Purveyor of Confusion

[cvanwey]

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.

It's confusing because, if you follow the verse axiomatically, and think He deems you rich, you can do nothing above and beyond living in dirt, hunting for your next meal, etc... It's confusing because if everyone did this, even Jesus would never have been a carpenter. Why? Because no one would need anything built and there would be no one to pay Him. It's confusing because no one would ever adhere to this. Why? If you had photos of your kids even for instance, burn them, as they are in direct opposition to Jesus. Why? You cannot cherish both possessions and God, right? It is confusing because you do not even know whom He deems rich or not? It is confusing because we do not know how important this rule is, in relation to all other assertions. It is confusing because He states it is easier for a a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven, (Matthew 19:24). And again, we have not defined 'rich'. I've asked you several times. But some how, it keeps slipping your mind.

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.

Another false analogy. I doubt God(s) exist, but I don't doubt bombs exist. The belief in a bomb being planted somewhere will already require less demonstration than God being somewhere

And again, my salvation seems to directly rely upon belief. So, HOW much belief and love do I need? Like in Vishnu? Or, like in my parents? Like bombs? Other?

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.

I am. But we are no closer. Nor, are you clarifying. It starts with post #64. And continues here.

Furthermore, educated people are telling people differing things. Hence, it looks like if I study for years, as a Catholic, that the mode of salvation criteria are different, verses, that of years of study from the claims of a Protestant teaching. They both cannot be right. But they can both certainly be mistaken. They both teach differing foundational tenets for salvation. No matter how much you study them, the teachings don't align..

What denominational claims do you adhere to, in regards to the claims to salvation exactly?

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

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.



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.



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.

I for one am 100% trying to understand so please don’t be put off by my questions about some things. So I have a question about something you just said. You said, “why not just base conclusions on what Jesus said”. Now I absolutely could be wrong and this is why I’m asking about that statement but isn’t that what most people and different branches of Christianity believe they are doing? Basing it off of what Jesus said and somehow they still don’t agree. What is a sincere seeker of truth supposed to do with this problem?

 

[cvanwey]

I for one am 100% trying to understand so please don’t be put off by my questions about some things. So I have a question about something you just said. You said, “why not just base conclusions on what Jesus said”. Now I absolutely could be wrong and this is why I’m asking about that statement but isn’t that what most people and different branches of Christianity believe they are doing? Basing it off of what Jesus said and somehow they still don’t agree. What is a sincere seeker of truth supposed to do with this problem?

You nailed it right on the head

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

It's confusing because, if you follow the verse axiomatically, and think He deems you rich, you can do nothing above and beyond living in dirt, hunting for your next meal, etc... It's confusing because if everyone did this, even Jesus would never have been a carpenter. Why? Because no one would need anything built and there would be no one to pay Him. It's confusing because no one would ever adhere to this. Why? If you had photos of your kids even for instance, burn them, as they are in direct opposition to Jesus. Why? You cannot cherish both possessions and God, right? It is confusing because you do not even know whom He deems rich or not? It is confusing because we do not know how important this rule is, in relation to all other assertions. It is confusing because He states it is easier for a a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven, (Matthew 19:24). And again, we have not defined 'rich'. I've asked you several times. But some how, it keeps slipping your mind.



Another false analogy. I doubt God(s) exist, but I don't doubt bombs exist. The belief in a bomb being planted somewhere will already require less demonstration than God being somewhere

I’m not sure of anywhere in scripture where anyone can point to that will explain all those questions. From a human stand point we can maybe say what we think is practical but that doesn’t really help I guess when trying to find truth. When I’m saying things like “I think this is what God meant” I feel I’m admitting right there that I’m not sure if my position. I don’t say that to criticize anyone else I’m just pointing out this could be a problem for some and I wouldn’t blame them one bit.

 

[John Helpher]

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?

Hi Lovesofjesus. Yes, of course I can be wrong, but I'll give more evidence from my recent exchange with cvenway to demonstrate that at least in this situation, my assessment that he is insincere is accurate. I realize you suggested you may bow out of this discussion so don't feel a need to respond if you've lost interest.

Cevenway asked this question in post #79

What does Jesus define as 'belief'?

Fair enough. What is beleif? I used an analogy to illustrate how easy it is to understand what belief is from Jesus' perspective by asking, "If I tell you there is a bomb in the room, how will I know if you believe me?" The obvious answer is that you will leave the room if you believe me. If we believe Jesus we'll obey him. That is the measure by which Jesus will judge our belief, which makes sense. Practical behavior is a demonstration of what we believe. If we believe that neighbor-loving is a good thing, then that belief will be practically demonstrated in our behavior. This is a genuine, common sense answer to his question.

So, what was Cvenway's response to this?

Another false analogy. I doubt God(s) exist, but I don't doubt bombs exist. The belief in a bomb being planted somewhere will already require less demonstration than God being somewhere

Remember earlier when described I a typical skeptic's tactic as starting with some kind of challenge to the principles behind Christianity and then, when presented with a clear answer to that challenge they will switch to claiming it doesn't matter because they don't believe in God anyway? That's exactly what he's done here. Of course my analogy does not require his belief in God to be understood.

The point is that belief will be demonstrated through action, but he does not want to hear that answer because the question about belief was not sincere in the first place.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Hi Lovesofjesus. Yes, of course I can be wrong, but I'll give more evidence from my recent exchange with cvenway to demonstrate that at least in this situation, my assessment that he is insincere is accurate. I realize you suggested you may bow out of this discussion so don't feel a need to respond if you've lost interest.

Cevenway asked this question in post #79


Fair enough. What is beleif? I used an analogy to illustrate how easy it is to understand what belief is from Jesus' perspective by asking, "If I tell you there is a bomb in the room, how will I know if you believe me?" The obvious answer is that you will leave the room if you believe me. If we believe Jesus we'll obey him. That is the measure by which Jesus will judge our belief, which makes sense. Practical behavior is a demonstration of what we believe. If we believe that neighbor-loving is a good thing, then that belief will be practically demonstrated in our behavior. This is a genuine, common sense answer to his question.

So, what was Cvenway's response to this?



Remember earlier when described I a typical skeptic's tactic as starting with some kind of challenge to the principles behind Christianity and then, when presented with a clear answer to that challenge they will switch to claiming it doesn't matter because they don't believe in God anyway? That's exactly what he's done here. Of course my analogy does not require his belief in God to be understood.

The point is that belief will be demonstrated through action, but he does not want to hear that answer because the question about belief was not sincere in the first place.

Didn’t lose interest I just don’t want to offend anyone or cause a problem which I know disagreement does at times. I’m just trying to learn and I can do that by listening or reading. As long as you or anyone else don’t feel I’m being a problem I will continue to ask questions and understand as best I can. Thanks for being nice.

 

[cvanwey]

Hi Lovesofjesus. Yes, of course I can be wrong, but I'll give more evidence from my recent exchange with cvenway to demonstrate that at least in this situation, my assessment that he is insincere is accurate. I realize you suggested you may bow out of this discussion so don't feel a need to respond if you've lost interest.

Cevenway asked this question in post #79


Fair enough. What is beleif? I used an analogy to illustrate how easy it is to understand what belief is from Jesus' perspective by asking, "If I tell you there is a bomb in the room, how will I know if you believe me?" The obvious answer is that you will leave the room if you believe me. If we believe Jesus we'll obey him. That is the measure by which Jesus will judge our belief, which makes sense. Practical behavior is a demonstration of what we believe. If we believe that neighbor-loving is a good thing, then that belief will be practically demonstrated in our behavior. This is a genuine, common sense answer to his question.

So, what was Cvenway's response to this?



Remember earlier when described I a typical skeptic's tactic as starting with some kind of challenge to the principles behind Christianity and then, when presented with a clear answer to that challenge they will switch to claiming it doesn't matter because they don't believe in God anyway? That's exactly what he's done here. Of course my analogy does not require his belief in God to be understood.

The point is that belief will be demonstrated through action, but he does not want to hear that answer because the question about belief was not sincere in the first place.

No. It's sincere. (i.e.) What if I told you to hide, because Big foot is coming after you? Now, alternatively, what if I told you to hide, because your neighbor thinks you stole his wife, and he has a gun?

Which one would require more follow-up, before you even considered the presumed threat 'credible'?

Your action(s) would be directly predicated upon the belief of the claimed agent/being/other, whom is after you.

Can you address the points now? I think we've had enough of you attempting to call me a liar and a troll, to deflect away from my points.

 

[John Helpher]

Now I absolutely could be wrong and this is why I’m asking about that statement but isn’t that what most people and different branches of Christianity believe they are doing? Basing it off of what Jesus said and somehow they still don’t agree. What is a sincere seeker of truth supposed to do with this problem?

Even waaaay back in Jesus' day he had trouble with people claiming to be his follower, but not wanting to obey him. He asked them, "Why do you call me Lord, but do not obey me"?

Another time he said, "Not all who say to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only those who do the will of my father".

In another place he quoted an Old Testament prophet who said, "This people draw near to me with their lips, but their heart is far from me".

The one thing all these people have in common is that they believed they were right with God, but they did not want to obey him. It's easy to make flowery speeches about God's love and our loyalty to him, but Jesus knew better. He said, "if you love me, you will obey me" which makes practical sense. We can't say we love God while at the same time disregarding his commands.

This is why it is so important, when considering the various arguments of individual Christians or whole denominations, or skeptics to compare their position to what Jesus taught. If their teachings are consistent with what Jesus taught, then you can trust that they are worth listening to. If their teachings are not consistent with what Jesus taught, then they are not really followers of Jesus even if they make a spectacular show of it. All their wonderful praise songs, their church attendance and tithing, etc will all just be a show.

Now, compare cvenway's conclusions to what Jesus taught. Jesus said that we cannot be his disciple unless we forsake all we have. It's a shocking teaching, and yet it's there, in Jesus' teachings. He said we cannot work for God and money at the same time without cheating on one or the other and that our new, full time Job is to seek God's Kingdom first. He said anyone who does this will be provided for by God. It's called living by faith. We can see that the disciples followed this teaching, and we can see thousands of believers practicing this teaching in Acts 2 and 4. They sold their possessions and shared all things in common according to the various needs of the church.

Cvenway does not acknowledge this concept of sharing. He views Jesus' teaching about forsaking all as some kind of unrealistic, impossible contradiction and boldly proclaims that anyone who did try to practice this teaching would become little more than a worm squirming around in the dirt. The bottom line of his teaching is that Jesus was an impractical fellow who gave impossible teachings which cannot realistically be obeyed.

 

[cvanwey]

We can't say we love God while at the same time disregarding his commands.

Yes you can. You don't always have to agree with the ones you love, or instead be accused of not loving them, do you??? That would instead be a dictatorship of sorts

This is why it is so important, when considering the various arguments of individual Christians or whole denominations, or skeptics to compare their position to what Jesus taught. If their teachings are consistent with what Jesus taught, then you can trust that they are worth listening to. If their teachings are not consistent with what Jesus taught, then they are not really followers of Jesus even if they make a spectacular show of it. All their wonderful praise songs, their church attendance and tithing, etc will all just be a show.

Since you are avoiding my request, maybe you can respond here? What does God deem as rich? And how much of Luke 14:25-33 is necessary? How much of a belief is a true belief. Your prior analogy fails. You know, the one with the 'bomb'.

Now, compare cvenway's conclusions to what Jesus taught. Jesus said that we cannot be his disciple unless we forsake all we have. It's a shocking teaching, and yet it's there, in Jesus' teachings. He said we cannot work for God and money at the same time without cheating on one or the other and that our new, full time Job is to seek God's Kingdom first. He said anyone who does this will be provided for by God. It's called living by faith. We can see that the disciples followed this teaching, and we can see thousands of believers practicing this teaching in Acts 2 and 4. They sold their possessions and shared all things in common according to the various needs of the church.

You started to address it, but you never answered it...? How many possessions can one keep? Who is considered rich? How important is this command, in comparison to say... Belief? How much belief is required?

The bottom line of his teaching is that Jesus was an impractical fellow who gave impossible teachings which cannot realistically be obeyed.

Um, okay? So maybe you can clear up the mess? Thus far, we have...

If you follow the verse axiomatically, and think He deems you rich, you can do nothing above and beyond living in dirt, hunting for your next meal, etc... It's confusing because if everyone did this, even Jesus would never have been a carpenter. Why? Because no one would need anything built and there would be no one to pay Him. It's confusing because no one would ever adhere to this. Why? If you had photos of your kids even for instance, burn them, as they are in direct opposition to Jesus. Why? You cannot cherish both possessions and God, right? It is confusing because you do not even know whom He deems rich or not? It is confusing because we do not know how important this rule is, in relation to all other assertions. It is confusing because He states it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven, (Matthew 19:24). And again, we have not defined 'rich'. I've asked you several times. But some how, it keeps slipping your mind.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Even waaaay back in Jesus' day he had trouble with people claiming to be his follower, but not wanting to obey him. He asked them, "Why do you call me Lord, but do not obey me"?

Another time he said, "Not all who say to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only those who do the will of my father".

In another place he quoted an Old Testament prophet who said, "This people draw near to me with their lips, but their heart is far from me".

The one thing all these people have in common is that they believed they were right with God, but they did not want to obey him. It's easy to make flowery speeches about God's love and our loyalty to him, but Jesus knew better. He said, "if you love me, you will obey me" which makes practical sense. We can't say we love God while at the same time disregarding his commands.

This is why it is so important, when considering the various arguments of individual Christians or whole denominations, or skeptics to compare their position to what Jesus taught. If their teachings are consistent with what Jesus taught, then you can trust that they are worth listening to. If their teachings are not consistent with what Jesus taught, then they are not really followers of Jesus even if they make a spectacular show of it. All their wonderful praise songs, their church attendance and tithing, etc will all just be a show.

Now, compare cvenway's conclusions to what Jesus taught. Jesus said that we cannot be his disciple unless we forsake all we have. It's a shocking teaching, and yet it's there, in Jesus' teachings. He said we cannot work for God and money at the same time without cheating on one or the other and that our new, full time Job is to seek God's Kingdom first. He said anyone who does this will be provided for by God. It's called living by faith. We can see that the disciples followed this teaching, and we can see thousands of believers practicing this teaching in Acts 2 and 4. They sold their possessions and shared all things in common according to the various needs of the church.

Cvenway does not acknowledge this concept of sharing. He views Jesus' teaching about forsaking all as some kind of unrealistic, impossible contradiction and boldly proclaims that anyone who did try to practice this teaching would become little more than a worm squirming around in the dirt. The bottom line of his teaching is that Jesus was an impractical fellow who gave impossible teachings which cannot realistically be obeyed.

Thank you for your response. So if Jesus really meant to forsake all we have. The only way to think he meant otherwise would be to add our own opinions to the matter in which is a clear problem since we aren’t God... to forsake something means to abandon. So we are basically either to abandon everything in which from my understanding Jesus gives no actual guideline as to how far one must go in this abandonment of everything. Why have people not abandoned everything? Why do we still have our luxuries, go on vacations, celebrate holidays and birthdays, buy our houses and cars, etc... basically we may have changed our relationship to some things in our life but that’s hardly abandonment. Now I obviously know that in order for people to pay bills and all other things people do they decide to work, go to school, and then in some instances choose to acquire some luxuries and have some fun. I’m not saying any of that is wrong but I am asking does that line up with what Jesus asked from his followers? I know you have an opinion maybe or someone else may say we have to use common sense but I’m not talking about non of that. I’m saying strictly 100% according to scripture without our added opinions are people doing what Jesus asked completely?

 

[dcalling]

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?

I would say you have to keep an open mind, just because you have not been taught does not mean it is not possible. It is like talk to some tribes that has not been touched by morden world about radio waves. After all, some scientist believe every time light particals pass through a tiny opening, the entire universe splits in 2!

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.....

You are welcome to throw conflicting asserting here. Given a book this big and pass through history this long, there got to be some mis-translations or copy errors. The bigger issue is the message must be not self conflicting, i.e. that is the major issue with Quran, when my muslim friend told me the Gospel/Torah is corrupted, yet the Quran confirms Christians/Jews should stand by the Gospel/Torah, that is a direct conflict.

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?

I have no idea how many eye-witness saw Jesus after his death. My only question is, if you think cells can form in the wild by accident, what prevent you from believing dead people can resurrect ?

 

[com7fy8]

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?

I would say it is not an intellectual issue, really, why people believe or don't believe.

Pride can be included, I would say . . . for any of us. I have now been going through a correctional mill, myself, about how I have not been for real with my church. And I can tell how certain things keep me from enjoying God and personally and tenderly caring for people.

Generic pride is not the only thing. I have my own custom made stuff that messes me up. In my case there is a lot of imagination stuff of controlling people who are a problem for me, and using women in my mind.

But in my case, I seem to be able to stop and wait for God to stop the stuff and make me honest about what is wrong. And then I can be loving, by the time I am with the problem people and others. And God's love, I experience, is kind and tender and caring and pure and pleasant . . . and gentle and quiet. But there is the stuff that can make a lot of noise to get me elsewhere.

So, in my case, I would say it is not only pride. And my word would be conceit, for any pride in my case. But it has company, of different sorts of lust stuff and self-righteous criticizing and wanting to control people for attention and praise; so I'm more of a predatory sinner, than a pity-potting victim sinner. And my basic character has a lot to do with if and how I can give in to that stuff.

So, this is included in how I evaluate myself, in prayer. So, when someone talks with me about themselves, this is where I am coming from.

Or, further, that I am requesting His contact on my terms.

There are people who are said to do that. In my case, I have somehow always known I do not set the terms for God. But I tend to go after people and judge them. In any case, setting your own terms does not work.

But, like I have offered, Jesus is not conceited; God does negotiate, at times, I think. We can read how He negotiated with Abraham about if He would torch Sodom. And He has given a sign, like with Gideon, if I remember right, with that golden fleece thing. But with others, it was no way.

I trust you believe petitionary/intercessory prayers sometimes work?

Another scripture is

1 Timothy 2:1-4

To me, this means God wants us to pray and make intercession for any and all people. So, this includes you, I would say. I am being quiet and submissive to God, right now . . . as well as He blesses me to be . . . so I share with you and pray for you how He has me praying. I trust Him. But we're all impossible cases.

And a thing I think of is you have said you have sought God. But I think of how 1 Timothy 2:1-4 says to pray for any and all people. I get that this means to care about and have hope for any and all others as we care about our own selves.

So . . . may be . . . if certain people are mainly caring about their own selves in prayer . . . including seeking God for a sign or to otherwise prove Himself > for all I know, their self-centered way of praying could be keeping them out of how we . . . all of us . . . could be in God's love . . . all-loving love. I suspect people can cut themselves short by staying in what is not all-loving prayer.

Being self-centered certainly is wrecking marriages. So, it can mess our being intimate with God, I would say.

May be this is my problem . . . why I have not gotten where I could. I find that I have started, though. So, this is encouraging. And while I find I'm getting somewhere, I pray this to others . . . and trust God to really change us.

 

[John Helpher]

So we are basically either to abandon everything in which from my understanding Jesus gives no actual guideline as to how far one must go in this abandonment of everything

Getting the spirit of Jesus' teachings is what will help you to understand how to rightly interpret them. When someone says, "I get the spirit of what you're saying" it means I understand the essence of what you're saying even if the exact words aren't as clear as I'd like them to be.

This is where cvenway's identity as a skeptic hurts him; he doesn't want to think past technicalities and formulaic calculations, because it is in those technicalities that he believes he can engineer conflict.

Consider the example of the thousands of believers in Acts 2 and 4. The record shows that they sold everything they had and shared all things in common, none of them claiming the material goods as their own. They weren't living in the dirt, but neither were they hoarding; they were sharing all things in common. That is the key to understanding Jesus' teachings on money and materialism.

We forsake all we have so that we may learn to share. We stop working for money and the things money can buy so that we can start working for love. It's a pretty simple concept; what causes confusion is that we don't really want to let go of all the things we cling to. We're afraid or we're greedy or we're proud, which causes us to look for confusion to save the day. Jesus says everything, and we think, "yeah, but how much is everything" as though the answer is not already obvious.

Now I obviously know that in order for people to pay bills and all other things people do they decide to work, go to school, and then in some instances choose to acquire some luxuries and have some fun. I’m not saying any of that is wrong but I am asking does that line up with what Jesus asked from his followers?

You are right that things like taking vacations, enjoying luxuries, and having fun are not wrong. The question is how we get these things. If we can only do these things by first demanding payment from others for our help, then we are demonstrating that fun can only come at the expense of others. In order to get our vacation, we must exploit others, and that is not consistent with the kingdom of Heaven.

The problem is not with these material things, but rather the motivation behind why we chase after them. That's the spirit behind all of Jesus' teachings; an exploration of why we behave the way we do and consequently this is why it is so rare to find anyone obeying his teachings; we chafe at the idea of facing our problems; our pride, our greed, our fear. These are things we'd rather not confront.

It will take several life times for most of us to examine our motivations honestly and to work on refining better motivations. The teachings of Jesus are a tool to help us do that; the more we practice his teachings, the more we'll learn about ourselves and how we need to change. This is why his teachings are called the good news and why he said, "If anyone wants to know if my teachings really are from God, let him practice them and he will know".

 

[cvanwey]

I would say you have to keep an open mind, just because you have not been taught does not mean it is not possible. It is like talk to some tribes that has not been touched by morden world about radio waves. After all, some scientist believe every time light particals pass through a tiny opening, the entire universe splits in 2!

My point prior was that Muhammad marrying a 6-year-old, and you not liking that, has absolutely no connection to the claim that he later ascended to heaven. Each claim must be investigated independently.

Much the same, Jesus doing and saying things you like, has no relevancy, nor then proves or substantiates that it then must be 'more-likely-true' that He did rise from the dead.

And just for starters, the claim that you decided to reply to, was from @John Helpher . He claims 100's of eye-witnesses saw Jesus. I state there exists no evidence for that. I've studied that claim. The reason this is important, as that the Bible is asserting that I must believe this claim anyways. And if I don't, I will be condemned. Now, getting to the fundamental issues below..

1. In places, the Bible states you must believe He rose again. Further, you must believe, repent, and love Him.

2. How much belief, repentance, and love is enough? Is believing, as much as I do in Vishnu enough? Or, does the belief and love need to surpass that of my parents? Is it somewhere in between? And if I don't meet this criteria, is God going to smite me for eternity, for something that maybe I cannot control (i.e.) belief and love?

Again, I'm a side participant now... But wondering if you can answer the above?

You are welcome to throw conflicting asserting here. Given a book this big and pass through history this long, there got to be some mis-translations or copy errors. The bigger issue is the message must be not self conflicting, i.e. that is the major issue with Quran, when my muslim friend told me the Gospel/Torah is corrupted, yet the Quran confirms Christians/Jews should stand by the Gospel/Torah, that is a direct conflict.

No. I see self conflicting statements from the Holy Bible. It does not matter that the writings span 1500+ years, or not. The messages conflict internally. Is it?:

- Grace alone?
- Faith alone?
- Love alone?
- Works alone?
- Grace + faith?
- Grace + faith + love?
- Grace + faith + love + works?
- How much faith?
- How much love?
- How many works?
- Which one of these traits is more/less important; and how do you know?

Here's a question to stew upon...

If you died right now, do you think God would accept you into heaven?

If you can either answer (yes or no), this would mean you think you know God's criteria for salvation. So, do you know if the answer is yes or no? If so, please do tell? If not, then like I stated in the OP, God looks to be the provider of confusion. Why? For the bullet points listed up above, just for starters...

I have no idea how many eye-witness saw Jesus after his death. My only question is, if you think cells can form in the wild by accident, what prevent you from believing dead people can resurrect ?

Then look into the claim. The claim of 100's seeing Jesus is in the Bible. Please check and see if the claim of 'eye-witness' is supported to your satisfaction? And if it is, then we can test this claim against other claims in divinity

And to answer your request... God would presumably be above natural law.

 

[John Helpher]

But, like I have offered, Jesus is not conceited; God does negotiate, at times, I think. We can read how He negotiated with Abraham about if He would torch Sodom. And He has given a sign, like with Gideon, if I remember right, with that golden fleece thing. But with others, it was no way.

I think God understood that Abraham had been fooled by religious game playing. Abraham really believed he could find 100 righteous people in Sodom. Why did he believe that? Probably because those people sang songs of worship, or offered large sums of money to various charities, or attended religious meetings on a regular basis, or made nice, flowery speeches to one another extolling the virtues of love or whatever.

God allowed Abraham to search because he wanted Abraham to see through the superficial lie; that under the surface these people really didn't care about what God wanted; it was all a show. Jesus reiterates this in Luke 17 when, referring to the problems of Sodom and Noah's day, he said they eating and drinking, planting and building, buying and selling, etc; all normal, every day activities. It's not that these things are inherently wrong, but that the people had become so caught-up in their day-to-day lives that they had stopped caring about what God wanted. It was an important lesson for Abraham to internalize just how subtle this complacency can be and it is an important lesson for us today.

Regarding Gideon, he was faced with a very difficult decision. He had 300 soldiers and he was facing off against many times that number of enemies. It was because this was a life or death situation that he dared to ask for two miracles. God deigned to answer because he understood Gideon's motivation was good; Gideon was, in fact, literally entrusting his life and those of his soldiers to God.

For skeptics who just want God to jump through hoops for their own entertainment, well, of course he would not be inclined to honor such foolish requests. Jesus was presented with a similar situation in his day, with the people demanding a spectacle from God, ostensibly as proof of Jesus' credibility, but really they just wanted to be entertained by a performance. Jesus told them that the only sign they'd get was the sign of Jonah, and the only sign Jonah gave to the people of Nineveh was the truth, from both barrels.

That is what is happening right here, right now. Cvenway has been exposed to a lot of truth on this thread, maybe even some truth that he's never heard before and I think, from God's perspective, that is all the sign he should need. The miraculous can be a powerful means of communication, but it is also easily dismissed, explained away, and just generally underappreciated. The children of Israel saw all the plagues of Egypt, they saw a pillar of fire protecting them from a pursuing pharaoh, and they passed through a parted sea; none of that was enough to guarantee faithfulness. They constantly rebelled and took God's miracles for granted. It is likely to be the same with someone like cvenway; perhaps God even already has shown him something miraculous and it has already been dismissed. Anyway, we'll all be held accountable for how we chose to interpret God's attempts at communicating with us in this life.

 

[cvanwey]

God allowed Abraham to search because he wanted Abraham to see through the superficial lie; that under the surface these people really didn't care about what God wanted; it was all a show.

Maybe God thinks your intentions are not really pure? Again, He speaks plainly in Luke 14:25-33. Are you considered 'rich'? You still have not answered that question. If you are considered rich, did you do what Jesus asked? If not, maybe [you] are 'putting on a show'?

That is what is happening right here, right now. Cvenway has been exposed to a lot of truth on this thread, maybe even some truth that he's never heard before and I think, from God's perspective, that is all the sign he should need.

Careful, when you continue to bring my name-handle in, I'm going to respond. And please, at least, spell the handle correctly?

Lets start simply by addressing the above. I've asked several times. You have yet to address. And once we get this all clarified, we can then move on to the many other unresolved matters.

 

[cvanwey]

Another piece of confusion, as given by the authors. It states:

28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

And before we get caught up in the definition of 'blasphemy', let's stick to the definition, as given by CF (MUST READ: Christian Apologetics Statement of Purpose)

Blasphemy
In the interests of informed debate, members will not speak in a disrespectful way of the Christian God, the Trinity, or the Holy Scriptures (The Bible). A similar respect is expected towards the faith and sacred texts of other religions. Expressing disbelief in God is acceptable, referring to Him as a 'fairy tale' or a 'narcissistic god', or making a comment such as 'god throws a childish tantrum', is not acceptable.

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

When we add in the above topic, it would appear that we not only need to grapple with exactly (how much of the following is required below) i.e.

- Grace alone?
- Faith alone?
- Love alone?
- Works alone?
- Grace + faith?
- Grace + faith + love?
- Grace + faith + love + works?
- How much faith?
- How much love?
- How many works?
- Which one of these traits is more/less important; and how do you know?

But we need to ask ourselves, is it all negated if someone commits this presented eternal sin? What if someone is having a 'bad' day? Is that person damned forever, no-matter-what? The above three verses, combined with the CF definition, seem to suggest as such?

The confusion seems to be stacking up?

 

[dcalling]

My point prior was that Muhammad marrying a 6-year-old, and you not liking that, has absolutely no connection to the claim that he later ascended to heaven. Each claim must be investigated independently.

It has not, you brought up Islam, I am just saying why I didn't turn to Islam. And I didn't say I did not like Muhammad marrying 6 year old, I said I found Muhammad's claim that God allowed all to marry their adopted son's wife after he did that is suspicious, but that is not evidence enough to say Islam is not true. So we have no issue here.

Much the same, Jesus doing and saying things you like, has no relevancy, nor then proves or substantiates that it then must be 'more-likely-true' that He did rise from the dead.

And just for starters, the claim that you decided to reply to, was from @John Helpher . He claims 100's of eye-witnesses saw Jesus. I state there exists no evidence for that. I've studied that claim. The reason this is important, as that the Bible is asserting that I must believe this claim anyways. And if I don't, I will be condemned. Now, getting to the fundamental issues below..

That is John's claim, I was there to answer 2 of your other questions, namely about Islam and about resurrection.

1. In places, the Bible states you must believe He rose again. Further, you must believe, repent, and love Him.

2. How much belief, repentance, and love is enough? Is believing, as much as I do in Vishnu enough? Or, does the belief and love need to surpass that of my parents? Is it somewhere in between? And if I don't meet this criteria, is God going to smite me for eternity, for something that maybe I cannot control (i.e.) belief and love?

Again, I'm a side participant now... But wondering if you can answer the above?

If you truly believe, and repent, it is enough. Note you must believe and love the word of God (i.e. no idol worshiping, don't use God's name in vain, respect your parents, no stealing, no adultery, no murder, no envy, love your neighbor, pray for your enemies etc). Vishnu does not have those commandments. All other religion only has some of those commandments.

No. I see self conflicting statements from the Holy Bible. It does not matter that the writings span 1500+ years, or not. The messages conflict internally. Is it?:

- Grace alone?
- Faith alone?
- Love alone?
- Works alone?
- Grace + faith?
- Grace + faith + love?
- Grace + faith + love + works?
- How much faith?
- How much love?
- How many works?
- Which one of these traits is more/less important; and how do you know?

A lot of what you claim that is conflicting here is not in the Bible.
No work is required, all you need to do is Faith in God, however your Faith in God is provided by God's grace.

Here's a question to stew upon...

If you died right now, do you think God would accept you into heaven?

If you can either answer (yes or no), this would mean you think you know God's criteria for salvation. So, do you know if the answer is yes or no? If so, please do tell? If not, then like I stated in the OP, God looks to be the provider of confusion. Why? For the bullet points listed up above, just for starters...

Yes God will accept me into heaven. The criteria is clearly stated in the Bible. You truely believe in the word of God and you will be saved. But make sure you believe the right word, i.e. the word of Vishnu is not the word of God.

Romans 10:
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved

Then look into the claim. The claim of 100's seeing Jesus is in the Bible. Please check and see if the claim of 'eye-witness' is supported to your satisfaction? And if it is, then we can test this claim against other claims in divinity

And to answer your request... God would presumably be above natural law.

I am not interested in other people's claims, they will explain them to you.
And yes, God is above natural law, it is like an engineer designed a game, and the laws of the game does not apply to the programmer, as he is outside of the program. All the objects in my game engine obeys my rules, but I can always make exceptions

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

It has not, you brought up Islam, I am just saying why I didn't turn to Islam. And I didn't say I did not like Muhammad marrying 6 year old, I said I found Muhammad's claim that God allowed all to marry their adopted son's wife after he did that is suspicious, but that is not evidence enough to say Islam is not true. So we have no issue here.



That is John's claim, I was there to answer 2 of your other questions, namely about Islam and about resurrection.



If you truly believe, and repent, it is enough. Note you must believe and love the word of God (i.e. no idol worshiping, don't use God's name in vain, respect your parents, no stealing, no adultery, no murder, no envy, love your neighbor, pray for your enemies etc). Vishnu does not have those commandments. All other religion only has some of those commandments.



No work is required, all you need to do is Faith in God, however your Faith in God is provided by God's grace.



Yes God will accept me into heaven. The criteria is clearly stated in the Bible. You truely believe in the word of God and you will be saved. But make sure you believe the right word, i.e. the word of Vishnu is not the word of God.


I am not interested in other people's claims, they will explain them to you.
And yes, God is above natural law, it is like an engineer designed a game, and the laws of the game does not apply to the programmer, as he is outside of the program. All the objects in my game engine obeys my rules, but I can always make exceptions

If you don’t keep Gods commandments the. You are still good because there is no expectation of perfection so you just need to ask for forgiveness right? So if someone only steals sometimes, here and there but asks for forgiveness they would be fine or can they steal everyday and still be fine? Or is there a specific number before a person is no longer forgiven? I know most people say it’s about if your heart is in the right place but I’m not sure of anywhere in scripture where that is able to be quantified so what I then see is people basically making up there own rules about what it means to have a heart that in the right place. It can’t just be people decide for themself... is it safe to say that people just go with the consensus? What we most other believers say it is than that’s the answer? I sure hope that’s not it because the amount of people who believe something about scripture doesn’t mean their interpretation is true. Thanks for any help understanding this.

 

[dcalling]

If you don’t keep Gods commandments the. You are still good because there is no expectation of perfection so you just need to ask for forgiveness right? So if someone only steals sometimes, here and there but asks for forgiveness they would be fine or can they steal everyday and still be fine? Or is there a specific number before a person is no longer forgiven? I know most people say it’s about if your heart is in the right place but I’m not sure of anywhere in scripture where that is able to be quantified so what I then see is people basically making up there own rules about what it means to have a heart that in the right place. It can’t just be people decide for themself... is it safe to say that people just go with the consensus? What we most other believers say it is than that’s the answer? I sure hope that’s not it because the amount of people who believe something about scripture doesn’t mean their interpretation is true. Thanks for any help understanding this.

There is not a specific number, it is all about heart and spirit. For example if you are a thief, and you got touched by God, even if you still steals, the holy spirit will remind you silently, and you will feel it, and eventually the Holy spirit will win you over, and you will stop stealing.

However false conversions are possible, someone may looks like they love God, but are actually not touched by spirit, and they eventually turn away. No one knows other people's faith, it is between that person and God, so don't judge.

I can say for sure that once God touched a soul, God will have such a firm claim on that soul, nothing can separate that soul from God, because you know what true Love is and nothing in this world can replace that