Yes, but what if we are not wrong?

[bhsmte]

Also, could you tell me any reasons why would you prefer to believe in any other God than the Biblical one? I find Him to be the more reliable One. I think almost all the atheists have a strong bias against the Bible and God.

That bias you speak of, may be as simple as this; a person can not reconcile the biblical God as being real and they have a real hard time pretending that he is.

Would you want people to pretend they believe something when they truly don't?

And, one could make the case, the people who do believe in the biblical God, have a strong personal bias to do so.

 

[RDKirk]

To circle it back around to your own analogy ... that person who is oppressed in that nation, wanting to be part of the "free nation" they see and understand through the consulate ... from the above perspective, once the "change" occurs, they go from being a citizen of an oppressed country, to a citizen of the free nation automatically. Even though their position hasn't changed, their citizenship status has now changed. They may still be discomforted in their environment, but they are now a citizen of another place, regardless of where they are standing.

Sticking with the analogy: No. The "change" doesn't occur unless and until they can get through the gates of the Free Nation Consulate and accept asylum. The Free Nation Consulate may take note of them, however, for when the Free Nation actually invades and occupies the land (See: Rahab).

But remember, we're actually talking about people who can't even get a glimpse of the Free Nation Consulate and aren't even aware that the Free Nation exists.

All they know is that they're discomfited where they are, but they don't necessarily know that their answer is not in what they already have. Often they will think, "I just need to do this thing more faithfully." That's what the apostle Paul had been doing.

 

[TillICollapse]

Sticking with the analogy: No. The "change" doesn't occur unless and until they can get through the gates of the Free Nation Consulate and accept asylum. The Free Nation Consulate may take note of them, however, for when the Free Nation actually invades and occupies the land (See: Rahab).

But remember, we're actually talking about people who can't even get a glimpse of the Free Nation Consulate and aren't even aware that the Free Nation exists.

All they know is that they're discomfited where they are, but they don't necessarily know that their answer is not in what they already have. Often they will think, "I just need to do this thing more faithfully." That's what the apostle Paul had been doing.

Maybe I'm getting lost between you and the other poster concerning what your analogy is specifically addressing now.

In my original reply, I was referencing the "called out" and the "turning to the only light they have" from the stuff-they-knew-in-their-heart comments of Graham, and whether or not that necessarily meant they changed "belief systems".

In the first presentation of your analogy, I equated the man in the repressive nation who was completely ignorant of any possible type of free nation that may exist, yet still has a yearning in his heart to be free which he couldn't really express ... as being the heart-state Graham was referencing. His discomfort and unease is from the dissonance between the state he is in, verses the state he yearns to experience but has no means of doing so.

At first, I didn't totally get that this man had no consulate in his region whatsoever. The way you presented the analogy, or the way I read it perhaps, made it seem like he did in fact have the consulate in his area. I think I see you are now saying that he never did in your analogy. Perhaps I misunderstood that part. Regardless ...

Where as you mark the presence of the consulate as being the equivalent of the Body of Christ (that's what I gather from your original presentation) and that the Body of Christ IS the free nation, the consulate that offers asylum, and without that presence then the person will not only NOT have asylum, but they won't even know of the existence of freedom in the first place apart from that yearning which they can't identify ... is this what you're saying with the analogy ? ... if so, either way, I'm not equating the consulate with the Body of Christ. I'm equating the consulate with the "light", in the context of Graham's statements.

Once that person "turns to the light", that is the equivalent of seeing the consulate there and seeing the freedom. They may still not have words for it, but they see it. This is where I was saying that I didn't equate this with Graham saying that they must necessarily leave a belief system and enter another. I don't see where Graham addressed that one way or another. If you are equating the "light" with the Body of Christ ... I don't see where Graham says they need to actually SEE the Body of Christ first either. He spoke of being called out, state of the heart, light, etc.

As it regards my own lengthy post about possible perspectives on the change a person may or may not go through once that light is shown, I was equating that with Graham's mention of the "turning to the light" and being called out as well. That would be when the consulate is known to them. In that case, if there is a potential for change, it's one of citizenship from that perspective ... perhaps even by birth if you want to use the term "born again", which wouldn't necessarily have to do with that person leaving their current country, walking through the consulate, entering into the other side, etc. IOW, it wouldn't necessarily have to do with them leaving one belief system, joining some religious group, changing their mind on issues. It's a matter of "spirit". That is, if you consider Graham's comments from a certain perspective of course and use them in that context.

I thought I knew initially what parts your analogy you were equating with what, but now I'm not sure specifically, as I can't tell if you're still referring to Graham's comments (which I am referring to) or a mix of your own perspective crossed with the one I just laid out there. Something may be lost in translation there unfortunately ... keep in mind I was originally referring to both Graham's and another poster's lol

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Also, could you tell me any reasons why would you prefer to believe in any other God than the Biblical one?

Because the words impulsive, genocidal, and authoritarian don't even begin to describe him.

I find Him to be the more reliable One.

So long as he doesn't punish you by killing your son. Or killing you for something your father did. Or turning you to salt. Or firebombing your city. Or Destroying your civilization by FORCING you to harden your heart. Or Sending 42 Bears to maul probably one of your kids. or-

I think almost all the atheists have a strong bias against the Bible and God.

Or condemning eating shellfish. Or setting up Adam and Eve. Or damning you for your thoughts. Or blaming you for actions of an ancestor over 60 centuries ago. Or brutally torturing himself as a sacrifice to himself to save humanity from himself. Or creating evil to make himself look good. Or condemning you for your thoughts. Or denouncing other people's religions. Or not respecting free will. Or-

(GKG died while compiling this list. It was too long)

 

[Wryetui]

Or condemning eating shellfish. Or setting up Adam and Eve. Or damning you for your thoughts. Or blaming you for actions of an ancestor over 60 centuries ago. Or brutally torturing himself as a sacrifice to himself to save humanity from himself. Or creating evil to make himself look good. Or condemning you for your thoughts. Or denouncing other people's religions. Or not respecting free will. Or-

(GKG died while compiling this list. It was too long)

1. He didn't wanted His chosen people to eat shellfish because He wanted them to diferenciate from the other people's, to prepare themselves for the coming of the Christ and to be clean and pure, not mixing with the pagan tribes.

2. If you have thoughts that will damage other people why wouldn't Him? After all, He created us, I see everything that He does to us good, even if it seems bad, because we are His sons, He has the authority over us as a father has over his sons.

3. Could you provide the Bible verse for this so we can study it and see if you are right?

4. That's not the way it is seen in Eastern Orthodoxy. In the Orthodox theology, Christ is not seen as a scapegoat where all the sins of humanity as been put into and He payed what we had to pay. The way it is viewed in my faith is like this: Adam sinned, make all the humanity sin once with him. The bond between man and God broke, and God, seeing that we cannot re-create it by our own means came here to fix our human nature. What happened? Christ had a divine nature since the beginning, only a divine nature. For Him to come here in our world needed to take a human nature, and He took it, from the Theotokos aka Virgin Mary, what happened? When His divine nature and the human nature given to Him by His Mother met in Christ Himself, our human nature healed and recovered from what it was, damaged by sin, now through Christ it healed. And He passed through all the stages of life, from birth, to childhood, to adollescence and adulthood fixing all the stages of our life, and when He died, He broke the gates of Hades and conquered and won over death forever, destroying it. So we can become partakes of His divine nature again.

5. God did not create evil. We created evil. Although, you are an atheist, you don't believe evil exists. What is evil? An earthquake killin a thousand kids? No, that's just bad luck and earth moving. In order for you to define evil you need to use the christian morality so you are saying that christian morality is good, or to use your own morality and then I would say that since it is your own morality then it's your personal opinion.

6. If there is only one God then there is only one religion, that's it, why would Him let other people adore false idols? That would lead to nothing.

7. He respects free will. Since you are here not believing in Him and you are not dead or He didn't change your mind magicaly, you are having free will. He even let people spit on Him, beat Him and kill Him without saying a word, don't you see how much He respected your free will?

 

[BL2KTN]

1. He didn't wanted His chosen people to eat shellfish because He wanted them to diferenciate from the other people's, to prepare themselves for the coming of the Christ and to be clean and pure, not mixing with the pagan tribes.

It doesn't say that in the bible. Is this fanfiction?

5. God did not create evil. We created evil.

I thought you already agreed Yahweh made the snake and put it in the garden knowing what it would do (evil)?

6. If there is only one God then there is only one religion, that's it, why would Him let other people adore false idols? That would lead to nothing.

So which is the one God? Yahweh, Yeshua, or the Pneuma?

7. He respects free will. Since you are here not believing in Him and you are not dead or He didn't change your mind magicaly, you are having free will. He even let people spit on Him, beat Him and kill Him without saying a word, don't you see how much He respected your free will?

If Yahweh knows the future, then Yahweh knows what he will absolutely do from here on out. How can Yahweh have free will if he already knows exactly what he will do forever?

 

[Wryetui]

It doesn't say that in the bible. Is this fanfiction?



I thought you already agreed Yahweh made the snake and put it in the garden knowing what it would do (evil)?



So which is the one God? Yahweh, Yeshua, or the Pneuma?



If Yahweh knows the future, then Yahweh knows what he will absolutely do from here on out. How can Yahweh have free will if he already knows exactly what he will do forever?

You don't understand the Holy Trinity. It's ok, I don't expect you to understand it. There is only ONE God, but divided into three persons (every rational subject is a person), three persons sharing the SAME divine nature, with no differences between them. We know that God knows what WE will do, we don't know about Him or how He acts.

 

[bhsmte]

we don't know about Him or how He acts.

If this is true, how do you know he knows what you will do?

And, it sure seems that you have made statements before, that infer you do know about him and how he acts.

 

[agua]

RDKirk


For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

You have to squint really hard not to see that as a "suggestion."

Sorry Rd; but these words from Paul simply suggest that the Greeks didn't know who the True God is, and that he would show them who Yahweh is. I think you've started with your conclusion and formed the premise.

 

[agua]

God is said by the Stoics to have plans and intentions, so I think that the answer is roughly yes. It's difficult to say for sure because I don't know how the Stoics understand the psychology of God. I don't know if they think that God has anything like a human personality, though God is certainly reasoning.

Cool thanks !

Okay, then you don't think as the Stoics do on that issue. For more information, you may consult the following link:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/stoicmind/


eudaimonia,

Mark

No I defrinitely don't think like the stoics concerning the soul, or several other doctrines. There are some similarities with Christianity though when we look at the move towards holiness ( goodness/altruism in their view ). Many mainstream Christian doctrines are bastardised mixtures of Greek and Biblical philosophies, which is why we have the immortal soul concept in Christianity. It isn't Biblical.

A soul is nephesh. ie. a living breathing creature, not a spirit or a ghost etc.

 

[agua]

agua, I'm still waiting for the reasoning behind your assignment of P=1.0 to Yahweh's existence. Given that P=1.0 equates to absolute certainty, what reason do you have to be absolutely certain of this claim's truth?

Oh hello again Archaeopteryx. I'll need for you to demonstrate to me that you have acknowledged some of my previous anmswers to the same questions, before I indulge you further.

1. How have I said that Yahweh reveals himself to all humans.
2. How have I said this method of revelation demonstrates Yahweh exists.
3. How have I said that a human begins and progresses in the search for Yahweh.

These 3 basic questions should be easy for you to answe ( since i've given you the answwers several times ), and if you do I'll proceed with you.

If not.....knock knock

 

[ananda]

You don't understand the Holy Trinity. It's ok, I don't expect you to understand it. There is only ONE God, but divided into three persons (every rational subject is a person), three persons sharing the SAME divine nature, with no differences between them. We know that God knows what WE will do, we don't know about Him or how He acts.

Apart from what others have told you, have you known this God for yourself, directly?

 

[agua]

Searching for the One True God eventually leads you to YHWH, so the Christian God, there are no other worthy gods to serve but Him, you can't compare Him with the other gods, invention of man.

Hear hear !

 

[agua]

I am not referring to ethnicity and assumed you knew that. So you are saying, a person that follows the Jewish faith who believes Jesus is God is still following the Jewish faith?

I clarified this point in the last post. No the Jew nust leave Judaism and enter the Body of Christ ie. the Church.

Well, I have met a lot of Christians, who do not appear to be following God, but that is another matter.

Yes this is why Billy applied the called out concept also to Christianity. It's a very relevant point to this discussion.

So tell me, do you have examples of people of a non Christian religion or non believers, who believe Jesus was God? If so, how can they reconcile being of another religion, or a non believer, if they believe Jesus was God?

The person from another faith must leave that believe system ( be called out ) to enter the Body of Christ. This is a simple concept.

.

That was my point, I was not referring to ethnicity, I was referring to their religious faith.

So, back to my original question:

In your opinion, can a person who does not believe Jesus was God, have the opportunity to be saved by God? Yes, or no?

Yes. There have been many peoplpe who didn't know who Jesus is, who are saved by their faith in the One True God.ie. the Blood of Christ saves all followers of Yahweh, even those who don't know Jesus. This is the same method OT Saints were saved, including true belkievers outside of Israel. The same concept applies today.

To be clear, a person cannot worship a different god than Yahweh, ( eg. Vishnu, Allah, Zeus etc ) and be saved.

 

[agua]

Asserting that you know Graham's intentions doesn't mean that you do. I still don't get why you are content to assert something you haven't clarified as though it were fact. And "Biblical Christianity" is again vague and subject to interpretation.

Billy's statements are ratified by the Bible. I don't need to assume what he means.

 

[agua]

Completely agree.

Would you agree, that if a God exists, he likely has characteristics?

Would you also agree, that basic Christian theology, applies characteristics to this God?

And since you stated what you did above, it appears you feel, any characteristics applied to a God, is speculation?

Yahweh's characteristics are revealed by His actions, and through the representations of His people. This is why He called out a people for his name, initially the Israelite, and consequently the Church. Of course amid both these groups are false believers who misrepresent Yahweh, and fallible humans who sin and make mistakes.

 

[TillICollapse]

Billy's statements are ratified by the Bible. I don't need to assume what he means.

Another cop out imo, a red herring.

I get that people make assumptions. What I don't get is when they accept their assumptions are facts which they don't even need to validate, or they appeal to something ambiguous in order to validate them.

Here, tell me the true meaning of this:

Obviously it's subject to interpretation.

Even using an example from scripture, if we go to the beginning of Genesis, we find Adam and Eve and the serpent pointing to "God's word," claiming to know what it means, appealing to each other and their ability to observe, sense, conclude, etc. They don't seek to clarify.

Please explain to me, how the believer who continually points to the Bible, be they words of Yahweh or not ... isn't doing the same thing that Adam and Eve did with Yahweh's words. How are they not doing the very same thing that Adam and Eve were doing ? Pointing to Yahweh's words, written by human beings, claiming to know the true interpretation, no need to clarify or validate with Yahweh directly, etc and so forth.

 

[BL2KTN]

You don't understand the Holy Trinity. It's ok, I don't expect you to understand it. There is only ONE God, but divided into three persons (every rational subject is a person), three persons sharing the SAME divine nature, with no differences between them. We know that God knows what WE will do, we don't know about Him or how He acts.

Three persons equals three gods. You can title their team whatever you'd like. Hinduism makes the same claim about their gods being the manifestation of one, yet we know they're polytheistic. Christianity doesn't get a free pass. And my degree in biblical studies says I do know something about the Trinity concept.

Why did Yahweh let the snake in the garden?

 

[BL2KTN]

Yahweh's characteristics are revealed by His actions, and through the representations of His people. This is why He called out a people for his name, initially the Israelite, and consequently the Church. Of course amid both these groups are false believers who misrepresent Yahweh, and fallible humans who sin and make mistakes.

Isreal means "may El persevere", not Yahweh.

 

[Wryetui]

Three persons equals three gods. You can title their team whatever you'd like. Hinduism makes the same claim about their gods being the manifestation of one, yet we know they're polytheistic. Christianity doesn't get a free pass. And my degree in biblical studies says I do know something about the Trinity concept.

Why did Yahweh let the snake in the garden?

So Christianity was in severe ignorance this entire two thousand years until you came to illuminate us with your truth. Just because you don't understand it it doesn't mean it is not as it is. God is not a triad as the hindu or the egyptian ones, God is a trinity, to your knowledge, look here Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia!

God letting the snake (Satan) into the garden was a very good gift given by us, as ironical as it sounds, because it allowed us to know God by our own efforts, by not having an automat relationship with Him, but because we seek that relationship. God knew what would happen, God knew everything, but He knew that, after all, He was doing was good, only that way we could have earned a relationship and a TRUE communion with God.

For you and for all the atheists blaming God because of letting the snake in, I recommand you to read the romanian fairy tale "Harap Alb" by Ioan Creanga so you can understand why it was very necessary that Adam had to be tempted by the snake: Harap Alb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In Romania no one has a problem with God letting Adam being tempted by the snake because of this book we read as little kids explaining it to us in a childish manner.

Anyway, His ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts, loving God means you have to love Him by every thing He does, either you consider it bad or "evil" or good and give glory to His name even in the worst moments of your life, as Job says.