There is NO risk to me if I am wrong about "certain" doctrinal positions.

[BobRyan]

If the options are binary, then perhaps you are correct as far as these points go. Yet at the same time, if you are wrong and, for example, the Muslims are correct then there is a risk to you. .

Indeed there is "some other set" of doctrines/statements one could make that do not fit the situation in the OP. I specifically picked the ones where the POV selected had no risk if it was wrong.

 

[BobRyan]

So ultimately, being convinced on a point has little to nothing to do with whether it carries a risk.

But given that some effort is always made "by any given Christian" to find some sort of doctrinal position then the question of "and what if this is wrong" can be asked and can be helpful as option 1 shows.

Very few Bible believing Christians argue that it is in the best interest of Atheists to ignore the problem they are faced with in scenario #1 in the OP.

They idea that "they need to notice it" but "we don't" is not exactly objective.

 

[Fervent]

Indeed there is "some other set" of doctrines/statements one could make that do not fit the situation in the OP. I specifically picked the ones where the POV selected had no risk if it was wrong.

There's always the reading of being cut off from grace by returning too the law, making your obedience to the Sabbath and the rest of the OT laws treating the blood of the covenant as unholy. Which, if one who faltered under moses died without mercy those who treat the blood of the covenant as an unholy thing are facing much worse. No risk, though.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Sooo... am I hearing an appeal to keep the Sabbath because otherwise you run the risk of not being saved?

 

[DamianWarS]

Indeed there is "some other set" of doctrines/statements one could make that do not fit the situation in the OP. I specifically picked the ones where the POV selected had no risk if it was wrong.

You are fooling yourself if you think you have no risk if you're wrong. Did you consider that any one of your "no risk" options may not be God's option? You follow the Sabbath in a no risk way just to be safe. But did you stop and ask if God wants us to experience the Sabbath this way? Perhaps or perhaps not but your determining factor seems less interested in what God thinks and more interested in how you can play it safe. Missing the mark seems to be great risk.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

You are fooling yourself if you think you have no risk if you're wrong. Did you consider that any one of your "no risk" options may not be God's option? You follow the Sabbath in a no risk way just to be safe. But did you stop and ask if God wants us to experience the Sabbath this way? Perhaps or perhaps not but your determining factor seems less interested in what God thinks and more interested in how you can play it safe. Missing the mark seems to be great risk.

I think the place of judging why one obeys is not a job for us humans, nor does it negate our obligation to obey God.

 

[DamianWarS]

I think the place of judging why one obeys is not a job for us humans, nor does it negate our obligation to obey God.

Safety is the position of the OP, it's not something I've added. But I've just asked the questions, I'm not throwing stones. The OP wants to know the risk, so I said what the risk is and that risk is missing the mark of what God desires.

The points in the OP are baited to argue an A of B stance with some sort of premise that safe options are the best and lean towards how the OP thinks. I suppose the idea is to say why your way is better or prove it's wrong by listing the risks, but I'm not playing that game (it's a bit of a strawman too). Rather I'm challenging the motivation behind this safe approach because what I read is the OP comes out on top either way but what I don't read is how God's desire for us influences these choices. The latter to me is more important and I'm sure it is for the OP as well but this just exposes the flawed argument that the safe option is not tantamount to the God's option (nor is it safe).

So for example why do we choose our position of Sabbath? Is it what's safe? Of is it what God desires? If we choose the latter the OP is refuted. If we choose the former our faith is refuted.

 

[BobRyan]

You are fooling yourself if you think you have no risk if you're wrong. Did you consider that any one of your "no risk" options may not be God's option?

In the first one I point out that God exists and if I am wrong then I still get the gold-prize-ending as the theist... a hole in the ground.

Now it appears you are suggesting this is not actually God's option. How does that logic you are suggesting work starting with #1 in the list?

 

[BobRyan]

You follow the Sabbath in a no risk way just to be safe. But did you stop and ask if God wants us to experience the Sabbath this way?

As I point out in the OP - most of those who oppose the Bible Sabbath claim that Rom 14 says we can all keep whatever day we want to as the Sabbath. Which would still mean I can keep the Sabbath so even in that case "no risk to me".

Did you read the OP??

 

[BobRyan]

your determining factor seems less interested in what God thinks and more interested in how you can play it safe.

So your counter here -- is that the atheist should not in fact reconsider his/her atheism or pay attention to the fact that he/she has chosen the no-win option of the two-possible options?

 

[DamianWarS]

In the first one I point out that God exists and if I am wrong then I still get the gold-prize-ending as the theist... a hole in the ground.

Now it appears you are suggesting this is not actually God's option. How does that logic you are suggesting work starting with #1 in the list?

I'm not making doctrinal statements of which one of your list is right or wrong. I'm saying it's a flawed argument to say choosing the safe option has no risk (and is implicated the best option) the risk is following the safe option may not God's option.

 

[BobRyan]

Safety is the position of the OP

It starts by pointing out that the atheist should look at his two-option scenario and avoid the risk by reconsidering Christianity.

Are you suggesting he/she should ignore that detail and "stick with atheism"? Or are you saying the atheist needs to wake-up but Christians should not be "just as awake" to the risk problem?

 

[DamianWarS]

As I point out in the OP - most of those who oppose the Bible Sabbath claim that Rom 14 says we can all keep whatever day we want to as the Sabbath. Which would still mean I can keep the Sabbath so even in that case "no risk to me".

Did you read the OP??

I'm not making a statement on how to follow the Sabbath, I'm making a statement that your motivation to follow the Sabbath is flawed.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not making doctrinal statements of which one of your list is right or wrong.

I simply point out that in each of those examples - you can only risk losing "one way" the other way has no loss, no risk.

And I am saying that just as we all see the truth of that point in the first example - we need to allow ourselves to be "at least as awake" as we propose the atheist should be in the first example given.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not making a statement on how to follow the Sabbath,

In my Romans 14 point - I am not talking about "how to follow the Sabbath" I am pointing out that because of the way Sabbath-opposing options use Rom 14 - it leaves the Sabbath keeping Christian without risk - as compared to the reverse scenario where all Ten commandments do matter.

 

[DamianWarS]

It starts by pointing out that the atheist should look at his two-option scenario and avoid the risk by reconsidering Christianity.

Are you suggesting he/she should ignore that detail and "stick with atheism"? Or are you saying the atheist needs to wake-up but Christians should not be "just as awake" to the risk problem?

I'm not sure if what your point is here, but my motivation to obey God is not what is safe for me but what gives glory to God. I would love the atheist to approach it the same way.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not sure if what your point is here, but my motivation to obey God is not what is safe for me but what gives glory to God. I would love the atheist to approach it the same way.

So your proposal to the atheist is "hey I know you don't believe that God exists - but don't you think it makes the most sense for you to have as your number one motivation -- doing what gives God glory?"

Is that the kind of discussion you have with atheists in real life - and if so - how did that work for you?

I have seen a lot of "discussions with atheists" using similar logic as can be seen in my OP #1 option and we even have one former one on a thread similar to this - talking about the success of that model. Do you have one where an atheist says "I was an atheist until I started to think that being an atheist probably does not give God as much glory as He deserves"?

 

[pasifika]

Maybe you should take a look at my signature because I do not think the Ten Commandments comes in a covenant of one or nine one, God wrote a perfect law of Ten. Sadly, the one commandment that is most disputed has to do with our time, 24 hours dedicated every seventh day of holy communion with God.

Does scriptures teach us to be more like Jesus or less? I agree with your post, but it seems veiled with sarcasm, like following the example that Jesus left is a bad thing.

Then you must keep All 10 commandments "perfectly"..Not just one command in order to fulfill the law...otherwise you are hypocrite claiming to keep one command ie 7th day Sabbath and yet fail to keep the other commandments..

So do you keep the other commandments ie, lying, coveting, stealing, adultery etc ?? Not just the 7th day Sabbath command..

If your response is "yes" then you're perfect and has fulfill the law...ie like Jesus!

If your response is "No" then you fail to keep all commandments including 7th day Sabbath and hasn't fulfill the law...

Keep a clear conscience and be truthful to yourself..

 

[DamianWarS]

So your proposal to the atheist is "hey I know you don't believe that God exists - but don't you think it makes the most sense for you to have as your number one motivation -- doing what gives God glory?"

Is that the kind of discussion you have with atheists in real life - and if so - how did that work for you?

Only God can reveal God. I hope in my discussion that revation comes out or at least is fostered but I don't won't to communicate to an atheist that I choose God because I'm want to play it safe.

 

[DamianWarS]

I simply point out that in each of those examples - you can only risk losing "one way" the other way has no loss, no risk.

It doesn't really matter how you've justified your choice. If you've missed the point, you've lost in a big way. This is the risk that seems to be lost on you.