Why did God make Gospel so confusing?

[Erik Nelson]

Scripture makes you really think... is that really so bad?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Ok, but whose job is to make things clear to save people from what could possibly be a very bad eternity(!)? Why should it be my job to figure this out even when Calvin, Arminius, Luther, etc... have their disagreements and, as I pointed out in the OP, even Christians disagree about these things.

A relationship is a two way street, not a one way street. I think this is where atheists get confused. Christianity is not a book taught properly by learned men to a large group of students.

Jesus is the Shepard, the Teacher and the Savior - not men. He teaches us of Himself as the Reconciler of men to God... Alive, and not dead, through Him we are restored to a relationship with God.

For example if your married and you refuse to pitch in - if you just sit on the couch and refuse any effort whatsoever - it won't matter how great your spouse is, you'll end up in divorce court because any relationship takes two parties making an effort for it to work.

Once your are restored to God through Jesus you enter into what the Bible repeatedly likens to a marriage relationship with God. In this new relationship you have it's a two way street. You. and God.

Do your fellow believers teach and encourage? Of course - but it's not to interfere in that relationship, but rather it's to help foster it and cause it to grow ever deeper.

Your own salvation is as individual as it is corporeal, and your relationship with God the most intimate and personal of them all. It is your job as spouse to make an effort to seek His understanding.

In this field with many differing opinions, it's your responsibility to make an effort to know Him well enough to know which direction you should turn. And when you feel lost, run to Him... ask, seek and knock on His door.

When Jesus fought against temptation his weapons were the armor of God and so should be the armor of all believers. Ephesians 6:11-18

 

[Hazelelponi]

But he does say it's difficult for rich to enter heaven, but never says difficult for the poor.

You cannot serve God and money, etc...

If you look at Luke's version of the sermon on the mount, it's blessed are you who are poor and woe to you who are rich.

I don't think you can ignore Jesus' explicit statements where he says that it's difficult for the RICH to enter kingdom of heaven.

NIV Mark 10:
26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?”

27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”

28 Then Peter spoke up, “We have left everything to follow you!”

29 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

Notice that Peter understood that to follow Jesus one must give up everything and Jesus doesn't correct his misunderstanding. Perhaps Jesus literally wanted people to give up everything?

And if you think it's too difficult, well, that's where God comes in to help you. How will God help you? Give up everything and find out. God requires faith, right?

Of course, thank God for Paul. You don't have to follow Jesus if Paul has you covered. Salvation apart from works. Keep your riches and enter heaven.

You do have to give everything to follow Christ.

Of course, "everything" looks very different for each individual... whats your everything?

.. Its whatever keeps you from Him...

Anything that is a stumbling block for you, whether it's family or money or pride or a family members funeral (and so forth), that is what you will have to give up. No matter how seemingly small in your mind or how large, that is what will need to be removed from your life to follow Him.

For the ruler it was his wealth. What is your thing, your stumbling block?

You have one.. and I bet it's spoken of in the Bible even.

We use our intellect to examine and understand scripture and it's most certainly a positive thing Biblically "Come let us reason together".. but it doesn't stop the pride in our own intellect from having an ability to become its own stumbling block to faith "Professing to be wise they became fools"... We all have something we must come to realize isn't healthy for our eternal souls...

For the rich man it was his wealth. What is yours?

 

[BigV]

Scripture makes you really think... is that really so bad?

Yes, it makes me think it is highly unlikely that an intelligent being who wants people to have a better eternity wrote it.

Remember that according to the Bible (New Testament), God wants everyone to be saved.

According to the Bible (New Testament), God communicates through his Bible and the preachers who are using it to convert others.

So, why did God have to make it so confusing? I bet an average Christian with at least a 5th Grade education level could have done a better job of writing a clear message that would be leaps and bounds beyond what we have now.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Yes, it makes me think it is highly unlikely that an intelligent being who wants people to have a better eternity wrote it.

Remember that according to the Bible (New Testament), God wants everyone to be saved.

According to the Bible (New Testament), God communicates through his Bible and the preachers who are using it to convert others.

So, why did God have to make it so confusing? I bet an average Christian with at least a 5th Grade education level could have done a better job of writing a clear message that would be leaps and bounds beyond what we have now.

it's a jigsaw puzzle, but it all fits together if you read very carefully and pay detailed attention

it makes you think, and rewards you for your efforts

 

[miamited]

Hi NV,

Thanks for your response. I can appreciate your understanding. As the Scriptures also claim, believers were at one time unbelievers, so I can fully comprehend and understand how you understand this issue of there being a God or anything about Him.

I also appreciate your explanation as to what being an atheist means to you. I was merely using the standard dictionary definition of 'atheist', which says: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. So, I've generally used the understanding that atheism describes one who 'disbelieves'. In other words, the person has heard all of the standard apologetics and has chosen to not believe the claims made by such as those who have offered their explanations.

If I've been wrong in that understanding of your position, then I do apologize. Now, you explain it:

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in God.

Personally, I'm not sure how, if one has already heard and listened to all the apologetics; has likely read the Scriptures to some degree; draws this line of distinction that, "It's not that I don't believe, but I lack belief". However, be that as it may, if you are asked whether you believe in God, the answer would seem to be no. Now, it might be explained through some fairly drawn out explanation this idea of 'lack' of belief vs. just not believing, but it would seem that the bottom line to the simple question would be no.

Yes, true, but irrelevant to you, since you have made it clear that you have no intention of advocating for God's existence with logical arguments.

No, I'm actually fully prepared to advocate for God's existence, however, that really isn't the question being asked in this thread and so I'm trying to be somewhat responsible to the OP in not going far afield. I've actually already offered both you and the OP the opportunity to move this discussion to the 'proofs' of God's existence, but ether on a different thread or through more private IM.

You did offer in return now in this last post, to engage in one of your previous threads. I clicked over there to look and that thread is already 5 pages long and I'm not inclined to read through 5 pages of previously argued points.

Instructed by whom? The holy spirit?

You did say that I wasn't answering your questions and so I'm trying to be more thorough in looking for questions. Yes, instructed by both the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit.

And I will tell you exactly how to do that: fine tuning. Find the grand unifying theory of physics so that we can understand quantum mechanics and relativistic events with the same model, and then proceed to show that the physical constants of the universe are finely tuned and that they could have actually been "tuned" to other values that would render stellar formation to be impossible. Further, show that the process of universe creation does not occur naturally. Lastly, explain why an omnipotent being would bother fine tuning a creation instead of sustaining it as a matter of will.

Oddly enough, of all the people who have come to faith in the God of the Scriptures, I don't think you'll find a one that will agree that your understanding of what needed to be explained to them, was actually what was explained to them. You're really not any different than any of them. You are obviously a very knowledgeable person and so you believe that great knowledge is required for you to come to faith in God. The truth is that isn't how it generally works. In fact, I personally don't know of a single believer through whom I could confirm this idea that they needed great knowledge of metaphysical ideas and processes.

My understsanding, and what I find is the most effective way of instructing one in the things of God, is to use the Scriptures. That's what we find in basically all of the new covenant conversions written for us in the Acts of the Apostles. God's word says that He will be found by anyone who earnestly and diligently seeks for Him.

There is, of course, a fairly large crowd of men and women who won't. God knows this. He's written about the lack of faith among mankind and even given us accounts of how even His own people lacked sincere faith in Him. However, He is a merciful and compassionate God and He has proclaimed that it is His will that everyone come to faith in Him through His Son, Jesus.

But that's a terrible argument. Of course if I were miraculously healed by Jesus then I would believe in him.

So, it's not good enough for you that someone else might be miraculously healed by Jesus. It has to be you. If that's not the case, why do you discount the written accouint of Jesus standing by a tomb and calling a dead man back to life? Surely, you would agree that bringing a dead man back to life is a 'miraculous' healing?

What exactly do you think the universe would look like if there were no God?

Well, there simply wouldn't be a universe if there was no God. There wouldn't be an earth. There wouldn't be a single star in all of the heavens. There would be no sun or moon. This realm would simply just not exist...if there were no God. You or me, our consciousness would have never come to be. Our parents, nor their parents nor any parents would have ever had sexual relations so that children could then grow up to be adult men such as you and I are...if there were not God.

You ignored my counterpoints and questions because you assumed the status of my heart?

Perhaps you can show me the error in my understanding of your heart, as it relates to the knowledge and understanding of God, but I think you were pretty clear in your own explanation of it.

The offer is always open if you're interested.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Mathetes66]

Yes, it makes me think it is highly unlikely that an intelligent being who wants people to have a better eternity wrote it. Remember that according to the Bible (NT), God wants everyone to be saved. According to the Bible (NT), God communicates through his Bible & the preachers who are using it to convert others. So, why did God have to make it so confusing? I bet an average Christian with at least a 5th Grade education level could have done a better job of writing a clear message that would be leaps & bounds beyond what we have now.

As I have said before, God is not the author of confusion, man is. Even a small child can understand the simple gospel message & be saved. That has been going on since the beginning of mankind. Today over three billion people consider themselves Christians, so that confusion didn't last.

Yet, people can distort the message of the gospel, whether intentionally or not. That also has been going on for thousands of years. That is why, for example, the Creeds were formulated from the Scriptures to clarify & summarize much of the heretical teachings that were going on by Gnosticism, Arianism, Modalism, Nicolaitans, Marcionism, etc.

And most Christians will admit that some things in the Scriptures are hard to understand. I can readily admit that. As a finite human being, I am trying to comprehend an invisible, infinite eternal Being; not always easy.

St. Jerome (Eusebius Hieronymus), born 347 (Stridon, Dalmatia)—died 420 (Bethlehem, Palestine)--was a Bible translator, fluent in Biblical languages. He was traditionally regarded as the most learned of the Latin Fathers. He lived for a time as a hermit, became a priest, served as secretary to Pope Damascus I & about 389 established a monastery at Bethlehem. His numerous biblical, ascetical, monastic & theological works profoundly influenced the early Middle Ages. He came in contact with many of the learned Christian & Jewish teachers & theologians of his day. I have always liked his comment concerning understanding the Bible:

“The Scriptures are shallow enough for a babe to come & drink without fear of drowning & deep enough for theologians to swim in without ever touching the bottom."

Many things over the years have been clarified for me, as I simply daily walk by faith in my relationship with the Lord & grow to be more like Him in my thinking, feelings, actions & character.

It doesn't make it hard or confusing to be saved UNLESS--certain things need to occur.

#1: It is impossible to know & please God without faith that He exists, although He is not far from any of us. (please read Acts 17:18-34--skeptics were existing back then, too)

Hebrews 11:1-3,6 Faith assures us of things we expect & convinces us of the existence & evidence of things we cannot see. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that the visible has its origin in the invisible. And without faith it is impossible to please God. Anyone who wants to come to God must believe that He exists & that He rewards those who sincerely seek him.

I became convinced that God existed as a freshman in high school, when i got lost hunting on the last day of the season. I ended up 20 miles by road from where I started & the sun was going down. I did one of those desperation prayers, "Oh God, I am lost & have no idea where I am. If you are there, please send someone to the end of this road to help me."

He did--even though I wasn't a Christian or was sincerely seeking Him. Someone came five minutes later. I told him I was lost & where I needed to go. He told me that was 20 miles away by road!

But he said he would take me there, to try & find my father. It got dark. We looked but no dad. He was running low on fuel & would have to travel almost 15 miles out of the hills to get gas. We met my dad coming up as we were going down.

I couldn't help but ask him why he'd come down the road I was on. He said he & his son were already headed home, down out of the hills, as it was the season's last day--but suddenly a strong urge & compulsion came over him to turn around & go back to the canyon I was in to 'look one more time.' He couldn't shake it so he turned around & went back up & there I was.

The other thing that was highly unusual: no other person or vehicle was seen during this whole time. Even while we traveled, no headlights were seen in the hills anywhere. He was the last person up there, at that time beside dad & I. Coincidences?

But pondering on what happened in that event showed me several things. This invisible God who I did not know, heard my desperate cry for help & caused a compassionate man leaving the hills to turn around & come back to that exact road I was on, to help me, when no one else was anywhere around. This showed me that this invisible God did exist & that He cared enough for me to orchestrate all these things to help me.

From that point on I didn't doubt God's existence & started to sincerely seek Him. But it wasn't until almost three years later that I finally repented of my sins & going my own way & crying out to the Lord Jesus Christ to save me, forgive me of my sins & chose to follow Him & go His way.He did & its been an adventure walking by faith with Jesus now for 49 years. I just call myself a disciple & follower of the Lord Jesus Christ & a Biblicist. I don't focus on the other labels, even though many want to try & pigeonhole someone with a label, rather than getting to know them as a person.

#2 Once someone recognizes God exists, He will reward them if they sincerely seek after Him, to find Him & know Him. That is why Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables, finding out who was sincere enough to come to Him & understand.

Nicodemus did. (see his journey to finally following Christ in John 3:1-18; 7:50; 19:38-40)
Zaccheus did. (see his journey of repentance, faith & salvation in Luke 19:1-10)

The Samaritan women at the well & her neighbors in Sychar did.
{even though the custom of the time was that Jews & Samaritans had no dealings with each other} (see their journey to faith in the Messiah & Savior of the world in John 4:1-42)

Thomas, one of Jesus' 12 disciples did! (see his journey from disbelief to belief in Christ rising from the dead, in John 20:19-31)

The man born blind did, when Jesus healed him. He even taught the simple truths of the gospel to the religious leaders who scorned him. Some of the worst offenders who oppose the gospel are not atheists but supposedly religious people. Jesus had His most scathing remarks concerning them--Matthew 23 (see the blind man's journey in John 9:1-41)

Mahatma Gandhi, though not a Christian, was so impressed by Jesus' Sermon on the Mount that he carried a copy of it with him until his death. He drew the attention of the world to the noble message of the Sermon on the Mount. He reiterated its relevance for the peaceful living of humanity. Moreover, he has practically shown its application, especially its teaching on non-violence to the public affairs of life.

He said in his autobiography: "The New Testament (NT) produced a different impression, especially the Sermon on the Mount which went straight to my heart...it delighted me beyond measure" & "gave me comfort & boundless joy." (The Message of Jesus Christ (Mumbai: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1998), 50,51; An Autobiography, 63)

Although he was selective in his focus, primarily on the NT, he did often quote from it. He called himself 'the Sermon on the Mount Christian.' Gandhi revered the Bible as a sacred book & approached it like a devout Christian, saying: "I consider it as part of my scriptures." (The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, 58:98; 13:220)

He saw the sacredness of the Bible but he didn't always see Christians living it out, like he thought they should be doing. Some Christians he called 'good' others not.

I have learned from people like that & sought to focus more on what Jesus taught & the truth found there rather than focusing on people & their varied viewpoints. I remember buying two autobiographical books on Christian missionaries, to be encouraged by their example of faith in the Lord.

Both had varying differences in their application of the gospel message. I wasn't even focused on that. The person selling them pointed out to me their varying viewpoints, 'labeling' each one. I just looked at him & said that wasn't my concern. I may learn the basic tenets of the 'labels' just to know what I am talking about, but that has not been my concern. Loving the Lord with my whole being & loving my neighbor as myself has been a lifelong focus.

 

[BigV]

it's a jigsaw puzzle, but it all fits together if you read very carefully and pay detailed attention

it makes you think, and rewards you for your efforts

No it doesn't not. Genealogies of Jesus are another jigsaw puzzle, among dozens if not hundreds of others. Good luck reconciling them and staying a believer.

That's how Atheists are made.

 

[BigV]

As I have said before, God is not the author of confusion, man is.

Please review the OP. There was a discussion among Christians as to what the Gospel is. God is absolutely the author of confusion because his book is the thing that is causing confusion, among Christians even!

 

[Mathetes66]

Please review the OP. There was a discussion among Christians as to what the Gospel is. God is absolutely the author of confusion because his book is the thing that is causing confusion, among Christians even!

It is self-evident: a book does not cause confusion; it is inanimate; people's view & interpretation of it does.

 

[BigV]

It is self-evident: a book does not cause confusion; it is inanimate; people's view & interpretation of it does.

Information in the book is not clear and causes confusion for people who want to follow it.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Yes, it makes me think it is highly unlikely that an intelligent being who wants people to have a better eternity wrote it.

Remember that according to the Bible (New Testament), God wants everyone to be saved.

According to the Bible (New Testament), God communicates through his Bible and the preachers who are using it to convert others.

So, why did God have to make it so confusing? I bet an average Christian with at least a 5th Grade education level could have done a better job of writing a clear message that would be leaps and bounds beyond what we have now.

According to Jesus, it's so that the proud and arrogant folks won't see, and won't repent.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hi NV,

Thanks for your response. I can appreciate your understanding. As the Scriptures also claim, believers were at one time unbelievers, so I can fully comprehend and understand how you understand this issue of there being a God or anything about Him.

I also appreciate your explanation as to what being an atheist means to you. I was merely using the standard dictionary definition of 'atheist', which says: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

An atheist either lacks belief in a God or believes there is no god. In other words, an atheist either is saying, "I am not convinced there is a god" or "I am convinced there is no god." You seem to think that all atheists fit in the latter category. That simply isn't true.

Most atheists will not claim that no god exists because they know they can't defend such a claim. But they're still not convinced that a god exists, so they are not theists, and hence they are atheists.

Matt Dillahunty has made the following analogy:

Suppose you're looking at a gumball machine and the person next to you speculates that there is an odd number of gumballs in the machine. You tell him that you're not convinced. He then says you're claiming there is an even number of gumballs in the machine. But you're not doing that either. You're just not convinced. And you're not making any actual claim. You're just critiquing others who make a wild guess.

So, I've generally used the understanding that atheism describes one who 'disbelieves'.

Why?

Just because religious people tend to claim to have certain knowledge of things they can't possibly know, that doesn't mean atheists do the same thing.

In other words, the person has heard all of the standard apologetics and has chosen to not believe the claims made by such as those who have offered their explanations.

I don't know what that even means. I'm unable to choose to believe anything. Can you choose to believe that China doesn't exist? My beliefs are an involuntary response to information.

If I've been wrong in that understanding of your position, then I do apologize. Now, you explain it:
Personally, I'm not sure how, if one has already heard and listened to all the apologetics; has likely read the Scriptures to some degree; draws this line of distinction that, "It's not that I don't believe, but I lack belief".

Not believing and lacking belief are the same thing. Hopefully the gumball analogy cleared that up.

Yes, I've read the entire Protestant Bible. All 66 books. I've seen all the apologetics. What argument have you found convincing? You can make a thread on it.

However, be that as it may, if you are asked whether you believe in God, the answer would seem to be no.

Correct, the answer would be no. But that does not mean I believe he does not exist. Do you see the distinction?

Now, it might be explained through some fairly drawn out explanation this idea of 'lack' of belief vs. just not believing, but it would seem that the bottom line to the simple question would be no.

Again, there is no difference between lacking belief and not believing.

No, I'm actually fully prepared to advocate for God's existence, however, that really isn't the question being asked in this thread and so I'm trying to be somewhat responsible to the OP in not going far afield. I've actually already offered both you and the OP the opportunity to move this discussion to the 'proofs' of God's existence, but ether on a different thread or through more private IM.

Proof is the wrong word, but sure, start up a new thread and let's see what you got.

You did offer in return now in this last post, to engage in one of your previous threads. I clicked over there to look and that thread is already 5 pages long and I'm not inclined to read through 5 pages of previously argued points.

You just needed to read the OP to get my counter-apologetics on prophecy before we get into Daniel.

You did say that I wasn't answering your questions and so I'm trying to be more thorough in looking for questions. Yes, instructed by both the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit.



Oddly enough, of all the people who have come to faith in the God of the Scriptures, I don't think you'll find a one that will agree that your understanding of what needed to be explained to them, was actually what was explained to them. You're really not any different than any of them.

The world is changing. The internet has been implemented on such a scale that nearly every human being in a developed country has the ability to find any information they need for free in a matter of seconds. This free exchange of ideas has begun to erode Christianity.

You are obviously a very knowledgeable person and so you believe that great knowledge is required for you to come to faith in God. The truth is that isn't how it generally works. In fact, I personally don't know of a single believer through whom I could confirm this idea that they needed great knowledge of metaphysical ideas and processes.

Most people aren't persuaded by arguements to believe in God. Most people are indoctrinated into it from childhood.

My understsanding, and what I find is the most effective way of instructing one in the things of God, is to use the Scriptures. That's what we find in basically all of the new covenant conversions written for us in the Acts of the Apostles. God's word says that He will be found by anyone who earnestly and diligently seeks for Him.

You're putting the cart before the horse. I believe you said yourself that you need to start with showing that a god of some kind exists first, and then show it is the Christian God.

There is, of course, a fairly large crowd of men and women who won't. God knows this. He's written about the lack of faith among mankind and even given us accounts of how even His own people lacked sincere faith in Him. However, He is a merciful and compassionate God and He has proclaimed that it is His will that everyone come to faith in Him through His Son, Jesus.

And this takes us to divine hiddenness. Why can't God just make it clear to us who he is?

All of the angels obviously know who God is, and yet apparently a third of them rejected God. Many characters of the Bible did the same. So there is no good reason we shouldn't have full knowledge of God's existence and then make an informed choice on whether to accept or reject him.

So, it's not good enough for you that someone else might be miraculously healed by Jesus. It has to be you. If that's not the case, why do you discount the written accouint of Jesus standing by a tomb and calling a dead man back to life? Surely, you would agree that bringing a dead man back to life is a 'miraculous' healing?

I didn't say it has to be me. I said if it happened to me then of course I'd believe. That implies it would be sufficient, but says nothing of necessity. Sheesh, stop saddling with claims I'm not making!

Well, there simply wouldn't be a universe if there was no God. There wouldn't be an earth. There wouldn't be a single star in all of the heavens. There would be no sun or moon. This realm would simply just not exist...if there were no God. You or me, our consciousness would have never come to be. Our parents, nor their parents nor any parents would have ever had sexual relations so that children could then grow up to be adult men such as you and I are...if there were not God.

And how exactly do you know this?

Without God, you assume there is nothing. But absolute nothingness means that the rule, "From nothing, nothing comes" itself does not exist. In a state of nothingness, there are absolutely no rules and so for all we know anything could happen.

Further, your assumption that nothing exists apart from God is just an assumption. Based on nothing. You assume that God can't not exist, and then you assume that matter can't exist apart from God. Totally unwarranted assumptions, based on nothing, assumed merely to funnel you to the conclusion you prefer.

Lastly, I've never been told what God did. Nothing exists. God does X. Then things exist. What is X? Speaking creation into existence? How? Why does that work? It's literally abracadabra: "As I speak, so it is." It explains nothing.

I'll put it like this. To do something via causality, you have to act on something. What did God act on? He couldn't act on nothingness itself because nothingness is not a thing. He could not act on the universe when nothing exists. Did he act on himself? That would mean we are all God. Christians affirm this sometimes, but I remind them that it is quite blasphemous and I reject it as a legitimate Christian explanation.

Your answer to all of this will probably be an "I don't know" and that's ok. It's good to be honest. But keep in mind that "God did it" fails to be an explanation if you can't actually explain how God did it. Ultimately, you don't explain anything more than atheists do, so your proposition that God exists is extraneous.

Perhaps you can show me the error in my understanding of your heart,

The error is that you made a wild guess instead of just asking me. As God is described in the Bible, he looks just as villainous as Jesus looks heroic.

as it relates to the knowledge and understanding of God, but I think you were pretty clear in your own explanation of it.

The offer is always open if you're interested.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Yes, I'm taking you up on the offer. Not on the private messages, but on a new thread where you present your arguements. Public sharing of information is always better than private conversations!

 

[miamited]

According to Jesus, it's so that the proud and arrogant folks won't see, and won't repent.

Hi jimmy,

Ever seeing, yet not believing. Ever hearing, but not understanding.

Yes, you are correct, Jesus did warn that the message would be confusing to some. That alone should cause those who claim to have no understanding, of such a simple message, to consider 'why' that might be.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi NV,

Thanks once again for your response:

An atheist either lacks belief in a God or believes there is no god. In other words, an atheist either is saying, "I am not convinced there is a god" or "I am convinced there is no god." You seem to think that all atheists fit in the latter category. That simply isn't true.

As I stated before, I don't grasp the fine line of difference that you are attempting to show exists here. I am not convinced there is a God, is just someone who doesn't believe in God, but seems to leave open that maybe one day they could be persuaded. The truth of such a testimony is that at the time the question is asked, they don't believe in God. You are certainly free to allow that distinction, but hopefully, with careful introspection, you will come to see that it really isn't there. There is no distinction between someone's heart towards God, whether they are not convinced that there is a God...or they are convinced that there is no God.

Suppose you're looking at a gumball machine and the person next to you speculates that there is an odd number of gumballs in the machine. You tell him that you're not convinced. He then says you're claiming there is an even number of gumballs in the machine. But you're not doing that either.

That becomes an illogical comparison when it is stated that the person next to you takes the position that you are claiming that there is an even number of gumballs, when you say that there is an odd number and they claim not to be convinced. But, you are free to allow that distinction and I'm not going to address the nuances of that distinction any longer. I think I've said what I can say and I don't think we really need to be arguing the definition of 'atheist'.

Let me just cut to the chase. Yes or no? Do you believe in God? Whether your belief is based on your not having been convinced that there is a God or you have convinced yourself that there is no God...do you believe in God? If your answer, if you're willing to answer the direct question, is no, then you would fit with the basic definition of an 'atheist'. One who does not believe in God. Which is my definition of an 'atheist' also.

Correct, the answer would be no. But that does not mean I believe he does not exist. Do you see the distinction?

No. If you want to discuss confusing issues, your statement would be one. How anyone can believe that saying no, to the question of believing in God, or the existence of God, and then say, "...but that does not mean I believe he does not exist." Is just far too existential for me.

The world is changing. The internet has been implemented on such a scale that nearly every human being in a developed country has the ability to find any information they need for free in a matter of seconds. This free exchange of ideas has begun to erode Christianity.

Yes, and that is also explained through the Scriptures. I fully believe, and am prepared to see, that belief in God becomes less and less as we march inexorably to the last days. I think this is exactly what Paul is telling us in his opening of his letter to the Roman believers 2,000 years ago. Also in his writing to Timothy. Paul clearly tells Timothy that a time is coming, (it wasn't there yet in Paul's day) when men will not put up with sound doctrine, but will surround themselves with those who will tell their itching ears what they want to hear. Also in his letter to the Romans he explains that a the wrath of God is being revealed...although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.

Now, you likely don't see those as prophetic words that explain to the believer that we should pretty clearly expect to be a smaller minority as time marches on. However, I see those words, and others found in the Scriptures as pretty clearly explaining to me, that when someone says, "Look how far christianity has fallen", I know that they are correct that it has fallen and I fully agree that it has fallen, but I see a different outcome to that falling number of believers than you do.

You believe that at some point out there in the future this belief in a God will no longer exist, or at least have a minimal number of hangers on. Much like those who still propose the flat earth position today. I, on the other hand, expect to see that and know that it is one of the signs that the Scriptures tell us to look for. However, I fully understand that you're not likely in agreement with that position and that's ok.

I just wanted to put it out there that this idea that the internet or fine college educations or the work of science in 'opening' our eyes to the 'truth' that there is no God, is actually an expected reality, according to the very word of the one that is claimed to not exist. Over 2,000 years ago God has told His children that these things are coming.

Further, your assumption that nothing exists apart from God is just an assumption. Based on nothing. You assume that God can't not exist, and then you assume that matter can't exist apart from God. Totally unwarranted assumptions, based on nothing, assumed merely to funnel you to the conclusion you prefer.

No, that again is based on God's word.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Although I am less than the least of all the Lord’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the boundless riches of Christ, and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,
And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it,

So, no, my argument is not based on nothing.

Yes, I'm taking you up on the offer. Not on the private messages, but on a new thread where you present your arguements. Public sharing of information is always better than private conversations!

Yes, but it also opens the discussion up to a lot of interruptions. But, if that's your choice, I don't have a problem with it. I would ask though that we stick strictly with the issue of discussion brought up in the OP. Rabbit chases, digressions, tend to get concentration and thought processes muddied.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[BigV]

According to Jesus, it's so that the proud and arrogant folks won't see, and won't repent.

and yet, this same Jesus wants everyone (!) to be saved.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

and yet, this same Jesus wants everyone (!) to be saved.

I wouldn't expect you to understand.

 

[BigV]

I wouldn't expect you to understand.

Yep, it's beyond understanding.

 

[Erik Nelson]

No it doesn't not. Genealogies of Jesus are another jigsaw puzzle, among dozens if not hundreds of others. Good luck reconciling them and staying a believer.

That's how Atheists are made.

One emphasizes kingly descent (through Solomon) and is abbreviated (42 = 14x3 generations long), the other priestly prophetic descent (through Nathan) and is [more] complete (77 = 11x7 generations long)

Luke claims to have written an "orderly account" to clarify previous narratives, plausibly his is [more] accurate

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hi NV,

Thanks once again for your response:


As I stated before, I don't grasp the fine line of difference that you are attempting to show exists here. I am not convinced there is a God, is just someone who doesn't believe in God, but seems to leave open that maybe one day they could be persuaded. The truth of such a testimony is that at the time the question is asked, they don't believe in God. You are certainly free to allow that distinction, but hopefully, with careful introspection, you will come to see that it really isn't there. There is no distinction between someone's heart towards God, whether they are not convinced that there is a God...or they are convinced that there is no God.

That becomes an illogical comparison when it is stated that the person next to you takes the position that you are claiming that there is an even number of gumballs, when you say that there is an odd number and they claim not to be convinced. But, you are free to allow that distinction and I'm not going to address the nuances of that distinction any longer. I think I've said what I can say and I don't think we really need to be arguing the definition of 'atheist'.

Frankly I'm terrified that you don't understand this because you are presumably eligible for jury duty. What I'm saying is the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty." Those are not the same.

Let me just cut to the chase. Yes or no? Do you believe in God? Whether your belief is based on your not having been convinced that there is a God or you have convinced yourself that there is no God...do you believe in God? If your answer, if you're willing to answer the direct question, is no, then you would fit with the basic definition of an 'atheist'. One who does not believe in God. Which is my definition of an 'atheist' also.

Obviously I don't believe that God exists. However, I don't believe that God doesn't exist. You need to be less clumsy in your internal monologue and it will ne more clear.

No. If you want to discuss confusing issues, your statement would be one. How anyone can believe that saying no, to the question of believing in God, or the existence of God, and then say, "...but that does not mean I believe he does not exist." Is just far too existential for me.

Ok... let's try this one more time.

You're a detective. You are at a murder scene. You interview the husband of the murder victim. At this point it's too early to tell if he is the murderer. There currently isn't enough evidence to say either way. You're not claiming that he did it and you're not claiming that he didn't do it. You lack a belief that he did it. You're not convinced by the evidence that he is guilty. That does not mean you are claiming he is innocent.

Yes, and that is also explained through the Scriptures. I fully believe, and am prepared to see, that belief in God becomes less and less as we march inexorably to the last days. I think this is exactly what Paul is telling us in his opening of his letter to the Roman believers 2,000 years ago. Also in his writing to Timothy. Paul clearly tells Timothy that a time is coming, (it wasn't there yet in Paul's day) when men will not put up with sound doctrine, but will surround themselves with those who will tell their itching ears what they want to hear. Also in his letter to the Romans he explains that a the wrath of God is being revealed...although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.

If I had foreknowledge that the internet would cause many Christians to lose their faith, I wouldn't word it anything like that. At all.

Now, you likely don't see those as prophetic words that explain to the believer that we should pretty clearly expect to be a smaller minority as time marches on.

Correct.

However, I see those words, and others found in the Scriptures as pretty clearly explaining to me, that when someone says, "Look how far christianity has fallen", I know that they are correct that it has fallen and I fully agree that it has fallen, but I see a different outcome to that falling number of believers than you do.

Ok.

You believe that at some point out there in the future this belief in a God will no longer exist, or at least have a minimal number of hangers on. Much like those who still propose the flat earth position today. I, on the other hand, expect to see that and know that it is one of the signs that the Scriptures tell us to look for. However, I fully understand that you're not likely in agreement with that position and that's ok.

I just wanted to put it out there that this idea that the internet or fine college educations or the work of science in 'opening' our eyes to the 'truth' that there is no God,

Please, stop it. No one is "opening our eyes to the truth that there is no God." We don't believe there is a god, but that doesn't mean we believe god doesn't exist. Knuckle down and get with this. It's not difficult. It's simple words meaning simple things.

is actually an expected reality, according to the very word of the one that is claimed to not exist. Over 2,000 years ago God has told His children that these things are coming.



No, that again is based on God's word.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Although I am less than the least of all the Lord’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the boundless riches of Christ, and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,
And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it,

So, no, my argument is not based on nothing.

Again, prophecy in the Bible does not work that way.

Yes, but it also opens the discussion up to a lot of interruptions. But, if that's your choice, I don't have a problem with it. I would ask though that we stick strictly with the issue of discussion brought up in the OP. Rabbit chases, digressions, tend to get concentration and thought processes muddied.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

There's no OP for us to stick to when you told us at the door that you came here in bad faith and have no intention in engaging in apologetics. There's no discussion to be had with you on the OP.