be perfect knowing that we will fail along the way, but this attitude is evidence that you have given up (or that you're in the process of giving up). The fact that we will make mistakes should never become an excuse for us to seek less than what God believes to be best for us.



All of Jesus' teachings are important for spiritual growth. Jesus made it clear that the two most important commands are to love God, and love our neighbor. All the other teachings of Jesus (those found in the testimony of his life, which we commonly refer to as the four gospels) demonstrate how to fulfill these two commands. They all work together for a common goal. The application of these teachings is a demonstration of the values of the Kingdom of Heaven. When you genuinely believe that, you will not haggle with God over which ones are important and which ones are not.



This is the haggle again. If you weren't so busy playing the part of a skeptic you'd realize just how ridiculous this question is. If you were buying a car from a guy and he said, "Just to be clear, you don't require absolute faithfulness from me regarding what I've told you about the condition of this car, right"? you'd see a problem right away.

If you were about to marry and your partner said to you, "You're not expecting absolute faithfulness from me, right"? you'd see the problem with the question right away. But, when it comes to God, suddenly you think the question is reasonable. This is why I keep saying you're not sincere.



People should stop worrying about the quantity of faith they either have or don't have, and just get busy obeying Jesus because he said to. If you don't want to obey Jesus, then don't be a Christian. If you want to be a Christian, then obedience is required, not because God just enjoys throwing lists of rules at people, but because the teachings of Jesus are a demonstration of the values of the kingdom of Heaven. How can you be a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven but not follow its values? That would make no sense.



The point of the commands is not to lump people into tidy boxes of saved or unsaved. That's what we humans tend to do with such outward appearances, but God is different. The point of the command is that commands are sometimes necessary to get people moving in the right direction. We don't give children the option to not brush their teeth, because we recognize that they don't understand the intricacies of tooth decay and gum disease. They lack the experience to understand why tooth brushing should be done, so we command them to brush because we, as the adults, understand what is good for them even though they do not. As they grow older and learn the reason behind the command, then the command becomes less necessary; they will brush their teeth because they don't want cavities. The purpose behind the command remains while the need for it to be a command does not.

It is the same with something like forsaking all. God understands our greed and fears. He understands our concerns regarding material provision. He knows how difficult it is for us to trust and that if he left it us to us, we'd almost certainly not just naturally do what is right, so he, as the loving parent who knows better than we do, gives us a command. Those who obey the command will have a point of view far different from those who, out of fear, never do. As they experience the results of practicing Jesus' commands, they will come to appreciate the reason behind those teachings and, over time, will require less of the command as their motivation for practicing the values of the Kingdom of Heaven.



Judging the teachings of Jesus based on what you presume other people do or don't do with them will not clear up your confusion. The opposite is true. The teachings of Jesus are a set of values and principles which would still be good even if not a single person on the planet practiced them. If you were to approach them from that perspective, instead of this bitterness thing you have where you accuse everyone else of not being faithful enough to appease your doubts, I think you would come across as more sincere.

Jesus said be perfect and obedience is required. If we aren’t perfect we aren’t being obedient. This is the types of things some people have problems with. They are unwilling to add in to the areas to make it fit. I personally don’t have a issue saying I don’t know about a lot of things that’s in scripture so it’s not about me. But the way people are treated in these forums because people are unwilling to address the skeptical questions is kinda mean. You just said you don’t think the poster is sincere... why would you make that assumption? Why are you making assumptions at all when you don’t know what your talking about? Why not just simply say you can’t answer the questions or give an explanation? It doesn’t have to threaten your belief system because it’s your own personal choice. That’s no one else’s business if you don’t want it to be.

 

[John Helpher]

Hold on a second this isn’t fair at all. Why is it that we all act as if a skeptic has no reason at all to feel the way that they feel?

I'm not acting; I'm quoting this skeptics words and interpreting the motivation behind them. I'm not saying he has no reason to feel the way he does; I'm saying the reasoning he's using to express his feelings is not good reasoning, i.e. he's using the mistakes and confusions of professing believers to say there is a problem with Christianity itself. That is not good reasoning.

I hear things like, “you must know the context” or “that’s not what Jesus meant” or “that’s not what Paul meant”. These are very strong statements of opinions that help no one in getting to the truth.

What's wrong with pointing out that someone isn't considering the context? What's wrong with pointing out that a person's interpretation of Christianity is inconsistent with what Jesus taught? So what if they are strong statements; isn't the point to consider whether the statements are accurate?

However it doesn’t have to controversial either if we realize our opinions don’t allow us to be judgmental to people with differing opinions, it’s extremely arrogant.

Justice, or an assessment of what is right or wrong becomes impossible without judgment. I mean, you're making a judgement right now about people who make criticisms of opinions different to their own being arrogant for doing so, so does that mean you think you're arrogant for judging my opinion which is different from your own?

It’s not wrong to be honest about it.

I am saying cvenway is not being honest. Here is an example from a recent post of his:

However, I was also taught that a man rose from the dead. I studied the evidence for this claim. I found it lacking, like I do for all opposing claimed deities and their supernatural claims. Hence, what now? How am I supposed to profess a relationship, especially love, for a deity for which I do not think exists?

The topic is about God giving conflicting messages, and cvenway specialized in this area by asking about faith, salvation, and works, specifically how one relates to the other. When I offer him an explanation as to how these things work in harmony, he retreats back to an explanation about he doesn't believe in a dead man, which is beside the point of the dynamic between salvation and works; in other words, it's like a man who complains about how cruel God is for taking life and then, when offered an explanation that the creator of life has the right to take life, says, "well I don't believe in God anyway so your argument is invalid". It's a deflection and it's dishonest. Cvenway has done this multiple times because he is not interested in clearing-up the confusion. His identity is that of a skeptic; asking questions comes with the territory, but the motivation behind the questions is not to find genuine answers; the motivation is to promote skepticism in others.

It doesn’t mean we have to throw all beliefs out the window.

Neither did I say or suggest that we should throw all beliefs out the window. This kind of exaggeration suggests that you're not thinking carefully about what I really am saying.

 

[John Helpher]

If we aren’t perfect we aren’t being obedient.

Nah; we tend to think of perfection as never making any kind of mistake, whereas, I think from God's perspective, the perfect person is one who never stops trying to strive for perfection even if it takes a hundred life times.

But the way people are treated in these forums because people are unwilling to address the skeptical questions is kinda mean.

Well, I don't think I am being mean; critical, yes, but all debate invites criticism. That is the nature of debate; if I disagree with your perspective I will share that disagreement, even if it is strong. When we start worrying about hurt feelings is when exploration for truth becomes stifled. I understand your concern for the feelings of others, but I strongly urge you to set aside your emotions regarding this issue and instead focus on whether there is any truth to the various arguments being put forth.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

I'm not acting; I'm quoting this skeptics words and interpreting the motivation behind them. I'm not saying he has no reason to feel the way he does; I'm saying the reasoning he's using to express his feelings is not good reasoning, i.e. he's using the mistakes and confusions of professing believers to say there is a problem with Christianity itself. That is not good reasoning.



What's wrong with pointing out that someone isn't considering the context? What's wrong with pointing out that a person's interpretation of Christianity is inconsistent with what Jesus taught? So what if they are strong statements; isn't the point to consider whether the statements are accurate?



Justice, or an assessment of what is right or wrong becomes impossible without judgment. I mean, you're making a judgement right now about people who make criticisms of opinions different to their own being arrogant for doing so, so does that mean you think you're arrogant for judging my opinion which is different from your own?



I am saying cvenway is not being honest. Here is an example from a recent post of his:



The topic is about God giving conflicting messages, and cvenway specialized in this area by asking about faith, salvation, and works, specifically how one relates to the other. When I offer him an explanation as to how these things work in harmony, he retreats back to an explanation about he doesn't believe in a dead man, which is beside the point of the dynamic between salvation and works; in other words, it's like a man who complains about how cruel God is for taking life and then, when offered an explanation that the creator of life has the right to take life, says, "well I don't believe in God anyway so your argument is invalid". It's a deflection and it's dishonest. Cvenway has done this multiple times because he is not interested in clearing-up the confusion. His identity is that of a skeptic; asking questions comes with the territory, but the motivation behind the questions is not to find genuine answers; the motivation is to promote skepticism in others.



Neither did I say or suggest that we should throw all beliefs out the window. This kind of exaggeration suggests that you're not thinking carefully about what I really am saying.

I’ll have to read the rest but yes you are correct it was arrogant of me to say that. What I should have said was it seems arrogant to me. That leaves room for me to be in error which I very well could be.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

I'm not acting; I'm quoting this skeptics words and interpreting the motivation behind them. I'm not saying he has no reason to feel the way he does; I'm saying the reasoning he's using to express his feelings is not good reasoning, i.e. he's using the mistakes and confusions of professing believers to say there is a problem with Christianity itself. That is not good reasoning.



What's wrong with pointing out that someone isn't considering the context? What's wrong with pointing out that a person's interpretation of Christianity is inconsistent with what Jesus taught? So what if they are strong statements; isn't the point to consider whether the statements are accurate?



Justice, or an assessment of what is right or wrong becomes impossible without judgment. I mean, you're making a judgement right now about people who make criticisms of opinions different to their own being arrogant for doing so, so does that mean you think you're arrogant for judging my opinion which is different from your own?



I am saying cvenway is not being honest. Here is an example from a recent post of his:



The topic is about God giving conflicting messages, and cvenway specialized in this area by asking about faith, salvation, and works, specifically how one relates to the other. When I offer him an explanation as to how these things work in harmony, he retreats back to an explanation about he doesn't believe in a dead man, which is beside the point of the dynamic between salvation and works; in other words, it's like a man who complains about how cruel God is for taking life and then, when offered an explanation that the creator of life has the right to take life, says, "well I don't believe in God anyway so your argument is invalid". It's a deflection and it's dishonest. Cvenway has done this multiple times because he is not interested in clearing-up the confusion. His identity is that of a skeptic; asking questions comes with the territory, but the motivation behind the questions is not to find genuine answers; the motivation is to promote skepticism in others.



Neither did I say or suggest that we should throw all beliefs out the window. This kind of exaggeration suggests that you're not thinking carefully about what I really am saying.

I’m not gonna claim to know what his motivation is for asking question because I really don’t know but have you ever thought that maybe his issue is the simple fact that “you” are having to explain how Gods word is interpreted based off of what you think it says? Then someone else thinks it says something different? That could be the issue right there.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

I'm not acting; I'm quoting this skeptics words and interpreting the motivation behind them. I'm not saying he has no reason to feel the way he does; I'm saying the reasoning he's using to express his feelings is not good reasoning, i.e. he's using the mistakes and confusions of professing believers to say there is a problem with Christianity itself. That is not good reasoning.



What's wrong with pointing out that someone isn't considering the context? What's wrong with pointing out that a person's interpretation of Christianity is inconsistent with what Jesus taught? So what if they are strong statements; isn't the point to consider whether the statements are accurate?



Justice, or an assessment of what is right or wrong becomes impossible without judgment. I mean, you're making a judgement right now about people who make criticisms of opinions different to their own being arrogant for doing so, so does that mean you think you're arrogant for judging my opinion which is different from your own?



I am saying cvenway is not being honest. Here is an example from a recent post of his:



The topic is about God giving conflicting messages, and cvenway specialized in this area by asking about faith, salvation, and works, specifically how one relates to the other. When I offer him an explanation as to how these things work in harmony, he retreats back to an explanation about he doesn't believe in a dead man, which is beside the point of the dynamic between salvation and works; in other words, it's like a man who complains about how cruel God is for taking life and then, when offered an explanation that the creator of life has the right to take life, says, "well I don't believe in God anyway so your argument is invalid". It's a deflection and it's dishonest. Cvenway has done this multiple times because he is not interested in clearing-up the confusion. His identity is that of a skeptic; asking questions comes with the territory, but the motivation behind the questions is not to find genuine answers; the motivation is to promote skepticism in others.



Neither did I say or suggest that we should throw all beliefs out the window. This kind of exaggeration suggests that you're not thinking carefully about what I really am saying.

And I know you didn’t say beliefs should be thrown out I was only saying that because some could start to wonder how a person could have tons of questions and still believe anything at all. I was saying it’s fine to question and still have a personal belief about something. Sorry maybe I’m not making sense. I’ll leave it be. Thanks

 

[John Helpher]

I’ll have to read the rest but yes you are correct it was arrogant of me to say that. What I should have said was it seems arrogant to me. That leaves room for me to be in error which I very well could be.

Hi LOJ. Thanks for considering my words. Sometimes arrogance happens and it's tempting to respond to it, but from my experience all that does is get us bogged down in arguing about who is more humble. I don't think that is a productive line of argument. I think, when we see arrogance happening (or at least when we think we see it happening) it's more productive to either let it go for the sake of staying on topic or to just stop participating in the debate.

If you're willing to hear more from me, I'd like to address your concerns about my presumption regarding cvenway's comments, and why it is not presumption which guides my assessment. I am not saying that cvenway is a bad person. If you look carefully at my posts you'll see that all my comments are based on the information which he shares in this thread. As he has suggested, perhaps he does help the poor outside of this forum; if that is the case then that's great, but one right should not cover-up a wrong. He should not use his (implied) assistance to the poor to act as a justification for bad reasoning here on this forum.

I'll give an example of a dishonest argument from him.

And further still, as I asked @SPF , 3) who is teaching the right path for salvation, the Catholics, the Protestants, other other other? I trust you understand that the tenets for salvation, between those two factions alone, differ.

I have said to cvenway several times that Jesus' teachings are the standard that we are all meant to follow; if a person's behavior is not consistent with Jesus' teachings, then that person is not a follower of Jesus; if a person's behavior is consistent with Jesus' teachings, then that person is a follower of Jesus. This isn't just my opinioin; its a principle set up by all the available information we have. Jesus is the cornerstone. He is the messiah. He is the ultimate representation of God to his creations. His teachings are the standard by which we will all be judged.

It is the answer to his question as to who is teaching the right path for salvation; Jesus. But cvenway doesn't want to hear that. His skepticism is all about promoting confusion and division under the guise of "simply asking questions", so he constantly refers back to all the divisions in various religious denominations as the focus of his inquiry.

Look carefully at the last sentence of the quote above; his conclusion implies that two groups having a difference of opinion equates to Christianity itself having a problem.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Nah; we tend to think of perfection as never making any kind of mistake, whereas, I think from God's perspective, the perfect person is one who never stops trying to strive for perfection even if it takes a hundred life times.



Well, I don't think I am being mean; critical, yes, but all debate invites criticism. That is the nature of debate; if I disagree with your perspective I will share that disagreement, even if it is strong. When we start worrying about hurt feelings is when exploration for truth becomes stifled. I understand your concern for the feelings of others, but I strongly urge you to set aside your emotions regarding this issue and instead focus on whether there is any truth to the various arguments being put forth.

You think that is God’s perspective and I respect that but have you ever even thought what if your thoughts on Gods perspective is wrong? I’m not saying your wrong because I myself don’t know because I’m not God... but what if you are in fact wrong? It’s possible right?

 

[John Helpher]

but have you ever thought that maybe his issue is the simple fact that “you” are having to explain how Gods word is interpreted based off of what you think it says? Then someone else thinks it says something different? That could be the issue right there.

Yes, this is the angle he is exploiting; the confusion that comes from a multitude of varying interpretations. He's saying this confusion constitutes evidence that there is a problem with Christianity itself, rather than a problem with those who have a wrong interpretation.

Our attempts to get a right interpretation of reality around is the essence of what integrity is. Just because we are all able to formulate different or opposing interpretations does not mean we're all right in our own way. Some interpretations will be closer to the truth than others.

 

[cvanwey]

I am saying cvenway is not being honest. Here is an example from a recent post of his:

The topic is about God giving conflicting messages, and cvenway specialized in this area by asking about faith, salvation, and works, specifically how one relates to the other. When I offer him an explanation as to how these things work in harmony, he retreats back to an explanation about he doesn't believe in a dead man, which is beside the point of the dynamic between salvation and works; in other words, it's like a man who complains about how cruel God is for taking life and then, when offered an explanation that the creator of life has the right to take life, says, "well I don't believe in God anyway so your argument is invalid". It's a deflection and it's dishonest. Cvenway has done this multiple times because he is not interested in clearing-up the confusion. His identity is that of a skeptic; asking questions comes with the territory, but the motivation behind the questions is not to find genuine answers; the motivation is to promote skepticism in others.

You are deflecting. It's directly related, and you are in avoidance of addressing the actual concern. Salvation depends on belief (according to John 3:16-18, Romans 10:9-10). So how much belief is required? A mustard's seed, like I do with Vishnu? Or, do I need to be [above and beyond] the belief of existence, and the love for my own parents??? Or other (in between)? You are not addressing any of this. You are spinning it, and failing to address the many points in post #64. NICE TRY. We all see it

You are instead trying to smear my character to avoid addressing the tough questions

 

[cvanwey]

I have said to cvenway several times that Jesus' teachings are the standard that we are all meant to follow; if a person's behavior is not consistent with Jesus' teachings, then that person is not a follower of Jesus; if a person's behavior is consistent with Jesus' teachings, then that person is a follower of Jesus. This isn't just my opinioin; its a principle set up by all the available information we have. Jesus is the cornerstone. He is the messiah. He is the ultimate representation of God to his creations. His teachings are the standard by which we will all be judged.

Great, then we can start over. Maybe you can actually address the concerns, in a way we all can understand. What does Jesus define as 'rich'? And in regards to the 'rich', how much is enough to give away? If anything you keep, demonstrates distraction from Him, as you cannot have love for both possessions and Him, then how many possessions can you retain exactly, and still be under His assigned kingdom? Luke 14:25-33 seems fairly clear....

The same goes for John 3:16-18. Maybe you can, again, actually address the concerns, in a way we all can understand. What does Jesus define as 'belief'? And in regards to the 'belief', how much is enough? If you doubt in the slightest, is He cool with that?

It is the answer to his question as to who is teaching the right path for salvation; Jesus. But cvenway doesn't want to hear that. His skepticism is all about promoting confusion and division under the guise of "simply asking questions", so he constantly refers back to all the divisions in various religious denominations as the focus of his inquiry.

You have yet to even address rudimentary requests, as I have asked above. So until you do, it would instead appear you are avoiding 'simply asked questions.'

Look carefully at the last sentence of the quote above; his conclusion implies that two groups having a difference of opinion equates to Christianity itself having a problem.

Um, that's what that means sir. If I ask a Catholic how to achieve salvation, and they tell me I must confess my sins to a priest, but another denomination tells me salvation is reached by repenting directly to God, these claims conflict. At best, one of them is mistaken; especially for something as important as salvation - (your eternal soul).

 

[John Helpher]

Luke 14:25-33 seems fairly clear....

Yes, it is very clear, and yet you continue to insist that it is confusing. It's irrational for you to say, in the same paragraph. that it is clear and yet not clear. This irrational position comes because you are not sincere. You're trying to see a problem where there is not and the result is this irrational, confused position.

What does Jesus define as 'belief'?

If I tell you there is a bomb in the room, how will I know if you believe me? When you stop trying so hard to be a skeptic, the answers to these questions are pretty easy.

At best, one of them is mistaken;

So? Why do you keep going back to what one church teaches verses another? Why not just base your conclusions on what Jesus said? Because these questions are not a sincere attempt to understand; they are meant to exploit those divisions between people.