What Convinced you God Exists?

[Mark Quayle]

@Mark Quayle

Were you going to address my last batch of responses to you? Or, do you feel there is really nothing left to address, between you and I?

I guess I need you to repeat or link them or give me post numbers. I missed a couple of days here and there, though yes, there has been a lot of repeat already, lol. I feel like I answered several that you claimed I hadn't answered well enough. "So I ask again, "...etc"."

But I'm willing to go at it again.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So you think you can get every Christian that disagrees with you on doctrine to agree with you? How is that going in the Christian forums?

There you go again. The mayor of Literalville takes it wrong again. No, I don't think I can get EVERY Christian that disagrees with me on doctrine to agree with me. Their statements disagree, and the wording of what they believe (to some degree) disagrees with me. Yet, if they belong to Christ, as re-born, they know it is by the Grace of God.

Well it depends on what I am reading. If I am reading a poetry book then my interpretations will be different than another's. If I am reading a physics book then my interpretation can be tested to see if it is correct. It can be independently verified to be true or not. Not so with the Bible.

The Bible has a lot of poetry. It also has several other categories, that many fail to take into account. It isn't a physics book, and no, not all interpretations of what one reads in a physics book can be tested to see if they are correct. Particularly not at present, anyway.

What are the standards and how do you know they are the correct standards?

Been there, done that. Enough already.

Nope and please do not tell me what I think or what my reasons are for not believing. I don't believe because the evidence does not convince me anymore. It has noting to do with my flesh or any religious doctrines that cannot be substantiated.

No, nothing to do with what Scripture calls, 'the flesh' (the sinful nature)? How would you know? You are a purely logical machine? No bias, no failings? I said what I did because it is drawn from what the Bible says. Not because I care to judge you or your thinking.

Faith is never good evidence that is convincing for belief. You can believe anything on faith. I can believe Allah is the real god by faith because I can hope He exists and is not seen. Same with bigfoot.

You consider all faith the same. It is not. There is faith that a person has, generated by that person. But the faith that verse is referring to is generated by the Spirit of God, not by the person in whom the Spirit has taken up residence, giving him new life. You will not find that in any other religion.

 

[cvanwey]

I guess I need you to repeat or link them or give me post numbers. I missed a couple of days here and there, though yes, there has been a lot of repeat already, lol. I feel like I answered several that you claimed I hadn't answered well enough. "So I ask again, "...etc"."

But I'm willing to go at it again.

#554, 555, and 556. Answer whatever from them you like

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

There you go again. The mayor of Literalville takes it wrong again. No, I don't think I can get EVERY Christian that disagrees with me on doctrine to agree with me. Their statements disagree, and the wording of what they believe (to some degree) disagrees with me. Yet, if they belong to Christ, as re-born, they know it is by the Grace of God.

So all you are saying is that if they agree with you they will agree with you. I am talking about Christians that cannot agree on how t be saved.

The Bible has a lot of poetry. It also has several other categories, that many fail to take into account. It isn't a physics book, and no, not all interpretations of what one reads in a physics book can be tested to see if they are correct. Particularly not at present, anyway.

If they cannot the physics book does not say it has been verified to be true. There is no way to know what interpretation is correct in the Bible. Or at least I have not been shown a way to determine that.

Been there, done that. Enough already.

Ok. I just have not received a response to my question that is satisfatcory.

No, nothing to do with what Scripture calls, 'the flesh' (the sinful nature)? How would you know? You are a purely logical machine? No bias, no failings? I said what I did because it is drawn from what the Bible says. Not because I care to judge you or your thinking.

Yet you told me why you thought I do not believe and that reason "my flesh" is wrong. Does not matter where you drew that conclusion from. If it was from the bible then the bible is wrong.

You consider all faith the same. It is not. There is faith that a person has, generated by that person. But the faith that verse is referring to is generated by the Spirit of God, not by the person in whom the Spirit has taken up residence, giving him new life. You will not find that in any other religion.

Why does it matter if any other religion has faith like this or not? So is this faith based on good evidence or not? Is it God forcing you to have faith?

 

[Mark Quayle]

#554, 555, and 556. Answer whatever from them you like

Ok, give me a day or two. I should have been in bed already. Early day tomorrow. Your stuff takes time.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So all you are saying is that if they agree with you they will agree with you. I am talking about Christians that cannot agree on how t be saved.

You say "Christians" which in my mind does not mean Chrinos, but I tried to show what I mean by 'Christians' --which is 'born again believers'. THOSE will agree with me in the end of meaning, though not necessarily agree with my words or even concepts, and btw, usually because of supposed implications of my words or concepts --not actual implications. So, no. I am not saying that if they agree with me they will agree with me. I am saying that even if their interpretations are wrong, according to the words they use, and even according to what they mean by them, in the end, if they are born again believers, they know God saved them and they did not save themselves.

If they cannot the physics book does not say it has been verified to be true. There is no way to know what interpretation is correct in the Bible. Or at least I have not been shown a way to determine that.

Read a good hermeneutics book, if you really want to be shown way to determine good interpretation. Also, again, I will repeat what you keep leaving out of your statement: Nobody has THE correct interpretation. For one thing, even if Christ himself was to tell us THE correct interpretation, our finite minds and self-important egos and biased worldview would STILL get it wrong. But none of us has God's ability to see the complete truth of his statements.

Yet you told me why you thought I do not believe and that reason "my flesh" is wrong. Does not matter where you drew that conclusion from. If it was from the bible then the bible is wrong.

As you wish.

Why does it matter if any other religion has faith like this or not? So is this faith based on good evidence or not? Is it God forcing you to have faith?

It matters because no other religion has God himself as the source and sustenance of real life --the reason he made us to begin with. We are no learning experience for him, not a mere attempt, not an experiment, not peers of his but also unlike any other creature. We (the regenerated) already are, in a manner of speaking, but later will be completely, one with God, in a way that nobody here on earth can explain, yet we know we are made for that purpose.

This faith IS the evidence of that. It can only be so IF it is faith generated by God himself --not of human will or exertion.

Forcing? Does God force you to breathe and eat? But he did not consult me or ask my permission before regenerating me.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You say "Christians" which in my mind does not mean Chrinos, but I tried to show what I mean by 'Christians' --which is 'born again believers'. THOSE will agree with me in the end of meaning, though not necessarily agree with my words or even concepts, and btw, usually because of supposed implications of my words or concepts --not actual implications. So, no. I am not saying that if they agree with me they will agree with me. I am saying that even if their interpretations are wrong, according to the words they use, and even according to what they mean by them, in the end, if they are born again believers, they know God saved them and they did not save themselves.

Read a good hermeneutics book, if you really want to be shown way to determine good interpretation. Also, again, I will repeat what you keep leaving out of your statement: Nobody has THE correct interpretation. For one thing, even if Christ himself was to tell us THE correct interpretation, our finite minds and self-important egos and biased worldview would STILL get it wrong. But none of us has God's ability to see the complete truth of his statements.

I took classes on hermeneutics. My question is why is that method the correct method to determine the right interpretation of the bible? Others get different interpretations using the Holy Spirit method.

As you wish.

You see, non believers know the Bible is wrong when it says we actually believe God exists or that we "just want to sin" and such.

This faith IS the evidence of that. It can only be so IF it is faith generated by God himself --not of human will or exertion.

I can use this same logic for belief in Allah.

Forcing? Does God force you to breathe and eat? But he did not consult me or ask my permission before regenerating me.

How do I get regenerated? Is it something I do or does God just decide to do it?

 

[Mark Quayle]

#554, 555, and 556. Answer whatever from them you like

Wow. I was just looking for this, having made a little time (or rather, simply deciding to take the time) to work on this one, and hopefully not answer with simple offhand responses, and I see I've done MANY for others, less deserving than yourself. My apologies.

@ #554:
↑
God looks upon the heart to judge the deeds.
You did not address my question(s). Please allow me to simplify.

1. Do all the unchosen reside in the same hell, or, are there differing levels/ranks/other?
2. And, how do you know?

Mark:

I tend to think each soul will be utterly alone, but I can't be sure. It mostly just seems more fitting to me, though it may be my ignorance and a visceral reaction to the careless claims of some, "Well, if I go to hell, I will be in good company!" Also the knowledge of God having utterly abandoned them seems to imply this to my mind, where the only evidence of God's existence brings them only regret, dismay, and despair.

As to degree, I can't imagine it being otherwise, as God is precise (and thorough) in his judgement of debt. What they have done will be paid for EXACTLY. And no two people are the same.

Exactly what the nature of that payment will be, I don't know, but it seems to me fitting that it will be 'of a kind' with their sin. While I believe that yes there will be pain of neverending burning, I think it will vary in intensity according to the sin of each one. Meanwhile, the Bible curiously uses the word, 'torment', not 'torture'. I take this to indicate the suffering will be according to the mindset of the soul experiencing it --a direct result of the degree of sin that brought them there; thus it could be they all experience the same flames, but it bothers some more than others --and of course that is speculation --I don't know.

I completely reject the notion that Satan rules, there. The Lake of Fire was reserved for him and his legions, as punishment, not as their final service or gift from God. Also, it seems, in my love of balance or pattern, that as those who go to Heaven will be (while now lower than the angels) above the angels
in status, those in hell could well be worse in nature than the devil and his demons --but again, that is speculation. As far as I know, the Bible doesn't directly deal with that question.
↑
We cannot achieve grace. It is purely the gift of God, and the work of God.
God's 'grace' is achieved, according to <your> beliefs, by 'worship'.

Mark: No. God's grace is not achieved. It is purely the gift of God, given without merit on the part of any. Not by fulfillment of some formula or requirement, not even by worship. Nor did God consult anyone as to whom to give it to, nor did he ask permission. He did it according to his plan of building his own dwelling place --the Redeemed.

↑
You insist on seeing the creature God has changed, exalted even above the angels, once having seen God's face, as somehow comparable in God's mind to the creatures destined for the Lake of Fire. In the same way as, I expect, you can admit we do not know just what it will be like in Heaven where we will see that we have been looking at things backwards all along, I imagine that those in the LOF will none experience quite the same thing another does.

Nor will those in the LOF even resemble the human you thought you knew here on earth. All graces removed, God having withdrawn from them, nothing about them to commend them to anyone, they are become wraiths, formless of soul, vacant of heart, despairing of will. Your description of a dichotomy (even if 'dichotomy' is useful) falls way short in its human notions of bliss and torment. All the color is missing from your painting.

This reminds me of what a preacher, tired out after a conference, imprudently told a woman who, convicted and distressed, said she thought she had been too sinful for God to forgive: He said something like, "Lady, you have no idea how bad you've been!"

The difference between your notion of hell and heaven isn't strong enough. There is a just reason for the Lake of Fire, and for God to purposely create those who will reside there. (But you may be surprised just who those will be.)
Click to expand...
The Bible presents a dichotomy.

the chosen = heaven
not chosen = hell

heaven = eternal bliss
hell = eternal burning

Mark: That is an oversimplification, or an attempt to fit the human way of thinking. While there is truth to it, the dynamics of both 'sides' are of degree of some sort. We will receive according to our deeds.
↑
I don't know, except by the 'witness of the Spirit of God within me, that I am a child of God.' And one other thing I have mentioned: I have found that my motive is no longer to make or to keep myself safe, but to see God's face.

Okay, so you do not know if you have been elected, but you somehow know there exists some 'spirit of God within you'?

Mark: I can easily enough be fooling myself. I have done so in the past in many ways. Yet I find myself unable to discard the notion that I am a child of God. I am sorry for the unacceptable answer. The older I get the more I find my mind on him. I cannot get along without him.
↑
No. Nothing I do has any result in the Gospel. I am forgiven my sin by Christ's death. Not by my acceptance (worship) of it. My confession and repentance are a result of the Gospel, not a cause of it.

Concerning a person's 'best intentions', "I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve." One person's lie, just as another's, is a trespassing against the whole law of God, but then, one person's lie, unlike another's, is judged against them according to their intentions. The same works for one person's generosity being different from another's.

Click to expand...
You look to contradict yourself here. You state nothing you do has any result, and that you are forgiven of your sin by Christ's death. This would mean all are saved.

But then, you state "I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve."

Mark: Nothing I do has any result in the question of achieving grace --I can in no way save myself. Eternity does not hinge on my decision, but God's.

The Bible says, "by grace have you been saved, through faith." That faith, 'salvific faith' we call it, is the work of the Holy Spirit --God himself in us. It is not ours to generate by effort or will or intellect or understanding. It is God's doing.

The rewards are, in Heaven, given according to the deeds, deeds which are the result of God's work in us. (The rewards, in the payments of perdition, are also according to the deeds, though God looks on the heart to judge them. No person in Hell will be punished beyond their just due). I don't personally feel like we will deserve the rewards we will be given in Heaven, but we are told we will receive them nonetheless.

↑
The 'Fall' of Adam and its effects is far from sin's only relevance. Christ's death was because of, and to remove, sin. It wrenched Satan's dominion from his grasp. My sin hereafter is an identifying with the 'old man', so sin MUST be turned away from. (My 'worship' of Christ implies obedience, btw).

No. As I keep saying, you cannot 'turn away from sin'. It is impossible. God offers His grace because you [are] a sinner. All you must do is accept and Worship Him. Worship any way you like, but you will still be a 'sinner.'

Mark: You are mistaken in supposing we can do anything ('accept', 'worship') him to gain grace. God does more than simply offer grace. He offers salvation to all, including the non-elect. As they reject it, they will not accept it, they will not receive him. But his offer of salvation to the elect, while rejected at the first, will eventually be RECEIVED (the Bible doesn't use the term 'accept') by faith that is the work of God --not of man. This is grace, and most of Christendom sees it backwards; God changes the heart and mind, by the Spirit of God moving in. This not only enables good to be done, it CAUSES good to be done by the regenerated person.

The logical order (i.e. cause-and-effect. I don't care about the time-sequence) is 1. God's choice before the foundation of the world, 2. God's Spirit moving in to live within when the time is right, i.e. when HE decides to, 3. The Spirit of God within necessarily regenerating the chosen, 4. and necessarily causing faith and desire for Christ, 5. Application of the substitution already made at the death of Christ. 6. The slow catch-up of the believer to what has already happened to him, which necessarily results in 7. further work of the spirit in submission, desire for Christ and pursuit of Christ, love for God, repentance and obedience and all the things that mark the redeemed.

Notice please, that these things may happen all at once, or appear to have happened in a different order. But according to scripture they are all the result of the choice of God, and the Spirit of God indwelling the believer. That indwelling is not by human choice. The fellowship may be, but even that is following upon repentance and obedience, which are the work of God, no matter how hard we too work at it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

#554, 555, and 556. Answer whatever from them you like

Ok, #555

Mark Quayle said: ↑
What has that to do with what I said about faith being evidence. Objective. I don't really care what others mean by the word faith. They are not familiar with what I am talking about.

Lol, I guess if you can repeat, I can too! "So you present this as our only choices: Evidence, or faith. Remember the Bible saying, "Faith is the evidence..."? You pretend, though, that faith is not evidence and evidence is not faith. While there is truth to that, the two are not that simply separable in the Regenerate. You really may as well give that up." Ignoring or hoping to define it away according to what other people say about faith doesn't render what I said meaningless. It just means either you are ignoring it, or you don't see it as valid or useful.

Okay, please allow me to ask you again.

Is your conclusion, that Jesus rose from the grave more-so based upon:

1. Discernment/apprehension

or

2. Hope/trust/faith

Please explain?

Mark: I'm sure of 2, but it is inextricable from what little there is to 1. Again, I have not studied it to much depth, but it is a logically necessary part of the fact that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh --not just a good man. If he was not risen, he had not defeated death.

↑
To be one what --messiah? Not sure why you mention this.

The Bible tells it's readers that if Jesus has not risen, then He is not whom He claims to be. This is why I would like to know how you are so certain He rose? Give me your best reason?

Because there are other ways to see that he is God, and having risen from the dead is also logically necessary if he was God. If he is not risen, he is not God, as you said. Also, he lives in me, in the person of the Spirit of God, and I cannot imagine how he could not be risen.

Again, sorry for not giving you a satisfactory answer. Much of my belief in his resurrection is the result of the witness of God in me, and not in my intellectual capacity to convey thought.

 

[Mark Quayle]

#554, 555, and 556. Answer whatever from them you like

#556

Mark Quayle said: ↑
I expect, as your type 1 and type 2 discussion went, my mistake would be less grievous than yours?

But have you never considered the question of what a gaping yaw of nothingness mankind is? It seems to me more than obvious we were made to be completed BY God (or IN him, in a certain sense), and are not what we think we are. All things are upheld by him, but he may even be the essence of their existence, but we, unlike any other creature, were made in his image for his particular purposes. We are not complete beings, until we see him as he is. There's a huge pun waiting for us, or a play on words, full of other plays on words.

Have you heard the story of the puddle?

Furthermore, just because we have the ability to think about something, does not mean it must exist. "Meaning" may merely be what we, as individuals, assign to it...

And yes, of course type 2 errors are more grievous

Mark: I don't know what you are referring to by 'the story of the puddle'. --To the notion that the hole was made just the right size and shape to fit the water in it?

Yes, of course, just because we can think about something doesn't mean it must exist. And yes, we assign meaning all the time, though that hermeneutically, at least, is not the same thing as application (a distinction I don't necessarily agree with). But truth has no definition by our assignations. We can only do what we can --quote true sayings whether we understand at all or not, allow truth to draw us closer, pursue truth, describe the best we can. I cannot be what determines whether God exists. He exists quite independently of any other fact, and even existence itself proceeds from him --he is not subject to any external principle.

 

[cvanwey]

1. Do all the unchosen reside in the same hell, or, are there differing levels/ranks/other?
2. And, how do you know?

Mark:

I tend to think each soul will be utterly alone, but I can't be sure. It mostly just seems more fitting to me, though it may be my ignorance and a visceral reaction to the careless claims of some, "Well, if I go to hell, I will be in good company!" Also the knowledge of God having utterly abandoned them seems to imply this to my mind, where the only evidence of God's existence brings them only regret, dismay, and despair.

As to degree, I can't imagine it being otherwise, as God is precise (and thorough) in his judgement of debt. What they have done will be paid for EXACTLY. And no two people are the same.

I don't recall the Bible laying forth this proposition however? Is this just your own reasoned ('justification' / 'rationale') for how your believed God works, or does it imply this in Scripture anywhere - (either cryptically or axiomatically)?

While I believe that yes there will be pain of neverending burning, I think it will vary in intensity according to the sin of each one.

Meanwhile, the Bible curiously uses the word, 'torment', not 'torture'. I take this to indicate the suffering will be according to the mindset of the soul experiencing it --a direct result of the degree of sin that brought them there; thus it could be they all experience the same flames, but it bothers some more than others --and of course that is speculation --I don't know.

You believe a claimed all-loving God would assign the unchosen to burn, at any level, for an eternity? No offense, but I sense a cognitive dissonance here. Why? Just above, you stated that God is perfectly just, and will assign each individual accordingly, based upon their 'sin'. However, the Bible might not even suggest what you stated above? Furthermore, God deems all of us sinners, and in need of grace. However, the Bible does state that hell is a place of eternal burning and "nashing of teeth". Can't a human have a change of heart, after natural death? If so, they are assigned to burn forever anyways?

Seems as though you might be wanting to invent your own scenario, verses the picture for which the pages of the Bible actually paint?

If you were deemed [all-loving], would YOU assign the unchosen to [burn forever] - (at any level)? Do you not see a direct contradiction in this question?

Mark: No. God's grace is not achieved.

God applies His grace to the ones who 'worship' Him. If not, then He may as well just apply His grace to all, since no one deserves it, nor can they earn it either; apparently.

Okay, so you do not know if you have been elected, but you somehow know there exists some 'spirit of God within you'?

Mark: I can easily enough be fooling myself. I have done so in the past in many ways. Yet I find myself unable to discard the notion that I am a child of God. I am sorry for the unacceptable answer. The older I get the more I find my mind on him. I cannot get along without him.

I can't help but to repeat what I told you prior... "There exists no atheists in foxholes". Sounds to me, that the closer you get to realizing you are going to pass, the more you yearn for an afterlife. Many of us do not want to except our own finite mortality.

 

[cvanwey]

The Bible tells it's readers that if Jesus has not risen, then He is not whom He claims to be. This is why I would like to know how you are so certain He rose? Give me your best reason?

Because there are other ways to see that he is God, and having risen from the dead is also logically necessary if he was God. If he is not risen, he is not God, as you said. Also, he lives in me, in the person of the Spirit of God, and I cannot imagine how he could not be risen.

Again, sorry for not giving you a satisfactory answer. Much of my belief in his resurrection is the result of the witness of God in me, and not in my intellectual capacity to convey thought.

Even if you feel something or someone lives 'in you', how do you know it is not only a God, but the God for which you were raised to believe in? Before you answer, I am going to disclose something for your added consideration:

External World Skepticism (E.W.S.) - No synthetic proposition can absolutely truly be known because there exists an infinite number of explanations for sense data. All synthetic propositions are necessarily tentative conclusions derived from a preponderance of empirical data and predictive models.

 

[cvanwey]

#556

Mark Quayle said: ↑
I expect, as your type 1 and type 2 discussion went, my mistake would be less grievous than yours?

But have you never considered the question of what a gaping yaw of nothingness mankind is?

Are you asserting that if God does not exist, or if our life is finite, there is no "meaning"?

It seems to me more than obvious we were made to be completed BY God (or IN him, in a certain sense), and are not what we think we are. All things are upheld by him, but he may even be the essence of their existence, but we, unlike any other creature, were made in his image for his particular purposes.

I think I already touched on this prior? There seems to be a logical reason why the majority of humans infer some overseeing agency, (like you)... We are a product of evolution. The ones who less-so used to infer intentional agency, more-so died off.

But now, as discovery and technology continues to advance, we now more-so can effectively identify those type 1 errors; and maybe no longer commit them. You know, those harmless errors us humans used to often times commit. (i.e.) Thinking there exists a god of thunder.

Sure, we still contend with the "god of the gaps" argument; which continuously seems to become smaller and smaller. However, I'd imagine this argument will never truly and completely go away.

Have you heard the story of the puddle?

Furthermore, just because we have the ability to think about something, does not mean it must exist. "Meaning" may merely be what we, as individuals, assign to it...

And yes, of course type 2 errors are more grievous

Mark: I don't know what you are referring to by 'the story of the puddle'. --To the notion that the hole was made just the right size and shape to fit the water in it?

To some degree, yes. The puddle looks around and may also state something to the tune of:

"All things are upheld by him, but he may even be the essence of their existence, but we, unlike any other creature, were made in his image for his particular purposes."

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't recall the Bible laying forth this proposition however? Is this just your own reasoned ('justification' / 'rationale') for how your believed God works, or does it imply this in Scripture anywhere - (either cryptically or axiomatically)?

Some of it is plain, some cryptic-to-semi-cryptic (I like a good riddle), and a good portion of it axiomatic --i.e. "because God is like this" or "this is how things work". The whole of the proposition is not made up, but I do not claim absoluteness to any of my concepts. I simply don't know how close to the truth some things that I think make sense, are.

You believe a claimed all-loving God would assign the unchosen to burn, at any level, for an eternity? No offense, but I sense a cognitive dissonance here. Why? Just above, you stated that God is perfectly just, and will assign each individual accordingly, based upon their 'sin'. However, the Bible might not even suggest what you stated above? Furthermore, God deems all of us sinners, and in need of grace. However, the Bible does state that hell is a place of eternal burning and "nashing of teeth". Can't a human have a change of heart, after natural death? If so, they are assigned to burn forever anyways?

Seems as though you might be wanting to invent your own scenario, verses the picture for which the pages of the Bible actually paint?

If you were deemed [all-loving], would YOU assign the unchosen to [burn forever] - (at any level)? Do you not see a direct contradiction in this question?

You say, "However, the Bible might not even suggest what you stated above"? It most definitely does --indeed it does more than simply to suggest-- that God will exact punishment, and that God is perfectly just. I didn't suppose all of it.

God deems all of us sinners, in need of Grace. But he gives grace only to those whom he chose for that purpose.

What I would do if deemed 'all-loving' is irrelevant, to be honest. I am not God. But what he is deemed to be is part of the problem. Everyone seems to think they can deem him 'omni-benevolent' as if they know what that must look like, that therefore he must live up to their notion of love, and their concepts of 'what is'.

I want to mention, though, the question of his Love vs the punishment of his creatures in the Lake of Fire, is much more relevant than what most people use to claim he is not all-loving --it cuts to the chase. Thanks for not wasting time.

I do not disagree that the punishment is eternal. But I think it may be quite a bit different of a concept than most people take it to be. To my mind and understanding concerning the nature of God, and specially considering that the Bible says, 'and time will be no more', It makes sense to me, to think 'eternal' is a reference to intensity more than to passage of time. We know, for example, that Christ returned, after his (presumably 'eternal') payment for our sins, which suggest the punishment has no reference to time at all. Calling it eternal may have been the only way to convey the thought to those who don't know that time is relative, or whose minds simply haven't gone there. I honestly don't know. And there are good thoughts to the contrary.

Calling the punishment eternal also conveys the very real, substantive resulting evil, of sin. It is contradiction against Eternal (infinite) God. The smallest sin, therefore, is an eternal (infinite) infraction.

Either way, whether it means they will be punished, time without end, it is God's purvue to assign that, yet to be loving, because he is just. They absolutely deserve what they get. Those whom he chose, on the other hand, do not get what they deserve. THAT is grace.

You ask, "Can't a human have a change of heart, after natural death? If so, they are assigned to burn forever anyways?"

Apparently they are unable to repent after death. From what I can tell, the Devil and his Demons also are not granted repentance, nor are the remainder of the Angels in Heaven given the ability to rebel anymore. There will most certainly be regret. But it will take the form of despair more than repentance, I think. Notice also, the difference even nowadays, between regret and repentance. A person may believe, due to the intensity of their regret, perhaps, that they have truly repented. But God shows us the only true repentance is a result of the Spirit of God within us. (And by my experience I thoroughly and gladly concur --I NEED God. "Apart from me, you can do nothing"). And I think we can well assume that those in the LOF have not the Spirit of God indwelling them.

God applies His grace to the ones who 'worship' Him. If not, then He may as well just apply His grace to all, since no one deserves it, nor can they earn it either; apparently.

Not at all. He gives grace according to his own council. He chose to whom, and to those alone, for God's own reasons, he gives grace. Worship (if at all worthy, and within this temporal economy) is a result, not a cause, of grace.

I can't help but to repeat what I told you prior... "There exists no atheists in foxholes". Sounds to me, that the closer you get to realizing you are going to pass, the more you yearn for an afterlife. Many of us do not want to except our own finite mortality.

Lol, I appreciate, at least, that you are not mocking me! No, it has nothing to do with my days obviously winding down. It has to do with my desire for holiness, for goodness, to be like him, to be with him, to know him better, to be part of him, to see him as he is.

Job 19:
25 I know that my redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Even if you feel something or someone lives 'in you', how do you know it is not only a God, but the God for which you were raised to believe in? Before you answer, I am going to disclose something for your added consideration:

External World Skepticism (E.W.S.) - No synthetic proposition can absolutely truly be known because there exists an infinite number of explanations for sense data. All synthetic propositions are necessarily tentative conclusions derived from a preponderance of empirical data and predictive models.

The fact it is the same God as I was raised to believe in is not particularly relevant to me. My comprehension of God has changed MUCH over the years.

I think I get your point with EWS, but is the external world the only source of empirical data? EWS is not particularly concerned with 'empirical' (sense data) so much as with 'external', no? But yes, I could be wrong there. Anyhow it is a little like the nature of salvific faith --it is not humanly derived. What I feel is not the evidence of the Spirit indwelling me. It is HIM. To say it is what I feel is a bit like advertising a burglar alarm as a source of the feeling of security, instead of advertising it as a source of security. But yes, the feeling of comfort and security does proceed from him, nonetheless. I just want you to know there is more than merely that.

A little off topic, but it still touches on it: I think synthetic propositions and analytic propositions meet in the person of God. 'The buck stops here'. It is not exactly that they lose meaning when one thinks of God, but that he is the source of all reality and meaning. For example, in him we find the natural world, and all things; and we find that in his mode of language, words are in fact the very thing they name.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Are you asserting that if God does not exist, or if our life is finite, there is no "meaning"?

No; though that is true enough, it wasn't my point.

I said humanity is a gaping yaw of nothingness, meaning that of ourselves we are nothing, have nothing, are worth nothing. We have nothing to offer the universe. We are incomplete beings --vessels, so to speak, tools even.

I think I already touched on this prior? There seems to be a logical reason why the majority of humans infer some overseeing agency, (like you)... We are a product of evolution. The ones who less-so used to infer intentional agency, more-so died off.

But now, as discovery and technology continues to advance, we now more-so can effectively identify those type 1 errors; and maybe no longer commit them. You know, those harmless errors us humans used to often times commit. (i.e.) Thinking there exists a god of thunder.

Sure, we still contend with the "god of the gaps" argument; which continuously seems to become smaller and smaller. However, I'd imagine this argument will never truly and completely go away.

Huh?? Evolution has people dying off who think, which? Why? How?

God of the Gap is certainly no worse than Infinite Regression of Causes of the Gap. In fact, though, it makes sense, apart from the mocking, the same way all scientific investigation is an attempt to fill in the gaps. ("Here we are, there must be a reason. We have seen that all results have causes, so we know we got here FROM some cause. Infinite Regression is mockery of reason, and nothing else makes sense, so... First Cause is our best explanation so far, and fits perfectly all that we do know.")

To some degree, yes. The puddle looks around and may also state something to the tune of:

"All things are upheld by him, but he may even be the essence of their existence, but we, unlike any other creature, were made in his image for his particular purposes."

Why would the puddle say this? Lol, no I think I get your point, and from your POV, that only assumes that existence is obvious, and wants no reason for existence, I can see you think religiots make God in their own image. Well, you are partly right --they do-- but that doesn't mean God is imagination. He is not what they imagine him to be.

 

[Tolworth John]

No-one knows

Not true. As a Christian and therefore biased, I believe that God has made himself know to people through history and that he has told us about his act of creation.

You do not belief this, if you did you would be either a Christian or actively seeking.

In saying " no one knows! " You have to consider the proposition that something did start creation.

Is the juudeochristianclaim viable?
Are other sources about a supernatural creator viable?

 

[stevil]

You do not belief this, if you did you would be either a Christian or actively seeking.

If a person believed in the Christian god and stories, but didn't like the god, didn't worship the god. Would they be a Christian?
Or perhaps they believed it all but couldn't care less about it. Would they still be Christian or actively seeking?

In saying " no one knows! " You have to consider the proposition that something did start creation.

Is the juudeochristianclaim viable?
Are other sources about a supernatural creator viable?

I'm quite happy being in a position of not knowing how the universe started. I don't lay awake at night thinking about it. Unknown is a valid option.

I don't consider there to be a shred of evidence for supernatural realms or beings.

 

[cvanwey]

@Mark Quayle Below is from the other thread, for which I kind of hijacked

As a reference, I'm going to place (what I think are your reasons for belief below):

1). You were indoctrinated to believe Jesus is your savior.
2). Repetition/comfort/geography has cemented this belief within you.
3). The ability to unfalsifiably invoke agency into your life allows you to retain your current belief with confidence.
4). Apologetic arguments - (which is there to reinforce your already existing beliefs, and to provide comfort)

If you would like to delve into these 4) reasons more, let me know?

After all these posts, I'm finally starting, (I hope), to understand what you are asking me.

There is no true belief —that is, the faith mentioned in Hebrews 1— by mere intellectual assent or intellectual comprehension. While I insist First Cause theory is a huge part of what I believe and why I believe so many other things, it is not what saved me nor what keeps me. This Faith is the work of God.

See reason 3).

I think I told you early on in my life, maybe even 6 or 7 years old —I don't remember— there was a moment when I realized I should theoretically be able to do whatever I wanted to if I rejected God, and close on the heels of that thought was the absolute realization that I was not able to do so. He was real, I couldn't even claim he was irrelevant. That has remained with me ever since. (No, that wasn't a turning point or anything —just something that was remarkable to me.) That God, the God of my young life, is, of course the same God as now, regardless of how much my beliefs have changed concerning him. (I bring this up, in part because of a question below.)

But my intellectual (and of course, my emotional and so on) reasons to believe I think, are not quite separable from my faith.

Reasons 1), 2), and 3).

This seems to me to deny the logical or instinctual knowledge of God mentioned in Romans 1. It also doesn't mention the fact of experiencing God, not through the Bible, but by conversation etc with God. While I have to admit I could be fooling myself even now, these are not type 1 (nor 2) errors, because they are not errors. As surely as I am conversing with you, though not in the same way, (maybe even more surely), I have conversed with God.

I disagree with you. I think Rom. 1 stems from this evolutionary process. Rom. 1:18-20 looks to be written through the lens of a person whom looks around them, and sees nothing but intention/purpose everywhere. In this case, the God he already believes in...

We inherently invoke intention all the time. If we do not, there is a chance we may die prematurely. A small portion of us, me included, later no longer apply such intention to specific/certain things, when we continually see "nothing" on the other side to invoke intention upon. Others, either feel they do see/feel something, like you maybe

Case/point: If I continually hear a rustle in the weeds, I may less and less so think the rustle is caused by an intentional agent, if it always ends up being the wind/other.

Maybe I can chalk up my lack in belief in God to the topic of 'divine hiddenness', who knows? Where-as, you feel God intervenes from time to time?

Thus, to touch on what you said about "fact of experiencing God"... I can go to any church, and see many 'experiencing God'. However, you will notice that this God is giving quite different and distinctive messages to differing people.

We have to ask ourselves....

1. Are all these people actually experiencing God?
2. Are only some people actually experiencing God?
3. Are none of these people actually experiencing God?

1. If this is the answer, then you must believe everyone whom states they receive messages from God.
2. If this is the answer, how do you distinguish which ones are and which ones are not? -- The ones that are not are lying, are mistaken, and/or are not representing the right characteristics, and/or other?
3. If this is the answer, it seems to make sense... Why? If I go to a Baptist church, "God" seems to communicate with it's Baptist congregation in a similar fashion, where-as, if I attend a Pentecostal church, God seems to communicate with it's congregation in a differing fashion.

This seems to tie right back to E.W.S. We have millions/billions claiming contact from God. Which ones are legit? I would also imagine that most/all actually believe they ARE communicating with God.

To taste? Not sure I follow what you are saying there. Anyhow, 'justification' is a funny word. I don't quite accept the idea of justifying anything the Bible says. My problems have never been with the Bible, but with what seems to be the way Christians behave, believe, and talk. Their worldviews have often been my pitfall, because I trusted them as knowing more than me. Through study and experience I came to see I had been misreading several parts of the Bible, and their typical parallels. The Bible always has been absolute for me. The inconsistencies then are not in the Bible, but in the people.

No, there is plenty of inconsistency in the Bible, objectively This is why you will see countless denominations. But quite frankly, it would not matter if I pointed them out, and if you even also then agreed...

Finding Bible contradiction will not sway your current belief, but will likely only reinforce your belief... (i.e.) You might simply rationalize such phenomenon in some manor. Why? Reasons 1-3 above predominantly...

Yes, the same God as when I was a young kid. But my ideas concerning him are some of them very different. For one thing, they now make sense.

I'd gather if it still did not make perfect sense to you, you would still believe. This is because of reasons 1-3.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. It sounds almost like you are simply saying where I spend my time may (or may not) tend to reinforce my beliefs. That's true enough, but does it counter anything else we have been saying?

I'm saying this is the second reason you are a believer in Jesus.

Any other god is a different cause, not first.

You know this because..?

Thus far, it sounds like you are merely asserting YHWH is 'first cause' because the author of a Book said so?

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence for what —to be proved true? That's true. But they don't need to be proven in order for them to be true. Also, one may become convinced through evidence that is not acceptable to all as evidence.

I don't expect you to believe it, but Faith of Hebrews 11 is the evidence —not even, 'stands for' or 'is an example of' or 'demonstrates' evidence, but when I have this faith, I have the evidence I needed. To say that is illogical only demonstrates you don't have the background facts believed, that the born-again believer has.

FAITH is the cause of my faith. God causes that FAITH.

Prior, you stated in post #157 "I'd say I have at least as much reason to believe what I do as anyone has to believe what they do."

I do not believe anyone has risen from a grave. You believe otherwise.

You somehow think you have just as much reason to believe one or some have risen, verses me believing none have risen?

You honestly think our conflicting beliefs share the same burden of proof, and/or reason?????

 

[Mark Quayle]

1). You were indoctrinated to believe Jesus is your savior.
2). Repetition/comfort/geography has cemented this belief within you.
3). The ability to unfalsifiably invoke agency into your life allows you to retain your current belief with confidence.
4). Apologetic arguments - (which is there to reinforce your already existing beliefs, and to provide comfort)

If you would like to delve into these 4) reasons more, let me know?

There are two kinds of believers: —One who simply believes God exists, and believes certain things about him, such as the Devil believes "and trembles". —One who has the faith that God gives; in whom the Spirit of God has taken up residence, giving him new life. It seems to me that #3, though I find your way of putting it curious, is the only one to refer to the latter. And it is to this that I credit my continued belief. Should the Spirit of God not have regenerated me —i.e. if I had not been one of those to whom God chose to show mercy— I doubt I would have remained more than Agnostic, or Deist at best. Regardless, I am sure I would have pursued a mindset that considered God irrelevant, since God would be inconvenient. I would not have been intellectually honest, though no doubt I would have considered myself to be so. The other "reasons I believe" would not of themselves do the job, though since I am a believer, they are inextricable from the Faith I have referred to as the work of God.

Maybe I can chalk up my lack in belief in God to the topic of 'divine hiddenness', who knows? Where-as, you feel God intervenes from time to time?

Not really 'from time to time'. In my way of thinking, not only does God's timelessness do away with that, but within the notions of MANY of God's logically necessary attributes, such as Divine Simplicity and Aseity, and his Immanence, it has become obvious (to me) that he upholds very fact, including all that comes to pass. (If he should 'let go', all would cease to exist; in fact, I think, all would cease to even have existed!) God is the structure and essence behind fact and reality, I say for lack of a better way of saying it.

Most Christians tend to think more of creation itself as being neutral, and God's love as toward humanity. I tend to think more about all things being upheld by God's love, perhaps his love being in fact the very physical smallest or most basic 'particle' of matter/ energy, or whatever is behind their existence. His more obvious action, or intention, that we often refer to as his love, is particularly toward his chosen (particular) people —the Church, the Body of Christ.

(Just some thoughts from 'Divine Hiddenness' and 'time to time'. Sorry)

Thus, to touch on what you said about "fact of experiencing God"... I can go to any church, and see many 'experiencing God'. However, you will notice that this God is giving quite different and distinctive messages to differing people.

Yes, I noticed that early on, and found it curious. I don't really, any longer. I used to think we were meant to have a unified approach and belief and understanding and focus and so on. But I have come to see that not only are the different members of Christ all of different kinds and mentalities, but that God is not after perfection in the common sense of the word, but uses each person (believer and non-believer, obedient and disobedient, angel or demon, and all fact, ugly or beautiful) to accomplish his plan. Those denominations, cults, churches, are intended by God, who uses "all the wrong stuff" to accomplish his work. (This is similar to how he installs the worst governments, and the best, to accomplish not what is the most socially or religiously productive societies, but the precise society that will bring about his plan, (unwittingly, of course)).

(Side note: When I was a teenager, I found it curious that when I returned to the states every 5 years (I was a missionary kid), the whole tenor of Christianity seemed to have taken on a new tone or feel/ focus, churchese speech and mindset, and to have new flashy things to talk about and to write hymns about. Haha, and not only that, but right around 4 years after having returned to 'the mission field' those same things would show up in the church in general down there!)

Anyhow, it took me a long time to realize I was no more confused about what the Bible teaches —in fact, maybe less— than most Christians, who were also trying to figure it out. I also came to realize this confusion was by design, God using Satan, and sinfulness of men, and the confusion, to bring about the precise mature believer each was intended to become, by God's choice and purpose.

Thus, to touch on what you said about "fact of experiencing God"... I can go to any church, and see many 'experiencing God'. However, you will notice that this God is giving quite different and distinctive messages to differing people.

We have to ask ourselves....

1. Are all these people actually experiencing God?
2. Are only some people actually experiencing God?
3. Are none of these people actually experiencing God?

1. If this is the answer, then you must believe everyone whom states they receive messages from God.
2. If this is the answer, how do you distinguish which ones are and which ones are not? -- The ones that are not are lying, are mistaken, and/or are not representing the right characteristics, and/or other?
3. If this is the answer, it seems to make sense... Why? If I go to a Baptist church, "God" seems to communicate with it's Baptist congregation in a similar fashion, where-as, if I attend a Pentecostal church, God seems to communicate with it's congregation in a differing fashion.

This seems to tie right back to E.W.S. We have millions/billions claiming contact from God. Which ones are legit? I would also imagine that most/all actually believe they ARE communicating with God.

Yes, some actually are. As the Bible says, there are differing gifts, and not every member can say they are of the arm, or the eye. Not only that, but like I said above, God purposely uses all the "wrong stuff" to bring about his purposes. For example, my particular set of beliefs might be way off, yet if my neighbor had not heard them, he might not have started thinking about God. I know of at least one popular evangelist, late 1970's, early 1980's, who it turns out was a bald faced liar, but people came to Christ through his activities nonetheless.

This is a bit like the way he talks to people in the Bible. We want a comprehensive description of all things, so we can decide what to do with ourselves. But he 'talks down' to our level, because that is all we can handle right now.

Throughout the Bible, we see God behaving differently at different times for different reasons to different people. God lets us get it wrong, because for some of us, that is how we are going to get it at all; but it will also be partly right.

I'd gather if it still did not make perfect sense to you, you would still believe. This is because of reasons 1-3.

Reason 3, mostly.

You know this because..?

Thus far, it sounds like you are merely asserting YHWH is 'first cause' because the author of a Book said so?

No. It just matches up, attribute by attribute.

Prior, you stated in post #157 "I'd say I have at least as much reason to believe what I do as anyone has to believe what they do."

I do not believe anyone has risen from a grave. You believe otherwise.

You somehow think you have just as much reason to believe one or some have risen, verses me believing none have risen?

You honestly think our conflicting beliefs share the same burden of proof, and/or reason?????

Not sure what you mean. Yours is a negative, "no gods". Mine is a positive claim, "yes God". Yours assumes the possibility of other explanations for existence. Mine assumes there cannot be.

My reasons for believing in the resurrection are like my Faith. I can't convince anyone, nor do I believe God will change the heart of anyone, just because they believe some fact. All I know is if Christ had not died my sins would not be forgiven, nor would life be much fun.