Anyone who seeks God, whether they've heard the gospel of Jesus or not, is "pleasant" in God's sight. ANYONE. Salvation is by grace, to anyone who wants it, whether they fully know what they're doing or not.



Would that include people of non-Christian beliefs?

Would primitive man who worshiped a mountain be considered to be seeking God?


(I've moved the above question from Christianity since I believe it applies to religion in general, and I hope to avoid sectarian arguments such as "My God is the only true God" since such arguments are well-known.)

Anyone who seeks God, whether they've heard the gospel of Jesus or not, is "pleasant" in God's sight. ANYONE. Salvation is by grace, to anyone who wants it, whether they fully know what they're doing or not.



Would that include people of non-Christian beliefs?

Would primitive man who worshiped a mountain be considered to be seeking God?


(I've moved the above question from Christianity since I believe it applies to religion in general, and I hope to avoid sectarian arguments such as "My God is the only true God" since such arguments are well-known.)

You say the argument " my God is the only true God" are well know, but all you are stating is a matter of opinion, just as such a statement is a matter of opinion unless backed up. In the case of christianity and judaism such statments are backed up by scripture, but in a religion such as hinduism, which has many gods? such an argument cannot be well known, so scripture says salvation comes only by Jesus, and buddhism acknowledges no god therefore the argument cannot be said to be well known. nor can it be said to be well known in a secular society such as China. If half of humanity don't know then the statement can only be said to be known among those who acknowledge it

You say the argument " my God is the only true God" are well know, but all you are stating is a matter of opinion, just as such a statement is a matter of opinion unless backed up. In the case of christianity and judaism such statments are backed up by scripture, but in a religion such as hinduism, which has many gods? such an argument cannot be well known, so scripture says salvation comes only by Jesus, and buddhism acknowledges no god therefore the argument cannot be said to be well known. nor can it be said to be well known in a secular society such as China. If half of humanity don't know then the statement can only be said to be known among those who acknowledge it


Whew! I had to read that twice to get it. If your objection is that the phrase "My God is the only true God" is NOT well-known, then that's ok with me. What I was trying to avoid was individuals declaring that their belief is the only correct belief in lieu of a discussion about the statement in bold.

What I was hoping to understand was whether the statement in bold would apply to the two statements I made below it. To help, you might want to go back to Christianity to see how the discussion began.

In any case, thank you for your reply.

Anyone who seeks God, whether they've heard the gospel of Jesus or not, is "pleasant" in God's sight. ANYONE. Salvation is by grace, to anyone who wants it, whether they fully know what they're doing or not.
If every morning Shachi prays to Ganesha for a successful day that includes her giving love to others, is she "pleasant" in God's eyes?

If every morning Shachi prays to Ganesha for a successful day that includes her giving love to others, is she "pleasant" in God's eyes?

In my opinion - yes.

But dwashbur is the author of the statement (I just copied it from him) so I hope he will give his two cents on your question. Based on his answer in the other topic thread in Christianity, I would say yes for him. But I don't want to put words on his keyboard.

This afternoon I got into a lively Facebook messaging discussion with an atheist about God.

JM: Even you have to admit religion has caused more pain, death, and misery than anything else has. Nothing ever changes. One day god and jesus will be abandoned just like Zeus and Apollo. You don't think the Greeks believed in their gods just as much as you do yours?

WG: Yes, man has always sought a higher power. Humans want someone bigger than themselves to thank or blame because they can't thank or blame themselves.

My thoughts reverted to our AMHD discussion about someone being "pleasant" in God's eyes. Was Zeus just a different name for God for the Greeks? Was Jupiter another name for God for the Romans? Is Brahma another name for God? Is the Great Spirit another name for God? Thus, are the believers in those religions "pleasant" in the Christian God's eyes?

My thoughts reverted to our AMHD discussion about someone being "pleasant" in God's eyes.

It's the "pleasant in God's eyes" from Dwashbur that I find intriguing. I expect him to comment on the statement re salvation sometime later.

Hi Athos,
Thanks for asking. I can answer you best by setting out a sermon I heard once. The basic points, based on Romans chapters 1-3.

1. Everyone knows something about God. 1:20 says certain things about God can be known from nature, such as God as creator and sustainer.

2. Some know a bit more about God. Chapter 2 says the Hebrew nation was given God's law, and they were supposed to be a light for YHWH among the other nations. (Didn't exactly work out that way.)

3. Some know a lot about God. Chapter 3 sets out the culmination of God's revelation of him/herself in Jesus. Those of us who know about that know a good bit about God.

Conclusion: in every case, people have to act on the knowledge that they have. We have (or are supposed to have) a little God gene inside us called a conscience. When that gene switches on and says "Worshiping that mountain is kind of lame, isn't it? Wouldn't it be better to try and find out who or what put the mountain here and see if I can get in touch with him/her/it? I don't know who or what you are, but you've gotta be bigger than this mountain, so I want to give you my loyalty."

That person is "pleasing in God's eyes." They may or may not ever get any more information. There are stories, I have a feeling they're apocryphal, of someone doing that, and before long missionaries arrive to tell them about Jesus. Whether that happens or not, if that person is sincere in their desire to know the ultimate creator, they won't be turned away when their time comes to stand before said creator.

Then it's time to drop the other shoe: those of us who do know about Jesus and the fullness of God's revelation have an even greater obligation to act on what we know, both in sharing it with others, and in living it. And since we have all this light of knowledge, our judgment is going to be a lot stricter than that of the guy who just walked up to the mountain, looked at it and said, "This is just a big rock. How'd it get here?" and begins his quest for truth.

Not a time to be arrogant about being a Christian. The hammer comes down much harder on us, so humility is called for. We have much for which to answer.

Major thanks to Lee Hahnlen for that sermon. He preached it in 1979 and I can still quote much of it word for word. It thoroughly revamped my thinking on this topic.

On Facebook today on an ELCA (progressive Lutheran) group I belong to, I saw this comment:

>There are many names for God. We call our grandparents "grampa", "poppa", "granny", "nana".....all the same people with different labels. Why people don't get that is mind boggling......and another divisive tool over which wars have happened.<

And that reminded me of a book I read years ago, about missionaries who came to the American Southwest and found indigenous tribes who worshipped the SUN of God, the sun being the most visible proxy of the divine and the progenitor of all life and matter. The sun was the “soul of the world,” signifying immortality, every morning being resurrected after “dying” or setting the previous day. The missionaries deftly rolled those beliefs into teaching the tribes about the SON of God.

Hi Athos,
Thanks for asking. I can answer you best by setting out a sermon I heard once. The basic points, based on Romans chapters 1-3.

1. Everyone knows something about God. 1:20 says certain things about God can be known from nature, such as God as creator and sustainer.

2. Some know a bit more about God. Chapter 2 says the Hebrew nation was given God's law, and they were supposed to be a light for YHWH among the other nations. (Didn't exactly work out that way.)

3. Some know a lot about God. Chapter 3 sets out the culmination of God's revelation of him/herself in Jesus. Those of us who know about that know a good bit about God.

Conclusion: in every case, people have to act on the knowledge that they have. We have (or are supposed to have) a little God gene inside us called a conscience. When that gene switches on and says "Worshiping that mountain is kind of lame, isn't it? Wouldn't it be better to try and find out who or what put the mountain here and see if I can get in touch with him/her/it? I don't know who or what you are, but you've gotta be bigger than this mountain, so I want to give you my loyalty."

That person is "pleasing in God's eyes." They may or may not ever get any more information. ...... if that person is sincere in their desire to know the ultimate creator, they won't be turned away when their time comes to stand before said creator.

Thanks Dwashbur for responding and especially for your conclusion. Here's your original comment.


Anyone who seeks God, whether they've heard the gospel of Jesus or not, is "pleasant" in God's sight. ANYONE. Salvation is by grace, to anyone who wants it, whether they fully know what they're doing or not.

I asked: Would that include people of non-Christian beliefs?

Would primitive man who worshiped a mountain be considered to be seeking God?


Based on your three points and your conclusion, the answer to my questions is YES!

I have always believed the gospel Of Jesus is not required for salvation. And that salvation includes all who seek God. Would that members of all religions believed likewise.

Whoa, let's not overtranslate me. I didn't say the guy who worships the mountain can be considered seeking God. I said the guy who isn't satisfied with the mountain and wants to know if there's something more is the one who's seeking God.

Just to clarify.

Whoa, let's not overtranslate me. I didn't say the guy who worships the mountain can be considered seeking God. I said the guy who isn't satisfied with the mountain and wants to know if there's something more is the one who's seeking God.

Just to clarify.

The guy worshiping the mountain must have had a similar motivation to the later guy re seeking God, (why else worship the mountain in the first place?), so I'll have to disagree on that one. But I won't quibble. It's a small disagreement.

The much more important issue is concerning non-Christians and their salvation. Not requiring belief in the gospel of Jesus for salvation is critical to the core meaning of Christianity as it relates to other religions seeking God. This issue did not need to be clarified.

Not requiring belief in the gospel of Jesus for salvation is critical to the core meaning of Christianity as it relates to other religions seeking God.I don't see at all how that can fit into the Bible. There are any number of scriptures which directly contradict that idea. It is interesting that in this discussion, there has been virtually no quoting of scripture. I wonder why?

Another issue to consider. When Peter went to see Cornelius, who was certainly seeking God in a serious way, he did not say that Cornelius was already in good standing with God and just needed a little more information. He concluded his message by saying, "All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” At all times in the NT people are pointed to Jesus, and not to some assortment of alternatives.


"I said the guy who isn't satisfied with the mountain and wants to know if there's something more is the one who's seeking God.”That seems to be a fair statement. There is still, however, the question of whether or not the act of seeking God is sufficient in and of itself. There is also the problem of Romans 3 where Paul states that no one is seeking for God. The key point is that God is seeking us, and not so much the other way around.

The key point is that God is seeking us, and not so much the other way around.
Reminds me of the long-time-ago bumper stickers, "I found God!" Our pastor told us, "No, God found ME."

In light of that, isn't God's love all encompassing enough to include even those who don't know Him but who show love to others and live an unselfish life?

In light of that, isn't God's love all encompassing enough to include even those who don't know Him but who show love to others and live an unselfish life?There is God's love, and there is also God's justice. I love the passage in Romans 3 where those two concepts are combined so that God might be the one who justifies (makes righteous and forgiven) and yet also demonstrates Himself as being just (correct in justice).

25 (https://biblehub.com/romans/3-25.htm)God presented Him as the atoning sacrificei (https://biblehub.com/bsb/romans/3.htm#fn) through faith in His blood, in order to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance He had passed over the sins committed beforehand. He did this to demonstrate His righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and to justify the one who has faith in Jesus.


Reminds me of the long-time-ago bumper stickers, "I found God!" Our pastor told us, "No, God found ME."
Give him my compliments!

There is God's love, and there is also God's justice. I love the passage in Romans 3 where those two concepts are combined so that God might be the one who justifies (makes righteous and forgiven) and yet also demonstrates Himself as being just (correct in justice).
Then what about all the mentally handicapped and mentally ill people who don't have the wherewithal to understand and believe? Does God find them too?


Give him my compliments!
I wish I could. He was an amazing man!
https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sanantonio/obituary.aspx?pid=162085295

Then what about all the mentally handicapped and mentally ill people who don't have the wherewithal to understand and believe? Does God find them too?I'm not sure how much "wherewithal" it takes to seize the name of Jesus and believe, but your point is well taken. Still, I am not so much swayed by questions as I am by Scripture. That is what you have failed to bring in.

The Romans 3 passage I quoted is very powerful and is at the core of Paul's argument in Romans.

In light of that, isn't God's love all encompassing enough to include even those who don't know Him but who show love to others and live an unselfish life?

Of course it is, WG.

The majesty of the Creator can never be contained in a series of books no matter how instructive and faithful they are. Placing the Bible ahead of God treads dangerously on violating the First Commandment.

When you speak the simple truth about God, which you have done above, no book in the world is able to second guess you. To be challenged to defend your position by “quoting Scripture” is a fool's errand.

This is not to say the Bible is not a good book. I would never say that. It is invaluable in learning about Christianity and the man of the Gospels Jesus Christ.

Having a conscience, the "little God gene" in Dwashbur's phrase, is the beginning of a true understanding of God.

Like Jesus said to Mary, "You have chosen the better part".

When you speak the simple truth about God, which you have done above, no book in the world is able to second guess you. To be challenged to defend your position by “quoting Scripture” is a fool's errand.A simple example of a person elevating their own personal opinion above the Bible. It is equivalent to saying that the Bible is correct insofar as it agrees with me. So a person can say, "Like Jesus said to Mary, 'You have chosen the better part,'" and consider it be accurate because it agrees with his/her preconceived notions. But when the same Jesus said, " if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins," then that cannot be allowed since, after all, it does not agree with what that person has already concluded to be true. So Athos is basically saying that WG is right in her view since she agrees with his view. Stunning.


This is not to say the Bible is not a good book. I would never say that. It is invaluable in learning about Christianity and the man of the Gospels Jesus Christ.This statement cannot be reconciled with the statement above. If it is invaluable in learning about Christianity, then why wouldn't we believe what it says?

The problem is this. If I claim to be speaking the "simple truth" about God, then I have to ask where this simple truth came from. If it came from somewhere in me, then what authority can I claim to have? People all around the world have various ideas about God which they consider to be the simple truth. Some of them will kill you in defense of that truth. Who's to say they are wrong if all of this is nothing more than a contest of opinions arrived at by what we contend is the voice of our conscience?

The truth always comes out sooner or later. Here it is, sadly I think, for Athos. "...no book in the world is able to second guess you." There would seem to be no other way to take that than to conclude that he considers his views to be king over the Bible. Perhaps he merely crafted his beliefs inartfully which led to wrong conclusions. I am certainly open to correction in this regard.

At least it would now seem apparent why some here do not refer to Scripture in their arguments.

Placing the Bible ahead of God treads dangerously on violating the First Commandment.Thought about this one later today. We cannot place the Bible ahead of God lest we violate the first commandment. Now where do we find said commandment? Isn't it in the Bible? So if we place the Bible ahead of God, we are violating a commandment of the Bible. But wouldn't saying we must not violate the first commandment be elevating that commandment to the level of the Word of God? And isn't that what you are saying we are not to do? And what if my conscience tells me that violating the first commandment is actually OK? Should I then obey my conscience rather than the first commandment lest I elevate the Bible above God? After all, "...no book in the world is able to second guess you."

Athos,

The guy worshiping the mountain must have had a similar motivation to the later guy re seeking God, (why else worship the mountain in the first place?), so I'll have to disagree on that one. But I won't quibble. It's a small disagreement.

I'm not sure I follow the first sentence. Why worship the mountain or anything? Because of that God gene I mentioned is my reply :)
Seriously, in every age since we crawled out of the ooze, humans have felt a need to seek something higher or bigger or beyond themselves. It's as if we know instinctively that there's something or someone out there who made us and we want to know about it and know IT. It's been built into us since the first human, or so it seems from written, oral, and fossil records. It's like there's a big hole in us and we're desperately seeking something to fill it with.
I call that that God gene. If you can expand that first sentence a bit for me...

If we deny the authority of scripture concerning salvation, or any other spiritual thing for that matter, then we create a subjective version of Christianity.

If we start with the subjective version of Christianity, then how can we have an objective argument concerning the nature of Christianity?

If we are not speaking on Christianity, but of salvation of a different nature, then define your terms so we can consider those things.

the authority of scripture concerning salvation
Whose version of scripture?

If we start with the subjective version of Christianity, then how can we have an objective argument concerning the nature of Christianity?
What's a subjective version of Christianity?

define your terms
First, define yours above.

Whose version of scripture?Not really a valid question. Pick practically any translation you want.


What's a subjective version of Chtistianity?It happens anytime a person suggests that no book in existence is able to judge a person's opinion about God. And you misspelled Christianity. 8D


First, define yours above.
Unsurprising. Evasive.


If we deny the authority of scripture concerning salvation, or any other spiritual thing for that matter, then we create a subjective version of Christianity.Exactly correct, Info.

Not really a valid question. Pick practically any translation you want.
And then the correct interpretation....

It happens anytime a person suggests that no book in existence is able to judge a person's opinion about God. And you misspelled Christianity. 8D
I'm still waiting for your possessive correction.

Unsurprising. Evasive.
i wasn't asking you.

And then the correct interpretation....And on and on it goes.


I'm still waiting for your possessive correction.Obamas'


i wasn't asking you.It doesn't matter. He asked you a pretty simple question and you responded with...a question.

Obamas'
YAY! Took you long enough!


It doesn't matter. He asked you a pretty simple question and you responded with...a question.
It wasn't a simple question.

It wasn't a simple question.
It wasn't??? He asked, "...define your terms." Three words asking you to define two terms. Not sure how much more simple it can get than that.

It wasn't??? He asked, "...define your terms." Three words asking you to define two terms. Not sure how much more simple it can get than that.
A subjective version of Christianity is the version that belongs only to me (i.e., the individual).

If we deny the authority of scripture concerning salvation, or any other spiritual thing for that matter, then we create a subjective version of Christianity.

If we start with the subjective version of Christianity, then how can we have an objective argument concerning the nature of Christianity?

If we are not speaking on Christianity, but of salvation of a different nature, then define your terms so we can consider those things.

It's good to define terms. Let's start with subjective and objective.

Subjective - based on opinion, belief, emotions personal judgement.
Objective - based on analysis, fact-based, measurable and observable.

Scripture, Christianity and other like systems, are clearly subjective.

To answer your question of how can we have an objective argument concerning the nature of Christianity, we can't.

If we deny the authority of the biblical text we have, then we have no basis for Christianity at all. It's that simple.

If your are actually concerned with the version, then I advise you to do the research concerning the history of the texts we have, and choose for yourself which scriptures are of import.

The debate surrounding the translations and the accuracy of the original manuscripts is nul in this context. Nearly all of the content of the Bible is self referencing and accurate as far back as we can historically judge.

The real controversies are around the literary styles deduced by those who study such things, however pose no evidences that they are so, more rather presuppositions about multiple authors.

If you deny the authority of the Bible, then you fabricate your own christ and your own god. You leave the realm of righteousness and truth in the hands of man. Pick your version and I'll be happy to pick it apart with you. Saying that there are versions, and thus no objective truth is a futile errand that cannot be debated. If the same standard applied to all of history and all of objective knowledge then few things if any would stand.

Athos,I'm not sure I follow the first sentence. Why worship the mountain or anything? Because of that God gene I mentioned is my reply :)
Seriously, in every age since we crawled out of the ooze, humans have felt a need to seek something higher or bigger or beyond themselves. It's as if we know instinctively that there's something or someone out there who made us and we want to know about it and know IT. It's been built into us since the first human, or so it seems from written, oral, and fossil records. It's like there's a big hole in us and we're desperately seeking something to fill it with.
I call that that God gene. If you can expand that first sentence a bit for me...

Thomas Merton wrote, “Man is prey to a need, the need to adore”.


The first worshiper is the man “coming out of the ooze” and he sees this magnificent mountain (or anything else impressive to the primitive mind) and, like the later worshiper, he attributes certain qualities to it. We can call this attribution “spirit” or “God”. In fact, Shintoism continues this idea in modern times.

I'm not sure what you're not understanding. Both guys are god-seekers, one is a bit more evolved than the other. It may be many generations before either one would even use the word "God" - a word (notion) that comes relatively late in human development.

If we deny the authority of the biblical text we have, then we have no basis for Christianity at all. It's that simple.

If you deny the authority of the Bible, then you fabricate your own christ and your own god. You leave the realm of righteousness and truth in the hands of man. Pick your version and I'll be happy to pick it apart with you. Saying that there are versions, and thus no objective truth is a futile errand that cannot be debated. If the same standard applied to all of history and all of objective knowledge then few things if any would stand.Exactly correct.


The first worshiper is the man “coming out of the ooze” and he sees this magnificent mountain (or anything else impressive to the primitive mind) and, like the later worshiper, he attributes certain qualities to it. We can call this attribution “spirit” or “God”. In fact, Shintoism continues this idea in modern times.Pure, pure conjecture. There is not one ounce of evidence anywhere to support that contention, and that aside from the fact that the most ardent advocate of evolution on the earth does not think that man came, "out of the ooze."

Should the utter lack of evidence be surprising? No.

Exactly correct.

Exactly incorrect!


Pure, pure conjecture. There is not one ounce of evidence anywhere to support that contention

Plenty of evidence abounds. See the Japanese religion called Shinto. That's evidence.


...the most ardent advocate of evolution on the earth does not think that man came, "out of the ooze."

"Out of the ooze" was a reference that Dwashbur made in a previous post on a subject the two of us were discussing. The phrase is an excellent one, a wonderfully colorful expression of humanity's origins.

You should look before you leap.

Plenty of evidence abounds. See the Japanese religion called Shinto. That's evidence.So you believe the Shinto religion, but do not accept what the Bible says? Well, at least you have made your choice. And if the Shinto religion is the best "evidence" you have, then plenty of evidence absolutely does not abound. I find that when someone assures me that, "Plenty of evidence abounds," and then offers up some weak as water explanation like the Shinto religion, then they basically have nothing.


The phrase is an excellent one, a wonderfully colorful expression of humanity's origins.
Perhaps it is to you. No evolutionist would agree with that. The Bible does not agree with that. But there is always the Shinto religion!!


You should look before you leap.Who needs to look now?

So you believe the Shinto religion, but do not accept what the Bible says? Well, at least you have made your choice. And if the Shinto religion is the best "evidence" you have, then plenty of evidence absolutely does not abound. I find that when someone assures me that, "Plenty of evidence abounds," and then offers up some weak as water explanation like the Shinto religion, then they basically have nothing.
You certainly know how to spin a person's words! And you didn't look it up, did you! *sigh* Where oh where is your kami?

How did I spin his words?

How did I spin his words?

So you believe the Shinto religion, but do not accept what the Bible says? Well, at least you have made your choice. And if the Shinto religion is the best "evidence" you have, then plenty of evidence absolutely does not abound.

Thank you so much for merely copying my words. If you didn't know how to answer the question, why not just say so?

Thank you so much for merely copying my words. If you didn't know how to answer the question, why not just say so?
THAT was your spin!!! Read the bolded part especially.

Okay. In plain English, your "question" throws out your assumption that he believes the Shinto religion and does not accept what the Bible says. (The Shinto religion has interesting parallels to Christianity, btw.)

Well, why wouldn't I believe that? He stated above that the Shinto religion was evidence sufficient to support his previously stated theory. Wouldn't that suggest that he believes it? And he has repeatedly cast doubt on the accuracy of the Bible, so why wouldn't I draw the conclusion that he holds the Shinto religion in higher regard than the Bible? Go back and read my comments in post 19 (which have not yet been replied to) to see his view of the Bible, especially the part about him trying to suggest the Bible is "invaluable" in understanding Christianity just after telling you that no book in the world can judge your views. What do you think?

Well, why wouldn't I believe that? He stated above that the Shinto religion was evidence sufficient to support his previously stated theory. Wouldn't that suggest that he believes it?
No. And I said a lot of Shinto has interesting parallels to Christianity. Does that mean I'm a Shinto believer?


And he has repeatedly cast doubt on the accuracy of the Bible
No, he hasn't.

especially the part about him trying to suggest the Bible is "invaluable" in understanding Christianity just after telling you that no book in the world can judge your views. What do you think?
Understanding and judging are two different things.

So you are genuinely asking me to believe that a man would present the Shinto religion as evidence supporting a position when all the while he doesn't believe it? That's pretty preposterous.


Understanding and judging are two different things.So now you're suggesting that the Bible can be invaluable in helping me understand Christianity, but then it can't be used to correct (judge) what I believe? Come on. You're being silly.


No, he hasn't.Really? Then how would you characterize this?


Subjective - based on opinion, belief, emotions personal judgement.
Objective - based on analysis, fact-based, measurable and observable.

Scripture, Christianity and other like systems, are clearly subjective.

To answer your question of how can we have an objective argument concerning the nature of Christianity, we can't

So if scripture is based on opinion, belief, emotions, and personal judgment, in what possible manner can it be considered accurate and authoritative? Come on, WG. You're smarter than that. I know it's your reflexive approach to automatically disagree with any POV that might appear conservative, but that is leading you into ever higher weeds here.

So you are genuinely asking me to believe that a man would present the Shinto religion as evidence supporting a position when all the while he doesn't believe it? That's pretty preposterous.
Yep! Believe it, O ye of little faith!


So now you're suggesting that the Bible can be invaluable in helping me understand Christianity, but then it can't be used to correct (judge) what I believe? Come on. You're being silly.
Always, always the putdown. I'm really getting used to them and would miss them if you didn't add them any longer.

Really? Then how would you characterize this?
So scripture is based on opinion, belief, emotions, and personal judgment, in what possible manner can it be considered accurate and authoritative?
You and I don't understand the Bible in the same way. So who's right?

Yep! Believe it, O ye of little faith!I would have to be stupid to believe that since it's plainly contradictory. It is not a matter of faith at all but simple logic. "Your honor, I would like to present this as evidence to support my case." "OK, but WG, do you believe your evidence is true." "No sir, I don't believe it is true." How far do you think that would take you? Come on.


Always, always the putdown.As is oftentimes the case, no answer.


You and I don't understand the Bible in the same way. So who's right?And again, no real answer.

I don't want to discuss this with you. No offense intended, but you're too evasive and frequently unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion. I'm out until that changes.

So you are genuinely asking me to believe that a man would present the Shinto religion as evidence supporting a position when all the while he doesn't believe it? That's pretty preposterous.
He has given no reason for us to think he's an adherent of the Shinto religion. And if he is, so what???

So now you're suggesting that the Bible can be invaluable in helping me understand Christianity, but then it can't be used to correct (judge) what I believe? Come on. You're being silly.
Understand Christianity -- but not if you read only the Bible. The judging comes from inside you.

I'll take one more stab at it.
The judging comes from inside you.

How would that not take us to a place where everyone gets to have their own, personal version of Christianity? You might say Jesus lived a sinless life while I might say he had an affair with Mary Magdalene. There would be no way to establish truth if the judging comes from the inside.

There has to be an authoritative source of truth where we understand that no matter how I feel on the inside, this is what is true. If there is not, then we have nothing to proclaim other than personal opinion, and that would be completely worthless. There is room for disagreement on the peripherals, but on the core truths of the faith there is no place for "inner judging". Different translations of the Bible have no impact here. Personal tastes matter none at all. Political ideologies carry no weight. Conservative/liberal have nothing to add. The only concern is, "It is written".

Subjective - based on opinion, belief, emotions personal judgement.
Objective - based on analysis, fact-based, measurable and observable.

Scripture, Christianity and other like systems, are clearly subjective.

To answer your question of how can we have an objective argument concerning the nature of Christianity, we can't.We are being asked to accept, as objective truth, that the Bible itself is not objective truth. Why is that so? Because, insofar as can be seen from the quoted passage, Athos says so. That strikes me as asking a lot. The Bible, having weathered the storms of criticism for centuries, must be rejected as merely subjective, but the statement of Athos, on the basis of no evidence at all, should be considered objective?

How would that not take us to a place where everyone gets to have their own, personal version of Christianity? You might say Jesus lived a sinless life while I might say he had an affair with Mary Magdalene. There would be no way to establish truth if the judging comes from the inside.
In order to establish truth, one does not depend on one source, or, in your example, one person. In order to find the truth, dig into a multiplicity of sources (e.g., concordances, earlier texts) and their discussions about a topic. The "judging" as you call it would occur after all source material has been examined.

from Merriam-Webster:
Definition of judge (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transitive)
1: to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/premise#h1)


There has to be an authoritative source of truth where we understand that no matter how I feel on the inside, this is what is true. If there is not, then we have nothing to proclaim other than personal opinion, and that would be completely worthless. There is room for disagreement on the peripherals, but on the core truths of the faith there is no place for "inner judging". Different translations of the Bible have no impact here. Personal tastes matter none at all. Political ideologies carry no weight. Conservative/liberal have nothing to add. The only concern is, "It is written".

So Bible research is worthless? We must accept what is written? (in the RSV? the Vulgate? the NIV?)

So Bible research is worthless? We must accept what is written? (in the RSV? the Vulgate? the NIV?)Give me an example of how any major doctrine is affected by which generally accepted translation is used.


In order to find the truth, dig into a multiplicity of sources (e.g., concordances, earlier texts) and their discussions about a topic. The "judging" as you call it would occur after all source material has been examined.Fine. Look in the concordance all you want, or in whatever earlier text you want. Give me an example of how using a concordance changes any major Christian doctrine, or how looking into an earlier text of scripture changes one.

If by "judging" you mean to draw a conclusion based upon careful examination of the Bible, then we can have a discussion, but that completely blows away any silly contention that no book on the earth has the authority to judge your inward beliefs, or how a request to support a belief by scripture is a "fool's errand".

I do appreciate the serious approach. It is refreshing.

We are being asked to accept, as objective truth, that the Bible itself is not objective truth. Why is that so? Because, insofar as can be seen from the quoted passage, Athos says so. That strikes me as asking a lot. The Bible, having weathered the storms of criticism for centuries, must be rejected as merely subjective, but the statement of Athos, on the basis of no evidence at all, should be considered objective?

Being advised my name was mentioned here, I'm jumping in.

Based on infojunkie's challenge of objective v subjective truth, the Bible is clearly subjective. It DEFINES subjective. As I undserstand Jlisenbe's objection, it consists in his statement, "It is written".

Not to put words in J 's mouth, I presume he means written by God. That belief is fine and held by millions, but it is NOT objective truth. IT is a belief which is the defining basis of subjectivity. There is not a single proof of the claim being objectively true. I welcome any proof from anyone. Let me head you off at the pass - a statement that the Bible is true BECAUSE the Bible says it is true, is NOT proof. I hope I don't have to explain that to anyone.

As far as my "belief" in Shinto, WG has answered that sufficiently. I'm surprised that jlisenbe understood that so badly as to make his claim about Shinto.

Finally, I see that Jlisenbe has yet to reply to my long answer to a post of his that he says I haven't yet replied to. I replied several hours ago (in fact, yesterday) and it is Jlisenbe who has refused to reply. To be crystal clear, I even titled it "Reply to Jlisenbe".

As far as my "belief" in Shinto, WG has answered that sufficiently. I'm surprised that jlisenbe understood that so badly as to make his claim about Shinto.You plainly stated that the Shinto religion was "evidence" in your beliefs about man. Now perhaps you are going to tell us that you have no belief in your own evidence. That strikes me as foolish beyond belief, but then it's not my statement to defend. Perhaps you can explain why any person would present as evidence materiel he doesn't believe to be true.


Finally, I see that Jlisenbe has yet to reply to my long answer to a post of his that he says I haven't yet replied to. I replied several hours ago (in fact, yesterday) and it is Jlisenbe who has refused to reply. To be crystal clear, I even titled it "Reply to Jlisenbe".Which post are you referring to? I checked your posts from yesterday and couldn't see one that I did not respond to. If you are referring to post 34, you find my reply in 35. I don't see a reply by you to 19 and 20, but perhaps you can point me to it.

As to whether or not the Bible is God's word, I will respond to that later today or tomorrow. It is a great question. In fact, I would say it is THE question.


Being advised my name was mentioned here,That's so funny. Who's your spy? I have a suspect in mind! Still, if I have a name, I can always tell that person to pass you a message. Do you use telegraph? 8D

These are so easy, I'm replying quickly.


You plainly stated that the Shinto religion was "evidence" in your beliefs about man.

Yes. It is evidence that man has attributed supernatural/spiritual powers to natural objects. I'm dumbfounded how you can take that to mean I believe in Shinto. Honestly, it makes me wonder about your ability to understand the simplest of concepts.


Now perhaps you are going to tell us that you have no belief in your own evidence. That strikes me as foolish beyond belief, but then it's not my statement to defend. Perhaps you can explain why any person would present as evidence materiel he doesn't believe to be true.

I have explained it in my first reply above. You're embarrassing yourself. I take no pleasure in that.


Which post are you referring to? I checked your posts from yesterday and couldn't see one that I did not respond to. If you are referring to post 34, you find my reply in 35. I don't see a reply by you to 19 and 20, but perhaps you can point me to it.

I don't know how to make it any clearer. There is a topic called "Religious Discussions" which is where we are right now. The thread is "The Nature Of Salvation". Immediately below that thread is one entitled "Reply Requested by Jlisenbe". That's the reply to you I referred to and which you haven't answered. I don't know haw to make it any plainer. This is the third time I've shown it to you. To give you the benefit of the doubt, I suppose it's possible your computer has a glitch, but I don't think so. Maybe someone else can confirm its existence.


As to whether or not the Bible is God's word, I will respond to that later today or tomorrow. It is a great question. In fact, I would say it is THE question.

ok


That's so funny. Who's your spy? I have a suspect in mind! Still, if I have a name, I can always tell that person to pass you a message. Do you use telegraph? 8D

I sometimes receive notifications from non-members or non-posters. My guess is they are people who are interested in the truth.

Yes. It is evidence that man has attributed supernatural/spiritual powers to natural objects. I'm dumbfounded how you can take that to mean I believe in Shinto. Honestly, it makes me wonder about your ability to understand the simplest of concepts.Well...that makes a lot of sense. Shinto is my evidence, but I don't believe it is true. OK then. Gotcha.

As to the rest, you started a new thread and just believe that I'm supposed to see it. OK. I'll recopy it here since that's where it belongs. My question was posted here and should have been answered here. I would think that would be fairly obvious, but that's OK. I'll take care of it.


I sometimes receive notifications from non-members or non-posters. My guess is they are people who are interested in the truth.So they don't think they can handle replies themselves? Strange.

GENERAL



The basic issue is the proper way to approach the Bible. One claim is that the Bible is to be taken at face value since it is “the word of God”. Another says the proper approach is to first use one's mental abilities to make any determination about the Bible – or anything else for that matter. That is an essential part of anyone's thought process. Before accepting the book as the word of God, a person first thinks and considers the matter. That should be apparent to anyone.
The next step is to determine what one thinks about the matter in question – in this case, the Bible. The process of discernment includes considering the idea with one's conscience. Jlisenbe, like anyone, goes through this process and determines the Bible is the word of God. That is his right and his right is not in dispute.
Others, also considering the matter through the lens of their conscience as all must do, arrive at a somewhat different conclusion – that the Bible is a good book, and is useful for following the path of Christianity, but it is not the literal “word of God”.
One cannot exclude consulting the conscience – the mind does it automatically.The process of discernment concerns considering the idea with your mind and processes of reasoning.


When you speak the simple truth about God, which you have done above, no book in the world is able to second guess you. To be challenged to defend your position by “quoting Scripture” is a fool's errand.


Jlisenbe's reply:

A simple example of a person elevating their own personal opinion above the Bible. It is equivalent to saying that the Bible is correct insofar as it agrees with me. So a person can say, "Like Jesus said to Mary, 'You have chosen the better part,'" and consider it be accurate because it agrees with his/her preconceived notions. But when the same Jesus said, " if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins," then that cannot be allowed since, after all, it does not agree with what that person has already concluded to be true. So Athos is basically saying that WG is right in her view since she agrees with his view. Stunning.

Please read carefully. Here is what you are confusing. You are saying: If one accepts one part of the Bible as correct, one must therefore accept all of the Bible as correct. That's not true with the Bible, nor is it true with any book. That's why we deliberate using our mental processes to understand. To discern. Evaluate. Examine. Test. In no sense does it mean I “elevate” my opinion above the Bible.Thank you for not answering the question. You wrote that no book on the earth can second guess WG's religious opinion. That is elevating her opinion, and by necessary extension everyone's opinions, above that of the Bible. You have not explained why that would not be true.



This is not to say the Bible is not a good book. I would never say that. It is invaluable in learning about Christianity and the man of the Gospels Jesus Christ.


Jlisenbe's reply:

This statement cannot be reconciled with the statement above.
Of course it can. As previously explained. A book can be good and invaluable and still require discernment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jlisenbe wrote:

If it is invaluable in learning about Christianity, then why wouldn't we believe what it says?

My reply:

We believe much of what it says, even most. Again, not every jot and tittle. You are confusing invaluable with infallible.You are trying to straddle the fence. You consider the Bible to be true as long as it agrees with you. You say it's invaluable for understanding the Christian faith, but then you will not accept what it says about the Christian faith. So when Jesus says that if we do not believe in Him we will die in our sins, that bothers you so you just toss it out. You elevate your own opinions above what the Bible says.

From Jlisenbe:

The problem is this. If I claim to be speaking the "simple truth" about God, then I have to ask where this simple truth came from.

My reply:

That's already been answered. The source is a person's discernment process – mind and conscience or “God's little gene” as nicely phrased by Dwashbur.And again, you elevate your mind/conscience, above that of the Bible. That's the very simple difference we have.


Jlisenbe wrote:

If it came from somewhere in me, then what authority can I claim to have?

My reply:

It's not a question of authority- never has been. I think this is where you are going off the rails. You need “authority” to tell you what to believe. What if that authority is wrong? Or, heaven forbid, evil? How do you determine that?Of course it's about authority. How we determine that is the very core of the question. You believe yourself. I believe the Bible.



Jlisenbe wrote:

People all around the world have various ideas about God which they consider to be the simple truth. Some of them will kill you in defense of that truth.

My reply:

That's true of Christians more than any other religion. What do we make of that? Does that mean the Bible is evil?Yeah. We know that's true from how the Christians attacked America on 9/11. But even if your silly claim was true, it makes no difference. As long as those violent Christians were acting on their conscience, how can you say they are wrong? Once again, you did not answer the question.
__________________________________________________ _____________________



Jlisenbe wrote:

Who's to say they are wrong if all of this is nothing more than a contest of opinions arrived at by what we contend is the voice of our conscience?

My reply:

In terms of Christianity, what you have said – a contest of opinions – is very close to the truth. At last count, Christianity has hundreds, (maybe thousands), of versions some of which have major theological differences. You ask, “Who's to say they are wrong”? Who, indeed? You?

Once again you do not answer the question. Is there anything to appeal to above the collective voices of billions of consciences?



Jlisenbe wrote:

The truth always comes out sooner or later. Here it is, sadly I think, for Athos. "...no book in the world is able to second guess you." There would seem to be no other way to take that than to conclude that he considers his views to be king over the Bible.

My reply:

You may take it the way I intended it to be taken and which I described at length here in this reply.No answer so no reply.
__________________________________________________ _______________________



Jlisenbe wrote:

Perhaps he merely crafted his beliefs inartfully which led to wrong conclusions. I am certainly open to correction in this regard.

My reply:

Are you really? Open to correction? That's good because I hope you will consider the errors I have pointed out in your post.If you had, I would.




As previously stated here, I do not see Jlisenbe's posts. However, I will make an exception if he replies. If the reply requires a response, I will do so.How noble of you.

Perhaps there is a way to boil this down to a simple question. If a person says their conscience tells them it's OK to kill an innocent person, and they live in a country where most people agree with them, would you say they are wrong? If so, why?

Perhaps there is a way to boil this down to a simple question. If a person says their conscience tells them it's OK to kill an innocent person, and they live in a country where most people agree with them, would you say they are wrong? If so, why?
That's boiling this down to a simple question??? I smell a setup simmering.

Does that mean there is another non-answer/evasive answer coming? You have been doing better!! Don’t backslide.

Does that mean there is another non-answer/evasive answer coming? You have been doing better!! Don’t backslide.
I was watching Adult Swim with my son as we were eating huge sweet cherries from Washington State.

If a person says their conscience tells them it's OK to kill innocent enemy soldiers in a war, and they live in a country where most people agree with them, would you say they are wrong? If so, why?

I think war can sometimes be avoided, but aren't soldiers, no matter whose side they'e on, innocent? It's the warring leaders who should duke it out.

And how many innocent people, especially POC, have been legally executed? Or killed by police?

Evasion returneth.

Evasion returneth.
How so? I answered. Soldiers are innocent people.

I have been asked to justify my belief that the Bible is God's word. Now that's an interesting task. I'm making a Word doc to explain my position, so I thought that to keep this from becoming a text field far too long to discuss, I would present one paragraph at a time and see what kind of response comes forward. Here's the first one which I think is a fascinating question. Given the frequently forlorn history of trying to get forthright answers to questions here (refer above), I am not particularly hopeful, but we'll see.

"The interesting question to begin with is this. For the skeptic, what would be necessary to cause that person to believe the proposition that the Bible is actually God’s word? Perhaps it would be nothing short of a dramatic angelic visitation, or a direct vision of God himself. Barring that, the committed skeptic would have to think long and hard about what sort of evidence it would take to sway that person’s thinking in the direction of accepting the proposition that the Bible is actually the Word of God."

Can you not accept that some have less need for scripture, because they have dialog with a God they understand? Some just are not looking for a shepherd to follow blindly without question, and are hardly committed skeptics, but already have a path to follow. Salvation is but the path of a life journey, with faith as the guide. I have no problem with people who seek a shepherd. Do you have a problem with people who don't?

I'm not sure what you mean by "accept". If you mean can I be that person's friend and have meaningful dialogue with him/her, then absolutely I can. If you mean do I accept their position as being sensible, then the answer is no. There is no such thing as every person getting to have his or her own personal god(s). If the Bible is genuinely God's word, and if Jesus was genuinely God in the flesh and was who He said He was, then we ignore all of that to our own peril. If the Bible is not God's word, and if Jesus is not who He said He was, then we need to set the Bible on a shelf and forget it, or perhaps regard as an interesting work of fiction on the level of Ivanhoe. I don't see a middle ground.


Do you have a problem with people who don't?It makes no difference what I do, or don't, have a problem with. I'm not the Judge of the whole earth. If the Bible is true, then you have Someone much more significant than me to deal with. If the Bible is not true, then we're all on our own and good luck with that.

That's fine, I accept your choices as yours, whether I agree or not, or whether you agree or not. I don't seek salvation through scripture or the words of man, but through the journey which is often like walking a straight line through a hurricane. Doesn't mean I have all the answers, but I know where to direct my questions, and listen to the answers, and try to understand them as imperfect as I am. I cannot answer your IF's though, or how you go about getting the answers, but I can say take it straight to the source of your FAITH, and you will get your answer.

Makes no difference what others do, just what I do!

but I can say take it straight to the source of your FAITH, and you will get your answer.But you have no real ground to stand upon in saying that. It is simply what you feel to be true. Millions of others have millions of other ideas. That is a strange god you follow, being one who cannot seem to make his reality known in any concrete way. He would seem to be a question mark followed by more question marks. But as you said, the choice is yours.

I have just LEARNED to LISTEN to what the God that I have a personal relationship with tells me. ALL my questions get answered. I accept you may not understand that, and it's okay. I don't NEED your confirmation, and I am sure you don't need mine.

Does everyone else get to do that as well? What if this god tells them the exact opposite of what he tells you? Who would be right? If your god tells you to be nonviolent, but their god told them to punch you in the mouth, would you be OK with that? Who would be right?

I don't have to be okay with anything or anybody to deal with it best I can. What about you?

That's true as is the truth that people can simply dodge meaningful questions.

That's true as is the truth that people can simply dodge meaningful questions.
As Pilate asked, "What is truth?"

Is your truth truer than Tal's or mine or Athos's?

As Pilate asked, "What is truth?"Jesus said He was. Do you agree with that?


Is your truth truer than Tal's or mine or Athos's?My truth? Of course not. That's why I don't appeal to some "truth" that came from within me.

That's true as is the truth that people can simply dodge meaningful questions.

Do you feel I have dodged your questions? Or is it you don't understand my responses?

My question. "Does everyone else get to do that as well? What if this god tells them the exact opposite of what he tells you? Who would be right? If your god tells you to be nonviolent, but their god told them to punch you in the mouth, would you be OK with that? Who would be right?"

Your reply. "I don't have to be okay with anything or anybody to deal with it best I can. What about you?" There is no planet in the universe where your reply would be considered as an answer to my question. So yeah, that was a dodge.

Jesus said He was. Do you agree with that?
Of course! I'm a Christian, baptized when I was three weeks old and have dedicated my life to service to others in His name.

What if this god tells them the exact opposite of what he tells you? Who would be right? If your god tells you to be nonviolent, but their god told them to punch you in the mouth, would you be OK with that?
God doesn't talk directly to people. Sounds like two schizophrenics hearing voices.

I'm glad you answered in the affirmative, and that being the case, I would think you accept His statement that, "Unless you believe that I (Jesus) am He, you will die in your sins." Yes?

You say you were baptized at three weeks, but at what point did you repent of your sins and determine to follow and trust in Christ.

I'm glad you answered in the affirmative, and that being the case, I would think you accept His statement that, "Unless you believe that I (Jesus) am He, you will die in your sins." Yes?

You say you were baptized at three weeks, but at what point did you repent of your sins and determine to follow and trust in Christ.
Why are you quizzing me on this open board -- or at all? Next, you'll want to know how many and which sins I've committed during my lifetime.

Evasive yet again. You asked me two questions. I didn't protest and complain that you were, "quizzing me on this open board." I simply answered the questions. Why won't you? What are you afraid of? I've noticed for a long time that you are smart enough to know when a question might pose a danger to your liberal ideology, so you dodge them. Is that it?

You asked me two questions.
What two questions on which post#?

What are you afraid of? I've noticed for a long time that you are smart enough to know when a question might pose a danger to your liberal ideology, so you dodge them. Is that it?
Putdown, veiled threat, acccusations -- very Christian of you....

Let's get back to the salvation topic on this board.

My question. "Does everyone else get to do that as well? What if this god tells them the exact opposite of what he tells you? Who would be right? If your god tells you to be nonviolent, but their god told them to punch you in the mouth, would you be OK with that? Who would be right?"

Your reply. "I don't have to be okay with anything or anybody to deal with it best I can. What about you?" There is no planet in the universe where your reply would be considered as an answer to my question. So yeah, that was a dodge.

What part of dealing with whatever life throws your way and doing your best is it that confuses you?


What two questions on which post#?

Putdown, veiled threat, acccusations -- very Christian of you....

Let's get back to the salvation topic on this board.

He's doing the best he can with what he's got WG.

What two questions on which post#?

Putdown, veiled threat, acccusations -- very Christian of you....

Let's get back to the salvation topic on this board.Two questions on post 71. My two answers on post 72.

You don't want to answer questions. That's fine. Just drop it.


What part of dealing with whatever life throws your way and doing your best is it that confuses you?I understand it fine. It does not answer any of the 3 questions, but that's fine as well. I really don't know what it is with you two that you evade answering questions, but like I said, that's fine. Just drop it.

How so? I answered. Soldiers are innocent people.

Good question. Please post an answer if you get one.

That's a good question? "How so?" Well...OK.

Wait. I keep forgetting that Athos is blind to me. Perhaps his spy will report this.

That's a good question? "How so?" Well...OK.
"How so?" was my wondering how I had been evasive, according to you. I had answered your question. That's evasive? -- what? because I didn't give the "correct" answer JL wanted?

Yeah. We know that's true from how the Christians attacked America on 9/11.

This is a sarcastic rejoinder from Jlisenbe when I referred to the Religious Wars in Christianity as an example of innocents killing innocents both sides claiming the approval of the Christian God. The full answer/discussion can be found in post #55 in this thread.

I have much more to say in reply to that post but it is long enough that my reply is truncated, so I will do it in small steps. In the meantime, I will give Jl's comments on Shinto so anyone reading can get a sense of his thought process.

The boxed-in quotes are all word-for-word from Jlisenbe.




So you are genuinely asking me to believe that a man would present the Shinto religion as evidence supporting a position when all the while he doesn't believe it? That's pretty preposterous.



So you believe the Shinto religion, but do not accept what the Bible says? Well, at least you have made your choice. And if the Shinto religion is the best "evidence" you have, then plenty of evidence absolutely does not abound. I find that when someone assures me that, "Plenty of evidence abounds," and then offers up some weak as water explanation like the Shinto religion, then they basically have nothing.



He stated above that the Shinto religion was evidence sufficient to support his previously stated theory. Wouldn't that suggest that he believes it?



You plainly stated that the Shinto religion was "evidence" in your beliefs about man. Now perhaps you are going to tell us that you have no belief in your own evidence. That strikes me as foolish beyond belief, but then it's not my statement to defend. Perhaps you can explain why any person would present as evidence materiel he doesn't believe to be true.



Well...that makes a lot of sense. Shinto is my evidence, but I don't believe it is true. OK then. Gotcha.


Here's my position on Shinto, which Jlisenbe seems incapable of grasping. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN SHINTO. I used that Japanese religion to give an example of some who believe natural objects are inhabited by spirits. Such a belief goes back into history. For reasons that I cannot understand, Jlisenbe keeps insisting that I BELIEVE in Shinto.

Read his reasons why, which I have included in this post. If someone can explain this simple concept to Jlisenbe, I will be forever grateful. Thank you.

For the rest of his post#55, I will soon be replying to that as time and space allow. But sooner rather than later.

There is no planet in the universe where your reply would be considered as an answer to my question.

There's at least one...

What jlisenbe is getting at is the nature of truth. When you talk of my truth or your truth, when you say what works for an individual is not objective truth. It is subjective [fill in the blank].

Discovering requires objective observation followed by subjective interpretation, then we may all observe the same object, while potentially coming to different conclusions of its nature. It is asserted here that because of the subjective interpretation we each hold a different truth, while jlisenbe asserts that truth is objective.

In order for there to be any discussion of the nature of Christianity, we must first establish what is the objective nature of it, then we may debate the subjective interpretations of it.

If we cannot agree on the objective basis therein, we can not begin to debate those subjective conclusions drawn from said object.

The object in question must certainly be the bible, as it is the original story of Christianity.

If there are any other sources, bring them in and it may be an object worth devoting the subjective conclusions of the bible to test their veracity.

Example:

Source A = "Quoted Text,"
Source B = "Quoted Text,"
Interpretation, do they agree/disagree, what is truth? One, Both, Neither.

Simply stating, my belief is true sways none. There can be no discussion following an unsubstantiated charge of a subjective nature, only I agree or disagree. The why no longer exists, it is final in that it is what you believe and that is all that matters. I.e. you create your own god.

It may be worthwhile discussing the nature of truth. Can there even be objectivity? If you believe yes, then you must find the objects to mold your belief to, or if you believe no, then you have no basis in believing anything and fall into skeptics' territory where none of the universe can be substantiated. There would be no discussion to be had.

jlisenbe, correct me if I'm wrong, is simply trying to establish a baseline objective fact that may be debated. That words are written on a page is fact, their place in history can be debated, and their assertions can be debated, they can be shown objectively and then debated objectively, whereby we can all draw our own subjective conclusions.

Anyone who seeks God, whether they've heard the gospel of Jesus or not, is "pleasant" in God's sight. ANYONE. Salvation is by grace, to anyone who wants it, whether they fully know what they're doing or not.



Would that include people of non-Christian beliefs?

Would primitive man who worshiped a mountain be considered to be seeking God?


Your original question is not a question of Christianity at all. It is really questioning the truth of the bible. If the bible says X, then why does it say Y.

First of all, you presume that the bible is in error. Your beliefs seem to align with the sciences we have today, the psychological nature of man, the history of religions as a whole, I'm sure you have other's not discussed here, nevertheless you hold these in higher value than that of the bible.

You guys talk of discernment as a process of reasoning, there, I'm afraid you have made a grave mistake in your definition. Discernment is the process of judging one from another, discriminating ideas one from another, and placing them in a hierarchy of validity. You cannot equate reason with judgement, logic with wisdom. You sound like the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers of Acts 17, “What does this babbler wish to say?”

The proper answer to these questions is theological, and specifically from Christian theology. jlisenbe is trying to establish the baseline for Christian theology, the bible itself. You must at least pretend that the bible is true to enter into its theology, much like you pretend a proof is true, and regard the original contention on the same basis as the validity of the proof, once followed to its own conclusions.

Bluntly, I think you don't want an answer to this question, it would be better for you to think salvation is mysterious, rather than have to analyze and discern the statements in the bible, which it itself asserts as truth.

A proof of inconsistencies in the bible would also be detrimental to your logic. You would then have to abandon the need for salvation.

There is no other body of religious text that asserts the things the bible does, that we are sinful persons, and that we are separated from God because of our sins, because of our own personal choices. We are responsible for our sins and must pay the penalties that they demand. The only way that God can allow us to be saved from this damnation, being a righteous and perfect God, is through Christ. Christ is the perfect sacrifice, only his blood, in the history of mankind, is pure. Only pure blood can offer to pay for another person's penalty where blood is demanded.

To accept his sacrifice you must accept the divinity of Christ and the miracle of the resurrection, accept your nature as flawed, yourself as deserving of hell, and then repent. Proclaim these things and turn away from your sin. Look to do only what is right; at that you will fail, but then Christ will walk with you, picking you up along the way, encouraging you and training you in righteousness.

This is the nature of salvation, and if you really wanted to get into it further, it would be a theological discussion.

Your original question is not a question of Christianity at all. It is really questioning the truth of the bible.

Your long reply has many points of dispute.

HOWEVER, Athos (me) is NOT the originator of the statement. If you had read carefully, you would know that it comes from Dwashbur. I will let him answer your lengthy diatribe if he so desires.

I used that Japanese religion to give an example of some who believe natural objects are inhabited by spirits.To the Ghost named Athos:(joke)

Nope. Not true. The shadowy figure named Athos used the Shinto religion as EVIDENCE (your word) of something you considered to be true about the nature of man. "Plenty of evidence abounds. See the Japanese religion called Shinto. That's evidence." (Post 34) Now you want to change your wording to "example" and then suggest that I didn't grasp the meaning, and profess as well that you don't believe in Shintoism. Fine. You offered as evidence (you claimed there was PLENTY of evidence) that which you now claim not to believe. That's an obviously ridiculous claim since that which a person claims to be untrue cannot be introduced as affirmative evidence. I have no doubt that you don't believe in Shintoism. It was your eagerness to use it as evidence that was poor judgment. A little honesty on your part would be nice.

As to the rest of this, I'm not going to have a silly discussion spread around on several threads which has to take place in the third person. The place to have this conversation is here. If you want to discuss it, then man up and do so. If you want to keep working through your network of "spies" and make comments all over the board, then do that with someone else. I have to constantly recheck your former posts since you change your tune as the thread goes along. That can be clearly seen above by your changing "evidence" to "example". If we're in multiple threads then that's too much. It's utter foolishness that I don't have time for. Your replies can be interesting and I do profit from reading them, but a measure of reason would be good.

There can be no discussion following an unsubstantiated charge of a subjective nature, only I agree or disagree. The why no longer exists, it is final in that it is what you believe and that is all that matters. I.e. you create your own god.Info, good statement. We cannot all have our own little gods. We cannot all have our own, personal truths about God. Taken to it's logical conclusion, it ends up being about the same as suggesting there is no god at all.

Here's the real difficulty people have with the Bible. The Bible makes statements that many people (including me) find offensive or disagreeable. The Bible says, for instance, that sex outside of marriage is wrong. People don't like that, so they begin to "soften" what it says by appealing to back-alley translations of words, or by appealing to cultural shifts, or by making claims that the Bible is not reliable or that it is merely subjective. Why? It's largely because they don't like what it says. And yet those same people will eagerly agree in areas where the Bible happens to say something they agree with. It's like buying a "Make Your Own God" kit in Walmart.

That is so true. We need to reconcile ourselves with the truth, oftentimes this is painful. This drives people from the light they so desperately need, and the pain often justifies their rational.

That is so true. We need to reconcile ourselves with the truth, oftentimes this is painful. This drives people from the light they so desperately need,So very true. That's why it's important for people to learn that God's love and wisdom are very great. He does not merely have a different way;He has a better way.

We cannot all have our own, personal truths about God.
But we do. How many religions are there? How many denominations are there in Christianity? Which "truth" is the true one?

But we do. How many religions are there? How many denominations are there in Christianity? Which "truth" is the true one?


The major denominations of Christianity are irrelevant to the doctrines of the Bible. If you examine the text, you will find truth. It starts with accepting Christ for who He is and repenting of your sins to Him.

As far as other religions go, you will have to examine them and see how much truth they contain.

Being religious is not without it's work. Proclaiming a certain religion and largely ignoring it is simply a form of hypocrisy where you lie to yourself.

But we do. How many religions are there? How many denominations are there in Christianity? Which "truth" is the true one?No, we don't. We have personal convictions about God, but God is who He is. Your thoughts or mine do not affect the truth of who God is. I might become personally convinced that you are a retired truck driver rather than a retired librarian. In that case I would simply be wrong. Our personal convictions do not equate to truth. We are all entitled to our own convictions, but we are not entitled to our own personal truth.

Your final question is a great one. Have you settled on an answer?

Your final question is a great one. Have you settled on an answer?
Was there really a garden called Eden where lived the first man named Adam and the first woman named Eve -- or is that an allegory? Was there really a worldwide flood -- or is that an allegory? Was Jonah really swallowed by a great fish and was spit out after three days -- or is that an allegory? Should the Book of Revelation be read with a preterist understanding -- or a futurist understanding?

Which "truth" is the true one?

You are mixing apples and oranges. You are arguing about the reliability of the Bible. I am arguing for the truth of God. Not the same argument. God is how He is no matter what you or I believe about Him. So no matter what a person believes about Eden, Noah, or Jonah, it does not affect the truth about God Himself.

But even in interpreting the Bible, there is still only one truth. I believe Adam and Eve existed. You seem not to. Well, we cannot both be correct. That's what I mean when I say you are not entitled to your own, personal version of the truth concerning God or the truth concerning the Bible.

Now lest you misunderstand, I do believe the Bible is God's Word and God is who the Bible says He is, but those two subjects can still be argued separately.


Which "truth" is the true one?Your question changes nothing. You seem to be saying that you don't know which truth is the true one. OK. That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that a "true one" does exist.

Was there really a garden called Eden where lived the first man named Adam and the first woman named Eve -- or is that an allegory? Was there really a worldwide flood -- or is that an allegory? Was Jonah really swallowed by a great fish and was spit out after three days -- or is that an allegory? Should the Book of Revelation be read with a preterist understanding -- or a futurist understanding?


This is my favorite part, discussing the texts of the bible and testing them against reality.

Just know, 2000+ years of Greek thought asserts scientific "truth" that is ever changing, the bible has remained unchanged in its assertions.

Although the statement was not mine, the post seems directed at me. So I will answer it, not to steal Dwashbur's thunder, but simply to explain my thoughts. I will first do Infojunkie, leaving others for a later post since this is getting too jumbled.



Your original question is not a question of Christianity at all. It is really questioning the truth of the bible. If the bible says X, then why does it say Y.

It was questioning the nature of worship or the worship of God or the nature of salvation. The Bible had not entered into the discussion.


First of all, you presume that the bible is in error.

I made no such presumption. Please, let's not get off to a bad start with you putting words in my mouth.


Your beliefs seem to align with the sciences we have today, the psychological nature of man, the history of religions as a whole,

Mostly, yes. How could it be otherwise? Do you not align with those things?


you hold these in higher value than that of the bible.

Not necessarily, but maybe you could give an example. Also, please, putting words in my mouth is not nice.


You guys talk of discernment as a process of reasoning,

Yes, it is a process of reasoning. Isn't all human thought a process of reasoning?


I'm afraid you have made a grave mistake in your definition. Discernment is the process of judging one from another, discriminating ideas one from another, and placing them in a hierarchy of validity.

Your definition is a process of reasoning.


You cannot equate reason with judgement, logic with wisdom.

Judgement and wisdom are the fruits of reason - not the same thing or equal to.


You sound like the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers of Acts 17, “What does this babbler wish to say?”

Now you're getting nasty. Why is this a characteristic of Bible believers?


The proper answer to these questions is theological, and specifically from Christian theology.

If you're referring to my two questions above (mountain worshipers), I'm afraid you've made a grave error. Theology, the study Of God, is fine to use, but you can't eliminate anthropology among other disciplines. When you claim only Christian theology is applicable, now you're getting into proselytizing which depends more on faith than on reason.


jlisenbe is trying to establish the baseline for Christian theology, the bible itself.

Yes, I'm only too aware of Jlisenbe's Bible position. He's never been reticent about showing it.


You must at least pretend that the bible is true to enter into its theology,

Your second grave error. It is not necessary to pretend the Bible is true to enter into its theology.


much like you pretend a proof is true, and regard the original contention on the same basis as the validity of the proof, once followed to its own conclusions.

I have no idea what this sentence means. Can you rephrase it?


Bluntly, I think you don't want an answer to this question

Bluntly, that's one way of getting out of answering it.

The remainder of your post, quoted below, is simply your preaching for your religion. You may do that all you want, but this topic and thread is not about promoting your religion. It is about the post which attracted you enough for you to reply, but you have found a reply beyond your capacities. That's obvious when you go off into "The Bible told me so" as an argument.


, it would be better for you to think salvation is mysterious, rather than have to analyze and discern the statements in the bible, which it itself asserts as truth.

A proof of inconsistencies in the bible would also be detrimental to your logic. You would then have to abandon the need for salvation.

There is no other body of religious text that asserts the things the bible does, that we are sinful persons, and that we are separated from God because of our sins, because of our own personal choices. We are responsible for our sins and must pay the penalties that they demand. The only way that God can allow us to be saved from this damnation, being a righteous and perfect God, is through Christ. Christ is the perfect sacrifice, only his blood, in the history of mankind, is pure. Only pure blood can offer to pay for another person's penalty where blood is demanded.

To accept his sacrifice you must accept the divinity of Christ and the miracle of the resurrection, accept your nature as flawed, yourself as deserving of hell, and then repent. Proclaim these things and turn away from your sin. Look to do only what is right; at that you will fail, but then Christ will walk with you, picking you up along the way, encouraging you and training you in righteousness.

This is the nature of salvation, and if you really wanted to get into it further, it would be a theological discussion.

I am arguing for the truth of God.


A necessary predicate for establishing belief.

To the Ghost named Athos:(joke)

I don't get the joke.


The shadowy figure named Athos used the Shinto religion as EVIDENCE (your word) of something you considered to be true about the nature of man.

Jlisenbe - I'm going to try one last time. Why you cannot understand is truly beyond me and anyone else who reads these Shinto comments. You even wrote the true statement above!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SHINTO-IS-EVIDENCE-OF-THE-NATURE-OF-MAN. Full stop. Period. The evidence consists in primitive man attributing spirits in natural objects - like a tree or a big rock or the ocean or the sky. The belief continues to this day in the traditional Japanese religion called Shinto. How you get from this that I am a "Shinto-ist" boggles the mind.

I note you're slightly backtracking, so maybe there's hope for you yet.



I'm not going to have a silly discussion spread around on several threads

As I clearly noted, I had to spread them around because the site would not post them all at once. Whoever organized them into a coherent series of posts has my gratitude. No one else has had trouble reading them. I suspect this is just another excuse for you to not reply when it does not suit you. Whenever you come up with charging members with "evasions", we all know you're just avoiding replying.

When you can, I suggest you present your case as best you can. Bible believing is a legitimate approach but when it degenerates into nastiness, the approach is not well-served.


Your replies can be interesting and I do profit from reading them, but a measure of reason would be good.

I will try to be more reasonable.

As to the rest of this, I'm not going to have a silly discussion spread around on several threads which has to take place in the third person. The place to have this conversation is here....................I have to constantly recheck your former posts .......... If we're in multiple threads then that's too much. .

I re-read this part of your post and I agree.

The threads are getting far too muddled - partly my fault trying to fit in a too-long reply resulting in that 6-part fiasco.

So I will keep you and your posts active and not block them anymore. I hope the two of us can keep the nastiness out.

Anyway, "MAN THE GUNS"!!

But even in interpreting the Bible, there is still only one truth. I believe Adam and Eve existed. You seem not to. Well, we cannot both be correct. That's what I mean when I say you are not entitled to your own, personal version of the truth concerning God or the truth concerning the Bible.
I am NOT entitled to my own personal version of the truth concerning God and the Bible -- the truth as I understand it? Then whose version am I supposed to believe? Your version? Ah, I bet that's the real God's-truth version! You think you believe correctly and I don't?

Your question changes nothing. You seem to be saying that you don't know which truth is the true one. OK. That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that a "true one" does exist.
Again, whose "true one" am I supposed to believe? Yours? And that is what?

SHINTO-IS-EVIDENCE-OF-THE-NATURE-OF-MAN. Full stop. Period. The evidence consists in primitive man attributing spirits in natural objects - like a tree or a big rock or the ocean or the sky. The belief continues to this day in the traditional Japanese religion called Shinto. How you get from this that I am a "Shinto-ist" boggles the mind.No, it's not. The beliefs of Shintoism are evidence of nothing more that the beliefs of Shintoism, and that's especially true when you profess from the other side of your mouth that you don't even believe their beliefs. Even worse, you seem to think that since Shintoism professes a belief in spirits existing in material objects, then that must surely prove that primitive man also believed that. But primitive men, if there was such a thing, were not adherents of Shintoism since it only dates back to about 500 B.C. So if your best evidence of your description of the nature of man is to refer to a philosophy that you don't even agree with, then you are bankrupt from an evidence point of view.


So I will keep you and your posts active and not block them anymore.Happy days are here again.


I hope the two of us can keep the nastiness out.Agreed.


I am NOT entitled to my own personal version of the truth concerning God and the Bible -- the truth as I understand it?You can believe anything you want. You cannot assume it is true, and certainly you cannot expect others to assume so, just because you believe it. The same is true for me. That is why I frequently ask people here for evidence, and why I don't ask for examples, or simply quaint stories of what others believe.


Then whose version am I supposed to believe? Your version? Ah, I bet that's the real God's-truth version! You think you believe correctly and I don't?I have never, ever, on a single occasion suggested you believe something simply because I do. If you are suggesting I have, then you are being blatantly dishonest.

No, it's not. The beliefs of Shintoism are evidence of nothing more that the beliefs of Shintoism, and that's especially true when you profess from the other side of your mouth that you don't even believe their beliefs.
Chiming in here -- have you studied Shinto beliefs? Some are actually quite similar to those of Christianity.

So what?

If I want to introduce something as evidence, it needs to be true. "Your honor, I am introducing Shinto beliefs as evidence." "OK. Are these beliefs true?" "Your honor, I have no idea if they are true or not." "And you think you can introduce THAT as evidence? What law school did you graduate from?"

Someone needs to study the nature of evidence. And to say, "Oh, have you studied Shintoism??? Some of it is similar to whatever," is useless. That carries not one ounce of weight. The only thing that matters is that my evidence is true and I can demonstrate it is true. Otherwise, it is useless. Athos introduced the idea, so it would be his job to demonstrate that his evidence is true and therefore of some use.

If you believe the nature of evidence is otherwise, please give me an explanation of your belief and an example demonstrating your explanation.

The beliefs of Shintoism are evidence of nothing more that the beliefs of Shintoism, and that's especially true when you profess from the other side of your mouth that you don't even believe their beliefs

Wow! This is your take on avoiding nastiness?


Even worse, you seem to think that since Shintoism professes a belief in spirits existing in material objects, then that must surely prove that primitive man also believed that.

Yes, that is my contention. We know from ancient religions that natural objects were worshiped. It is hardly a stretch to project that belief further back.


But primitive men, if there was such a thing,

Of course, there was such a thing. The fossil record is at least 4 million years ago. The earliest humans, compared to modern times, were clearly primitive. Here is another area where I simply cannot grasp what you are driving at by denying mankind in its primitive state.


(primitive man) were not adherents of Shintoism since it only dates back to about 500 B.C.

I never said primitive man was a Shinto believer. I used Shinto to indicate the age-old belief in nature spirits is still with us today in that religion.


So if your best evidence of your description of the nature of man is to refer to a philosophy that you don't even agree with, then you are bankrupt from an evidence point of view.

The USSR was a communist country. I don't believe in Communism. Does that mean my evidence for the USSR being Communist is "bankrupt".


Happy days are here again.

Agreed.

I hope you mean these comments. Maybe your first comment above was simply a hangover from times past.

Yes, that is my contention. We know from ancient religions that natural objects were worshiped. It is hardly a stretch to project that belief further back.You are welcome to your contentions. That does not amount to anything even approaching evidence. You have no idea what ancient man believed. No one does.


I used Shinto to indicate the age-old belief in nature spirits is still with us today in that religion.
No, you tried to used Shintoism as evidence for this. "The first worshiper is the man “coming out of the ooze” and he sees this magnificent mountain (or anything else impressive to the primitive mind) and, like the later worshiper, he attributes certain qualities to it." Now if you think it might indicate that possibility, then fine, but it is certainly nothing even approaching reliable evidence that it happened.


Of course, there was such a thing. The fossil record is at least 4 million years ago.
Oh? Describe that 4 million year record. Be specific about the fossils.


The USSR was a communist country. I don't believe in Communism. Does that mean my evidence for the USSR being Communist is "bankrupt".You're confused. You say you have evidence that the USSR is communist. If you do, and it's true, then that qualifies as evidence. It is a completely different matter to say you don't believe in communism. Your belief/non-belief in communism is not being presented as evidence for anything, so those are two totally separate issues because the question is not whether or not you believe in communism, but whether or not your evidence that the USSR was communist is demonstrably true. Only then does it rise above a "contention" and become evidence.


Happy days are here again.You are reading my posts. Fine. It is not a major issue with me.

You are welcome to your contentions. That does not amount to anything even approaching evidence.

Yes, my contention is based on various disciplines - anthropology and history being two. Contentions based on these disciplines do approach evidence. Then there's circumstantial evidence which I assume you would deny. When you wake up in the morning and see snow on the ground, that is circumstantial evidence that it snowed during the night. Do you accept that?


You have no idea what ancient man believed. No one does.

Yes, I do have an idea of what ancient man believed. Ancient man left records that described his beliefs. That includes the Sumerians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Hebrews, and many others.


No, you tried to used Shintoism as evidence for this. "The first worshiper is the man “coming out of the ooze” and he sees this magnificent mountain (or anything else impressive to the primitive mind) and, like the later worshiper, he attributes certain qualities to it." Now if you think it might indicate that possibility, then fine, but it is certainly nothing even approaching reliable evidence that it happened.

I'm beginning to see your difficulty concerning evidence. You want the past to be proved by an actual object. Much of the past can be surmised by the means I mentioned above. I can't show you a body of a human that lived in Slovakia one thousand years ago, but I'm positive a human did live in Slovakia one thousand years ago. I assume you would deny my statement unless I provided the body. If you tell me you love your children, should I not believe you for lack of evidence?



Describe that 4 million year record. Be specific about the fossils.

Be glad to:

Australopithecines have been found in savannah environments; they probably developed their diet to include scavenged meat. Analyses of Australopithecus africanus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_africanus) lower vertebrae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrae) suggests that these bones changed in females to support bipedalism even during pregnancy.

Kenyanthropus platyops (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyanthropus_platyops), a possible ancestor of Homo, emerges from the Australopithecus. Stone tools are deliberately constructed.[32] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution#cite_note-32)

Early Homo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo) appears in East Africa, speciating from australopithecine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecine) ancestors. Sophisticated stone tools (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_tool) mark the beginning of the Lower Paleolithic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Paleolithic) Homo erectus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus) derives from early Homo or late Australopithecus.

Homo erectus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus) derives from early Homo or late Australopithecus. it is also known to have coexisted with H. erectus for almost half a million years

H. erectus is the first known species to develop control of fire

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_humans)
There's much more to be had from an easy trip to Wikipedia or one of dozens of other sites.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_humans)


You're confused.

Well, there's no doubt that one of us surely is. Confused.


You say you have evidence that the USSR is communist. If you do, and it's true, then that qualifies as evidence. It is a completely different matter to say you don't believe in communism. Your belief/non-belief in communism is not being presented as evidence for anything, so those are two totally separate issues because the question is not whether or not you believe in communism, but whether or not your evidence that the USSR was communist is demonstrably true.

I used the same reasoning you did re Shinto. If my USSR example is wrong, then so is your Shinto example. You are way too deep in the weeds.


You are reading my posts. Fine. It is not a major issue with me.

It seemed that it was, but no problem.

Infojunkie - A reminder of your post that hasn't been answered yet.


If we deny the authority of scripture concerning salvation, or any other spiritual thing for that matter, then we create a subjective version of Christianity.

If we start with the subjective version of Christianity, then how can we have an objective argument concerning the nature of Christianity?

If we are not speaking on Christianity, but of salvation of a different nature, then define your terms so we can consider those things.


It's good to define terms. Let's start with subjective and objective.

Subjective - based on opinion, belief, emotions personal judgement.
Objective - based on analysis, fact-based, measurable and observable.

Scripture, Christianity and other like systems, are clearly subjective.

To answer your question of how can we have an objective argument concerning the nature of Christianity, we can't.

Once again you have changed terms. Ancient man is not the same as primitive man. Primitive man was the topic. You have no idea what they believed. I have made no comment on ancient man. Obviously we know much of what they believed since we have some record of that, and those written records are EVIDENCE.


Yes, my contention is based on various disciplines - anthropology and history being two. Contentions based on these disciplines do approach evidence.It might if you had presented any of that information. You have not, so it does not. The only "evidence" you presented was the Shinto religion, and that, as I pointed out, was evidence of nothing. You might as well suggest that you know that primitive man played sports and use the Major Leagues as "evidence".

No one has mentioned bodies or objects but you. You have presented conjecture but not evidence. You are presenting the three species below as examples of primitive man. Not you nor anyone else knows what those species believed, or even if they were capable of that type of religious belief which they were likely not capable of.


Australopithecus africanus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_africanus) Primitive, yes. Man, no. Clearly an ape-like creature.


Kenyanthropus platyops (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyanthropus_platyops), a possible ancestor of Homo, When it says it's a possible ancestor of homo, that clearly tells you it is not man.


Homo erectus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus) And again, primitive yes, but man no.

So you have no genuine fossil evidence of a 4 million year old primitive man. And please don't try and tell me that you or anyone else knows that these ape like creatures engaged in the worship of mountains or anything else.


I used the same reasoning you did re Shinto. If my USSR example is wrong, then so is your Shinto example. You are way too deep in the weeds.You didn't, and sadly you cannot see that. The only case your example tried to make was that the USSR was communist. I agreed that a person could present evidence for that. You also mentioned you did not agree with communism, but that was not being presented as evidence of anything, and neither was communism itself being presented as evidence, so your comparison fell flat since any belief or unbelief you might have had concerning communism made no difference as to whether or not the USSR was a communist system. It was two completely different positions.

BTW, even if you believed in Shintoism, you could not possibly use it as any real evidence of the beliefs of primitive man, a species you say existed about 4 million years prior to that religion. One would have had no impact at all on the other.

Quoting scriptures written by ancient man to promote his new religion isn't all that compelling of evidence, and who needs evidence to have FAITH? The very premise of salvation in my opinion is a bit overblown and the notion it's the exclusive domain of one religion is hard to believe since they all make that claim in one form or another.

I guess it just ain't enough to be a good human, imperfect and flawed and do your best to follow the path of good orderly direction, naw I have to do it your way or be damned? That's more a testament to YOU (Not you personally, but any rabid true believer selling their truth fervently.), than to ME!

I can accept and respect anyone's conviction without an argument or conflict so can I get the same? If not then carry on, I will just say a prayer and hope for the best for you.

Without an argument? That is hardly what anyone on this board does.

I never suggest that anyone do it my way. You are mistaken in that.

A good human imperfect and flawed? Which way is it? That’s like saying a person is a good law-breaker.

Without an argument? That is hardly what anyone on this board does.

I never suggest that anyone do it my way. You are mistaken in that.

Just a gentle chide to your dismissal of the views of others while defending your own my friend.


A good human imperfect and flawed? Which way is it? That’s like saying a person is a good law-breaker.

I am human flawed and imperfect, but endeavor to be a good human. Is that better? What law have I broken? Maybe a better analogy is in order.

I never suggest that anyone do it my way. You are mistaken in that.

You claimed that anyone who did not believe the way you believe was to spend eternity in hell being continuously tortured.

Do you no longer believe that?

As to the rest of this, I'm not going to have a silly discussion spread around on several threads which has to take place in the third person.

I missed this the first time around. I don't know what the third person reference is supposed to mean, but the rest is simply JL doing his usual avoidance when he can't reply to comments.

The reader is advised to go to my posts numbered 1-6 at the Nature of Salvation. It's all there for anyone interested to see and understand.

You claimed that anyone who did not believe the way you believe was to spend eternity in hell being continuously tortured.Never, ever claimed that. Show me where I did.


Do you no longer believe that?Never have believed it. Believing the way I believe is not at all important. Now believing what the Bible says??? THAT'S important.

I missed this the first time around. I don't know what the third person reference is supposed to mean, but the rest is simply JL doing his usual avoidance when he can't reply to comments.I will be happy to explain to you what third person means. When you have to refer to someone by their name, such as referring to me as JLisenbe in your posts, then you are using third person.

You want it done your way. I suppose you started a new thread so you could check and see if I posted. After all, you had me blocked. Whatever the reason is, I'm discussing the topic here along with other people. Join in if you want to. Or not. Your choice.

I will be happy to explain to you what third person means. When you have to refer to someone by their name, such as referring to me as JLisenbe in your posts, then you are using third person

Would you prefer I call you another name? Other than your own? Say John Doe or Hieronymous Ingobatz? In any case, why the need to mention it?


You want it done your way. I suppose you started a new thread so you could check and see if I posted. After all, you had me blocked.

I don't know what any of this means. Including "starting a new thread".




Never, ever claimed that. Show me where I did.
Well, maybe I wasn't specific enough. You quoted the Bible that, according to you, said that those who did not believe in Jesus were condemned to eternal punishment in hell. Are you now saying you don't believe in that anymore?

"You" frequently works well, as in actually speaking TO the person rather than ABOUT the person, and thus the difference between second and third person. You had to use third person to dramatize, I suppose, the fact you had me blocked. Whatever the deal was, we are now speaking to each other as we should be. That's progress.


I don't know what any of this means. Including "starting a new thread". This thread is "The Nature of Salvation". You started new threads (six or so) titled "My reply to JL" or something like that. Play there all you want. I'm here. Others are here. The topic at hand is here.


Well, maybe I wasn't specific enough. You quoted the Bible that, according to you, said that those who did not believe in Jesus were condemned to eternal punishment in hell. Are you now saying you don't believe in that anymore?You are finally catching on. Not only did I quote the Bible, but I gave you a list of more than twenty passages where hell is spoken of, including the Matthew 25 passage which is very powerful. So yes, I believe what the Bible says, and that has been my profession from the word go. Thus the admonition, "It is written." You are free to reject that, but I would appreciate it if you would not mischaracterize what I have said.

Never have believed it. Believing the way I believe is not at all important. Now believing what the Bible says??? THAT'S important.
Whose translation and interpretation of the Bible?

For your benefit, I will post them again.

Scriptures Concerning the Biblical Teaching of a Day of Judgement and Hell


Matthew 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Matthew 5:22. “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
Matthew 8:11,12. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 10:28. “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
Matthew 13:30. (This is the conclusion of the parable of the wheat and tares.) “Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.”
Matthew 13:49,50. “This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Matthew 18:8. “It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.”
Matt. 25:31-48. This lengthy passage clearly sets forth the existence of a fiery hell. The people sent to hell were judged, not for what they did, but for what the neglected to do. The inference is that Christ was not Lord.
Mark 8:38. “If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”
Luke 3:17. “His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
Luke 13:2. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”
Luke 16:19ff. “In Hades, where he (the rich man) was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’”
Acts 24:15. “and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.” Again, not a reference to hell, but the teaching of a resurrection “of both the righteous and the wicked,” would certainly agree with such a reference.
Colossians 3:5,6. Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.
1 Thessalonians 1:10. “Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.”
1 Thessalonians 5:9. “For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
2 Thessalonians 1:8-10. “He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our LORD Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the LORD and from the glory of his might…”
2 Peter 2:4ff. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment… if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.
Jude 7. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Rev. 20:11ff. Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
Psalm 21:8-9. You will capture all your enemies. Your strong right hand will seize all who hate you. You will throw them in a flaming furnace when you appear. The LORD will consume them in his anger; fire will devour them.


The following scriptures show God as the one who is coming to judge the earth.



Hebrews 9:27. “Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment…” Another reference to a coming day of judgement.
2 Corinthians 5:10,19,20. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. 19 God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.2 Timothy 4:1. I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:
Hebrews 6:2. Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of…the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.
Rev. 1:18. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
1 Peter 1:17. Since you call on a Father who judges each person’s work impartially, live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear.
1 Peter 4:5. But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.
Genesis 18:25. Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?”
Hebrews 10:31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
John 8:24 “I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.” What a powerful statement concerning the necessity of faith in Christ.
Acts 24:25. “As Paul talked about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid…” This text is not a reference to hell itself but does point out the coming judgement of which everyone should be aware.
Rev. 20:11ff. Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.
Matthew 12:36. But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”


WG


Whose translation and interpretation of the Bible?

1. Translation. Perhaps you can point to a major doctrine affected by the use of a particular translation.
2. Interpretation? Read the scriptures above and tell me how interpretation enters in.

"You" frequently works well, as in actually speaking TO the person rather than ABOUT the person, and thus the difference between second and third person. You had to use third person to dramatize, I suppose, the fact you had me blocked. Whatever the deal was, we are now speaking to each other as we should be. That's progress.

No, that's paranoia.


This thread is "The Nature of Salvation". You started new threads (six or so) titled "My reply to JL" or something like that. Play there all you want. I'm here. Others are here. The topic at hand is here.

As I explained, I could not fit my answer into a reply to that thread - your post and my reply combined - it was too long. However, someone, a moderator I presume, worked it into a complete single post listed as Part 1. It's an easy read now. Try it, you'll like it.


You are finally catching on.

Oh, I caught on a long time ago about you.

So I am right, you DO still believe that that those who don't believe in Jesus are condemned to eternal punishment in hell. You even repeated Bible verses in case anybody wasn't sure about your belief. Every one of those verses can be read to deny your interpretation. I've already done a few of them. Why don't you pick out two or three of your favorites and let me respond.


Thus the admonition, "It is written."

That's an interesting "admonition". Apparently, that is your proof that the Bible condemns those who do not believe in Jesus to eternal punishment in hell.


I would appreciate it if you would not mischaracterize what I have said.

What have I mischaracterized in my above statement? If the phrase is not your proof, I will say so.

It's an easy read now. Try it, you'll like it.You can post it here. I am not going to dance to your tune. You can forget that.

For the ten millionth time, I believe what the Bible plainly teaches. You don't. That's where we differ. That's why I am able to post a boatload of scriptures to your...none. It also explains why you stated that no book on the earth can second guess our beliefs, and that being asked to support a position with scripture is a fool's errand.

You mischaractierized my position when you alleged I had been saying that everyone has to believe as I do or they will go to hell, and you basically admitted that when you confessed you had not been specific enough. You should be more careful.

WG
1. Translation. Perhaps you can point to a major doctrine affected by the use of a particular translation.
2. Interpretation? Read the scriptures above and tell me how interpretation enters in.
1. By translation, I mean the translation of Hebrew and Greek words.
2. Whose interpretation of Scripture is correct -- yours or mine?

1. By translation, I mean the translation of Hebrew and Greek words.
2. Whose interpretation of Scripture is correct -- yours or mine?

I'll just repeat my two questions from above and patiently await a genuine answer.

1. Translation. Perhaps you can point to a major doctrine affected by the translation of a Greek or Hebrew word? (Modified to fit your objection.)
2. Interpretation? Read the scriptures above and tell me how interpretation enters in.

For the ten millionth time, I believe what the Bible plainly teaches. You don't.
You are a literalist. You don't take into account any nuances of language, the culture, the time period, deeper meanings.

You can post it here. I am not going to dance to your tune. You can forget that.

It's already posted here. Good grief. This is "Religious Discussions" where we are now. Now go to "My Discussion with Jlisenbe - Part 1" The ENTIRE post - yours and mine - is posted there.


For the ten millionth time, I believe what the Bible plainly teaches.

No. As many times, you believe what you INTERPRET what the Bible teaches. Probably learned as a child growing up, but maybe later. To make matters worse, your Bible is in a language that DID NOT EVEN EXIST when the Bible was written down - and more, you treat the Bible as if it were a single book - IT IS 70+ BOOKS! Written down over about 800 years!!! And as many authors. In at least 5 languages! That's why it needs explaining and interpretation.

Sometimes I think the Catholic Church had the right idea. Forbid the Bible from being read by the people unless they were trained. Look what happened when that changed! Now we have more interpretations than Carter has liver pills. (I'm sure that CChurch bit will be thrown back at me - I should know better by now, but I hate to miss the fun).


You don't.(believe the Bible)

You have no idea what I believe or don't believe.


That's where we differ.

You can take THAT to the bank!


That's why I am able to post a boatload of scriptures to your...none.

No, that's not why. I avoid playing Bible Bingo.


It also explains why you stated that no book on the earth can second guess our beliefs,

I still maintain that. Even the Catholic Church, the largest Christian denom, teaches the Primacy of Conscience. You really should think about that and not just respond with a knee-jerk reply.


and that being asked to support a position with scripture is a fool's errand.

Yes, I said that in the context of your battle with WG and you spewing verses til the cows come home. Cherry-picking the Bible is a fool's errand. It never ends.


You mischaractierized my position when you alleged I had been saying that everyone has to believe as I do or they will go to hell, and you basically admitted that when you confessed you had not been specific enough. You should be more careful.

Let's parse that. You claim the Bible says those who don't believe in Jesus are condemned to hell for eternity. You even posted all those Scriptures. YOU say you believe the Bible. ERGO QED, not believing in your Bible belief means just that - all go to hell.

My "confession" was to illuminate my statement so you would understand it and not challenge it - alas it didn't work.

You are a literalist. You don't take into account any nuances of language, the culture, the time period, deeper meanings.I have asked you for examples. You seem to have none. Of course I take those qualities into account. Always have.

Athos, we've already had the long discussion of the text of the Bible. 66 books and 40 or so authors written over 1500 or so years. Have known that for decades.


That's why I am able to post a boatload of scriptures to your...none.


No, that's not why. I avoid playing Bible Bingo.Nah. You just have nothing to back up your positions.


"You claim the Bible"I posted multiple verses. You just don't like it.

As to the Catholics claims about conscience, I don't care what the Catholic church says. I care what the Bible says. Your "primacy of conscience" position is completely unbiblical.

I have asked you for examples.

1. Translation. Perhaps you can point to a major doctrine affected by the translation of a Greek or Hebrew word? (Modified to fit your objection.)
2. Interpretation? Read the scriptures above and tell me how interpretation enters in.
My response to #1 -- There is no scriptural evidence for the existence and teaching of the three persons of a "Holy Trinity". That was cobbled together by translators.

#1 -- There is no scriptural evidence for the existence and teaching of the three Persons of a "Holy Trinity". That was cobbled together by translators.No scriptural evidence? Really? Well, when Jesus was baptized, the Spirit descended upon Jesus as a dove, and a voice spoke from heaven that was clearly the Father. So there are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And then you can look up Matt. 28:19, John 10:30, 1 Peter 1:2, John 14:26;1:1-3&14;14:16,17, Gen. 1:26. You can also check out chapters 4 and 5 in Revelation. When you finish with those, get back with me.

OK. Also look up Col.2:9 and John 15:26.

In what way do you believe that was "cobbled together" by translators? That makes no sense at all.

As to the Catholics claims about conscience, I don't care what the Catholic church says. I care what the Bible says. Your "primacy of conscience" position is completely unbiblical.

LOL - I'm aware you don't care what the Catholic Church teaches. In your world, the Cath Church is the "Whore of Babylon". Yes, Primacy of Conscience is unbiblical. So is spaghetti and meatballs. You need to expand your horizons. Blinding your mind to God by placing a book in front of him is not the best approach. It's ok for a while, but as Paul says,"... when I became a man, I put away the things of a child".

A completely pointless, error-filled rant containing a lie (I think the Cath. Church is the "Whore of Babylon") and meaningless advice (expanding horizons). And then there is the silliness of "placing a book in front of him". So you are convinced that the knowledge of God comes from outside the Bible. Otherwise, your statement would be completely foolish. If the knowledge of God comes from within the Bible, then the Bible would be the descriptor of God. The harmony would be complete.

No scriptural evidence? Really? Well, when Jesus was baptized, the Spirit descended upon Jesus as a dove, and a voice spoke from heaven that was clearly the Father. So there are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
My spirit (pneuma) is part of me, is not a separate person. Your spirit (pneuma) is part of you, is not a separate person. God's spirit (pneuma) is part of him, is not a separate person.

So does your spirit descend upon you as a dove? Do you speak to yourself and address yourself as "Son"? Your comment is senseless.

Read the scriptures. I know you are accustomed to forming your view of truth from outside the Bible, but I am not. Until you are prepared to put some work into this, just forget it. It's really disappointing that you could not trouble yourself to look up a single reference. Instead you resorted to illogical philosophy

A completely pointless, error-filled rant containing a lie (I think the Cath. Church is the "Whore of Babylon") and meaningless advice (expanding horizons).

Now, now, Jl don't get mad. Expanding horizons is always good advice. If you deny believing the Whore of Babylon business, good for you. That's progress if you ever believed it.


So you are convinced that the knowledge of God comes from outside the Bible.

There you go again - putting words in my mouth. That's really a nasty habit. You need to work on it.


Otherwise, your statement would be completely foolish.

"There are many mansions in my father's house".


If the knowledge of God comes from within the Bible, then the Bible would be the descriptor of God.

I've already said the Bible is a good book - invaluable, in fact.


My spirit (pneuma) is part of me, is not a separate person. Your spirit (pneuma) is part of you, is not a separate person. God's spirit (pneuma) is part of him, is not a separate person.

I never thought of it in that way. Very interesting. Certainly food for thought.

I was aware that the word Trinity is never mentioned in the Bible, and that it was included by the Catholics when they organized the books of the Bible around the 3-4 century.

It's such a good book that you don't believe it. It's a good book, and yet we get in trouble if we, "put it before God." It's a good book, but you never refer to its text. Yeah, your double-talk won't work here.

So does your spirit descend upon you as a dove? Do you speak to yourself and address yourself as "Son"? Your comment is senseless.
Yet Christ Himself contradicted this equilateral notion by simply stating, "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).

Read the scriptures. I know you are accustomed to forming your view of truth from outside the Bible....
You know this how?

Until you are prepared to put some work into this, just forget it. It's really disappointing that you could not trouble yourself to look up a single reference. Instead you resorted to illogical philosophy
So you want proof passages. Bible Bingo time! I gave you one above.

It's such a good book that you don't believe it. It's a good book, and yet we get in trouble if we, "put it before God." It's a good book, but you never refer to its text. Yeah, your double-talk won't work here.

I HAVE referred to its text. In fact, in the very post you are replying to. Among other times, also.

Again, you are telling me what I believe and don't believe. Did you know fortune-telling/mind-reading is condemned in the Bible? What is double-talk to you is plain talk to those who are a bit more knowledgeable in these things.

I would much prefer to discuss these things with a Bible-type who is less literal- not your fault - but you're all we've got.

Yet Christ Himself contradicted this equilateral notion by simply stating, "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).Well, at least you are thinking a little now. In His earthly experience, when He walked as a man, He was subordinate to the Father. Even at that, it still does not help your position. Your text still has a Father and Son.


Read the scriptures. I know you are accustomed to forming your view of truth from outside the Bible....

You know this how?
That's so funny. You answer your own question with your next comment. "So you want proof passages. Bible Bingo time! I gave you one above." Any serious study of the Bible is like a bingo game to you. Any thought that perhaps your views should be based on Scripture is just bingo to you. Thank you for your helpful assistance.

Did you ever remember if you have repented of your sins and accepted Christ? It is important. I asked if you had ever done that, and you got offended for some reason.

Athos:
I HAVE referred to its text.You did not refer to any specific text. I don't blame you. If you ever start really engaging the Bible, you will have to change what you believe. That's what you're afraid of, I think.

If I was a "less literal" type as you want, I would be a functional non-believer like you seem to be.

You're welcome to your beliefs, whatever they are. I've asked you before what your religious beliefs are. You got offended and basically said nothing, but I'll ask again. What exactly do you believe about God? About Christ? About man? Do your beliefs come from the Bible? If so, then can you tell us what scriptures you rely on?

If I was a "less literal" type as you want, I would be a functional non-believer like you seem to be.
Why are you so afraid to challenge and clarify your beliefs? Smoke from hellfire is leaking through the floorboards?

Why are you so afraid to challenge and clarify your beliefs?Which belief? What clarity?

Now bear in mind that this question is coming from a woman who was just presented several scriptures about the triune nature of God and has yet to reply to a single one, but she thinks someone else is afraid? Pretty whacky stuff. REALLY whacky. And if she holds true to form, she will next respond that she HAS responded to those texts. She responded to ALL of them, she will say.

Just sayin.

Which belief? What clarity?

Now bear in mind that this question is coming from a woman who was just presented several scriptures about the triune nature of God and has yet to reply to a single one, but she thinks someone else is afraid? Pretty whacky stuff. REALLY whacky. And if she holds true to form, she will next respond that she HAS responded to those texts. She responded to ALL of them, she will say.

Just sayin.
So many unchristian putdowns. Jesus is weeping!

And yes, I replied. More tomorrow.

So many unchristian putdowns. Jesus is weeping!You're so funny. What beliefs? What clarity? Respond to the verses. Reply? "So many unchristian putdowns." Oh well. Asking questions is now a putdown. If you want a discussion, you need to be prepared to discuss. Cliches won't work here. Become more like Tal. He has the courage to state his convictions.


And yes, I repliedExactly as I predicted.

You're so funny. What beliefs? What clarity? Respond to the verses. Reply? "So many unchristian putdowns." Oh well. Asking questions is now a putdown. If you want a discussion, you need to be prepared to discuss.

But you aren't discussing; you are preoccupied with your opponent and breaking her down.


Well, at least you are thinking a little now. Putdown! In His earthly experience, when He walked as a man, He was subordinate to the Father. Even at that, it still does not help your position. Your text still has a Father and Son.
But now no "Holy Spirit," thus no Trinity.

Is acceptance of Christ as your savior the only path to salvation?

But you aren't discussing; you are preoccupied with your opponent and breaking her down.Oh stop whining. It really, really gets tiresome. This is a discussion between adults. I believe you are completely able to defend your positions, and so I ask questions to clarify your thinking. I'm not going to treat you like a weak, silly female.


But now no "Holy Spirit," thus no Trinity.
And thus you have clearly not read the scriptures I listed for you, so there really is no reason to pursue this. You are not prepared to put in the ten or fifteen minutes of effort needed.


Is acceptance of Christ as your savior the only path to salvation?
Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father but by me." A text in Acts says that there is no other name given under heaven whereby men must be saved. How does that sound to you?

Oh stop whining. It really, really gets tiresome. This is a discussion between adults. I believe you are completely able to defend your positions, and so I ask questions to clarify your thinking. I'm not going to treat you like a weak, silly female.
Who's the adult in the room??? And you are not "clarifying my thinking." My thinking is very clear!

And thus you have clearly not read the scriptures I listed for you, so there really is no reason to pursue this. You are not prepared to put in the ten or fifteen minutes of effort needed.
You sound like a schoolteacher. Hmm.

Oh stop whining. It really, really gets tiresome. This is a discussion between adults. I believe you are completely able to defend your positions, and so I ask questions to clarify your thinking. I'm not going to treat you like a weak, silly female.

Not everybody likes your overly aggressive style or condescending nature of your responses.


And thus you have clearly not read the scriptures I listed for you, so there really is no reason to pursue this. You are not prepared to put in the ten or fifteen minutes of effort needed.

Another example of using YOUR interpretation as a weapon.


Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father but by me." A text in Acts says that there is no other name given under heaven whereby men must be saved. How does that sound to you?

Like the author was making a point that you seem to embrace, Your way or burn in hell.

Not everybody likes your overly aggressive style or condescending nature of your responses.I understand. It's just like how I don't like it when people are evasive and disingenuous.


Another example of using YOUR interpretation as a weapon.Except that in the passage you quoted, I did not interpret anything. I simply stated the truth.


Like the author was making a point that you seem to embrace, Your way or burn in hell.Not sure which author you are referring to, but pretty sure they didn't know me and certainly had no idea what my present "way" is. I gave you two scriptures. Accept it or reject it, but don't blame it on me. I am not the author. I simply asked you to think for yourself.

I really enjoy the give and take of genuine discussion. It becomes tiresome when people don't want their own beliefs examined but want to dig incessantly into mine. I don't mind that at all, but it needs to be a two way street. Besides, what Christian would hesitate for even a second to describe the day that he/she put their faith in Christ? I would think it would be a wonderful story worth sharing with everyone.

It becomes tiresome when people don't want their own beliefs examined but want to dig incessantly into mine. I don't mind that at all, but it needs to be a two way street. Besides, what Christian would hesitate for even a second to describe the day that he/she put their faith in Christ? I would think it would be a wonderful story worth sharing with everyone.
Yes, it does become tiresome when people refuse to examine their beliefs! You are Southern Baptist? ("the day that he/she put their faith in Christ")

You are Southern Baptist? ("the day that he/she put their faith in Christ")Uhm...no. Not SB.

So you've never had a time when, as Jesus once put it, you were born again? You put your faith in Jesus as Savior in the same manner that Paul, Cornelius, Timothy, the 5,000 on the Day of Pentecost, or Lydia did? Why does that scare you so much?

Uhm...no. Not SB.

So you've never had a time when, as Jesus once put it, you were born again? You put your faith in Jesus as Savior in the same manner that Paul, Cornelius, Timothy, the 5,000 on the Day of Pentecost, or Lydia did? Why does that scare you so much?
Scare me? (There ya go again!) Nope, I was born into faith when I was baptized at three weeks of age.

Pentecostal, then. Assemblies of God?

I was born into faith when I was baptized at three weeks of age.Infant baptism? OK. I thought you were a Lutheran and followed the teachings of Luther.


Pentecostal, then. Assemblies of God?No and no. I like the Baptists, the Pentecostals, and the AG folk, but I am not a member of one of their churches, nor have I associated with them.

Infant baptism? OK. I thought you were a Lutheran and followed the teachings of Luther.
Yes, I do.

So you refuse to divulge....

Well, Luther said you had to have a personal faith. He did not believe that infant baptism was sufficient for redemption. Are you aware of that? Might add that he was a great believer is making sure that a person's beliefs were grounded in scripture. He would never have joked, I don't think, about "Bible Bingo".

Refuse to divulge what? I have answered your questions forthrightly. (I like that word.)

Since you seem to be rather eager to know, I am not a member of any denomination. I am simply a Christian. I placed my faith in Jesus a year or so after I graduated from college. I spent two years in Bible college and was ordained at one time, but I let that lapse as I really wasn't using it. He has been faithful to me in every way I can imagine. I consider the Bible to be God's word, read it daily, and trust God to lead me in my life's decisions. I would rather follow Christ than anything else I know of.

Happy now? 8D

Well, Luther said you had to have a personal faith. He did not believe that infant baptism was sufficient for redemption. Are you aware of that?
That's incorrect. I'm a Lutheran PK, hung out with other Lutheran pastors and their families, am a graduate of a Lutheran college, a long-time Lutheran SS and adult Bible class teacher, and was born on Luther's birthday (but different year).

Bible bingo
Luther would have loved that name for a "game" he played all too often

Refuse to divulge what? I have answered your questions forthrightly. (I like that word.)
Now you finally have in that post.

That's incorrect. I'm a Lutheran PK, hung out with other Lutheran pastors and their families, am a graduate of a Lutheran college, a long-time Lutheran SS and adult Bible class teacher, and was born on Luther's birthday (but different year).You need to read some more.


Now you finally have in this post.Point to the question you have asked that I have not answered. Pretty sure you won't find one. I won't say how I would characterize your statement lest I hurt your feelings.

You need to read some more.
No evidence?

Point to the question you have asked that I have not answered. Pretty sure you won't find one. I won't say how I would characterize your statement lest I hurt your feelings. Putdown Alert!
Your church affiliation. Finally answered.

I understand. It's just like how I don't like it when people are evasive and disingenuous.

Or maybe that's just your dogged determination to attack mercilessly another's opinion, to elevate your own.


Except that in the passage you quoted, I did not interpret anything. I simply stated the truth.

Not sure which author you are referring to, but pretty sure they didn't know me and certainly had no idea what my present "way" is. I gave you two scriptures. Accept it or reject it, but don't blame it on me. I am not the author. I simply asked you to think for yourself.

No you stated what an ancient man said that Jesus said by whomever wrote the statement which is the author. It's okay if YOU accept it as truth, but I don't and question it's veracity, as I do most religious writings of ancient man.


I really enjoy the give and take of genuine discussion. It becomes tiresome when people don't want their own beliefs examined but want to dig incessantly into mine. I don't mind that at all, but it needs to be a two way street. Besides, what Christian would hesitate for even a second to describe the day that he/she put their faith in Christ? I would think it would be a wonderful story worth sharing with everyone.

It is you that question the words of others so why be surprised when they question your words? You don't seem to want a two way street, but a one way alley where you control the traffic flow. Not everyone here can deal with your very abrasive style of discussion, but I doubt he change your ways that you are set in.

I accept you as you are and just keep it moving as I try to do with everybody, you stubborn old cooot!

8D

Now try to be nice!

That's incorrect. I'm a Lutheran PK, hung out with other Lutheran pastors and their families, am a graduate of a Lutheran college, a long-time Lutheran SS and adult Bible class teacher, and was born on Luther's birthday (but different year).WG So are you trying to say that you are saved by your works? PK, taught SS, and even born on Luther's birthday, and so you just have to be a Christian? That's rather shocking. Surely you worded that carelessly.


Or maybe that's just your dogged determination to attack mercilessly another's opinion, to elevate your own.Blah, blah, blah. Poor ole Tal. If you can't handle being asked questions, then go play cards with someone. No one is forcing you to be here.


It's okay if YOU accept it as truth, but I don't and question it's veracity, as I do most religious writings of ancient man.You asked for my belief. I gave it to you, so now you want to pitch a fit about it. Believe what you will. I've told you that a million times.


It is you that question the words of others so why be surprised when they question your words? You don't seem to want a two way street, but a one way alley where you control the traffic flow.I said plain as day I did not mind being questioned. In fact I enjoy it. Your statement is just flat wrong. Sorry, but that's just how it is.


Not everyone here can deal with your very abrasive style of discussion, but I doubt he change your ways that you are set in.Remember the old saying about the person who can't stand the heat needing to stay out of the kitchen? I don't force anyone to engage in discussion. Go do something else if you can't handle it but please, please stop the incessant whining and complaining. You guys love to ask questions, and that's fine, but then you have a fit if you are asked to answer a question. If you'd like, we can just talk about football or something else equally meaningless.

Are you really trying to say that you are saved by your works? PK, taught SS, and even born on Luther's birthday, and so you just have to be a Christian? That's rather shocking. Surely you worded that carelessly.
Oh, c'mon! I was pointing out my Lutheran background and that I just didn't pop into it yesterday.

Oh, and I'm doing research and a survey of Lutheran pastors to find out if you know whereof you speak.

So you've never had a time when, as Jesus once put it, you were born again?
I was born again during infant baptism.

I was born again during infant baptism.OK. I know this bothers you, but Luther and I want to know where in the Bible you find even a whisper of an indication that infant baptism amounts to being born again.

Also, how can you explain that the born again passage in John 3 was spoken to a grown man and not an infant, and nothing was said about being baptized?

Keep coming back JL, so will I God willing, and the creek don't rise.

Keep coming back JL, so will I God willing, and the creek don't rise.Deal! We drive each other crazy sometimes, but I think we actually have a lot in common. You are open with your beliefs and that's a nice thing. I tell WG that she needs to be more like you. That's big praise, my friend!!

OK. I know this bothers you, but Luther and I want to know where in the Bible you find even a whisper of an indication that infant baptism amounts to being born again.

Also, how can you explain that the born again passage in John 3 was spoken to a grown man and not an infant, and nothing was said about being baptized?
***Fundamentalists often criticize the practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a “born again” experience—that is, after one has “accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.” At the instant of acceptance, when he is “born again,” the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after “being saved,” goes to heaven anyway.

Since, according to Fundamentalists, only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. (Hmm, how do they figure THAT happens?) Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to “accept Jesus” in order to reach heaven.***

Acts 2:38 --Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.

Matt. 19:14 -- “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."

Luke 18:15ff -- 15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

Paul notes in Col. 2:11-12 that baptism has replaced circumcision. Baptism became “the circumcision of Christ.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

"[Lydia] was baptized with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).

I commend you for making an effort! Let's take them one at a time, primarily to look for any mention of infant baptism.


Acts 2:38 --Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.First of all, he is speaking to adults only. Secondly, do you know of any way an infant can repent?


Matt. 19:14 -- “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."Luther used this passage, but there is no mention of baptism. When the children came to him, he did not baptize them.


Luke 18:15ff -- 15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”Again, no mention of baptism, and not even a mention of salvation. Might also note that he says a person must accept the Kingdom "like a little child", not "as a child".


Paul notes in Col. 2:11-12 that baptism has replaced circumcision. Baptism became “the circumcision of Christ.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.This is absolutely terrible. Baptism has replaced circumcision? That is never stated in that passage. This is so bad that it borders on intentional deceit. I can say that since I know you did not write this. Rather amazingly, I think, you copied it from a Catholic website. https://ourcatholicfaith.org/teaching-infantbaptism.html

Here is the passage. See for yourself. "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." And again, there is no mention of infant baptism.


"[Lydia] was baptized with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).Yes, people got baptized, but there is no mention of infants being baptized. In fact, you can read the entire NT and not find a single instance of an infant being baptized, and nor can you find a single occasion where a person professed to have become a Christian as an infant. Might also ask this. When did they get baptized? Was it not after a confession of faith in Jesus? Pretty sure you did not do that as an infant.

Let's take them one at a time, primarily to look for any mention of infant baptism.

First of all, he is speaking to adults only. Secondly, do you know of any way an infant can repent?

Luther used this passage, but there is no mention of baptism. When the children came to him, he did not baptize them.

Again, no mention of baptism, and not even a mention of salvation. Might also note that he says a person must accept the Kingdom "like a little child", not "as a child".

This is absolutely terrible. Baptism has replaced circumcision? That is never stated in that passage. This is so bad that it borders on intentional deceit. I can say that since I know you did not write this. Rather amazingly, I think, you copied it from a Catholic website. https://ourcatholicfaith.org/teaching-infantbaptism.html

Here is the passage. See for yourself. "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." And again, there is no mention of infant baptism.

Yes, people got baptized, but there is no mention of infants being baptized. In fact, you can read the entire NT and not find a single instance of an infant being baptized, and nor can you find a single occasion where a person professed to have become a Christian as an infant. Might also ask this. When did they get baptized? Was it not after a confession of faith in Jesus? Pretty sure you did not do that as an infant.
We are born again in Baptism! No, he isn't speaking to adults only. Households include children and babies. All were baptized! Why wait until the age of reason? God's grace is already at work.

Babies were (and still are) circumcised. Should Jews wait until the males are of the age of reason? (Ouch!)

Again, households include children and infants. All were baptized or the writer would have said so. In fact, there is NO verse that says DO NOT BAPTIZE BABIES.

That's why sponsors are at the baptism. They promise to pray for the child and follow its growth as a Christian.

We are born again in Baptism! No, he isn't speaking to adults only. Households include children and babies. All were baptized! Why wait until the age of reason? God's grace is already at work.That is your conjecture. There is not a single verse of scripture that says we are born again at baptism.


In fact, there is NO verse that says DO NOT BAPTIZE BABIES.There's no verse that says DO NOT baptize dogs. So does that mean we should do so? An absence of a prohibition does not amount to a command.

If baptism is all there is to it, then why did Peter tell the people to repent in Acts 2? Did you repent when you were baptized at three weeks?

Ephesians 2 contains the most detailed account of what happens at conversion I know of. Look at the first three verses. Does that strike you as adults or infants?

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body[a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2&version=ESV#fen-ESV-29216a)] and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.[b (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2&version=ESV#fen-ESV-29216b)] 4 But[c (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2&version=ESV#fen-ESV-29217c)] God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

That is your conjecture. There is not a single verse of scripture that says we are born again at baptism.
John 3:5 -- Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.


There's no verse that says DO NOT baptize dogs. So does that mean we should do so? An absence of a prohibition does not amount to a command.
There is no prohibition not to baptize babies and young children.

If baptism is all there is to it, then why did Peter tell the people to repent in Acts 2? Did you repent when you were baptized at three weeks?
Yes, that's why I had sponsors, to speak for me. Have you ever read the words spoken by the pastor when he/she baptizes?

And 3:5 is followed by 3:6. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." So the water reference is clearly to the waters of childbirth, not to the waters of baptism.


There is no prohibition not to baptize babies and young children.And again. "An absence of a prohibition does not amount to a command."

Sponsors to speak for you? So they repented for you at three weeks old? Repented for what? You do realize how ridiculous that sounds? If a 20 year old is baptized, can someone repent for him as well?

You did not comment on the Ephesians passage.

And 3:5 is followed by 3:6. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." So the water reference is clearly to the waters of childbirth, not to the waters of baptism.
Good grief! What a leap! Are you on opioids?

And again. "An absence of a prohibition does not amount to a command."
There is no prohibition stating no baptism of babies.

Sponsors to speak for you? So they repented for you at three weeks old? Repented for what? You do realize how ridiculous that sounds? If a 20 year old is baptized, can someone repent for him as well?
A 20 yo is capable of speaking for him/herself. If that person is verbally challenged, sponsors will speak in his/her stead unless the pastor is creative enough to elicit a response from that person. (ASL needed? an interpreter needed?)

You did not comment on the Ephesians passage.
So you don't believe a loving God can work faith in babies. That makes me sad that you don't have that much faith.

Good grief! What a leap! Are you on opioids?No. It's called letting scripture interpret scripture. You should try it.


There is no prohibition stating no baptism of babies.And again, for the third time, there is also no prohibition stating no baptism of dogs and cats. AN ABSENCE OF PROHIBITION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A COMMAND! Is that starting to sink in now?

When we all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, there will be no sponsors. Babies cannot repent. It is foolishness. Sponsors and infant baptism are never mentioned in the Bible. Not ever, ever, ever. Not once and on no occasion is infant baptism ever mentioned or described as being practiced. Never, never, never. It is never mentioned. It is never described. It is never commanded. It is never taught.


So you don't believe a loving God can work faith in babies. That makes me sad that you don't have that much faith.Faith is what we have in God's word. God has never said that, so we cannot have genuine faith in it. It makes me sad that you have so little understanding of the Bible. You place your own emotional beliefs above Scripture. Truthfully, you are saying, if I understand you correctly, that you have never personally repented. You have never personally put your faith in Christ and made a personal, individual decision to trust and follow Him. You have never made a personal decision to "Look unto (God) and be saved, all ye ends of the earth," as Spurgeon and untold millions of others have done. You have placed your faith, not in what God says, but in what some people said when you were three weeks old. All of that worries me about you. And with a Bible sitting in front of you, you can make no excuses. I would encourage you to toss aside what other people have told you and read it for yourself. There is much at stake.

I am still surprised that you linked to a Catholic website to defend your Lutheran beliefs. Luther would be appalled.

This is what I find to be very interesting in your comments about infant baptism. You have belittled and even mocked the use of proof texts, calling them "Bible Bingo". You did, of course, until you thought the practice might be useful in this case, and you have attempted to bring forward proof texts to perhaps establish your point. Now I think your texts and case are alike very weak, but that's not the point. The point is that you have dismissed the several dozen pointed, "on-target" texts I posted about hell since you do not approve of that, but you believe in infant baptism on the basis of a handful of rather weak affirmations. Interesting.

Woke up rather grouchy this morning huh JL. That's okay, it happens. Grab a cup of Joe, repent this sin of engaging mouth for condensation, and enjoy the blessing of life and embrace the opportunity to share some love and understanding. Put your normal idiocy aside so as to open your mind to modern application and relevancy of a very important discussion. Why can't it be a friendly one that fosters caring and sharing, teaching and learning. That was what my Christian experience was about and still is, though I am not one.

Are you really putting your best foot forward? After that sorry rant, can you really face your maker and explain yourself? You can do better, so why choose to be worse? Or am I wrong and you have scripture that allows you to beat others about the head like a self righteous b@stard!

Show me that scripture please.

Woke up rather grouchy this morning huh JL. That's okay, it happens. Grab a cup of Joe, repent this sin of engaging mouth for condensation, and enjoy the blessing of life and embrace the opportunity to share some love and understanding. Put your normal idiocy aside so as to open your mind to modern application and relevancy of a very important discussion. Why can't it be a friendly one that fosters caring and sharing, teaching and learning. That was what my Christian experience was about and still is, though I am not one.

Are you really putting your best foot forward? After that sorry rant, can you really face your maker and explain yourself? You can do better, so why choose to be worse? Or am I wrong and you have scripture that allows you to beat others about the head like a self righteous b@stard!

You can really amuse me at times. You think I woke up grouchy? Wow. Look in the mirror. Is that what you call opening your mind, "to a modern application and relevancy of a very important discussion...a friendly one that fosters caring and sharing?" I guess, in your world, those "friendly" conversations end in calling the other guy a, "self righteous b@stard."

I'm going to ask questions. I've told you before that if you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen. Your whining and complaining will make no difference. They are good, honest, probing questions intended to make the other guy think. I ask questions while you toss around insults. Is that your "best foot forward"? I like my approach a LOT better than yours. You can keep calling names and making insults, and I'll keep thinking and asking questions.

That was what my Christian experience was about and still is, though I am not one.That has to be the strangest statement I have read in a long time. You have a "Christian experience", and yet you are not a Christian? Hmmm.

Why is it so strange that someone interacts with fellow humans on many levels and always has? I can say the same about my experience with Islam, Hindi's, gays, Hispanics, and a host of others. I don't care about religious affiliations.

Just in my own family we have many diverse religious backgrounds and sects breaking bread and passing BBQ. or is it strange I'm such an engaging fellow? 8D

PS

You're still a self righteous b@stard sometimes, and is it name calling if it's true! You know I'm right.

To say that you interact with people of other faiths is fine. When you speak of, "My Christian experience," it certainly sounds like you have a personal one of your own. But you have cleared that up, so I get you now. I do my best even though I am, in your words, a "self righteous b@stard". I can absolutely assure you that self-righteousness is not a trait I hold onto.

Today is a good day not to be a self righteous b@stard, or a GROUCH.

Then I would suggest you stop being both. You know...name calling, insults, etc.

This is what I find to be very interesting in your comments about infant baptism. You have belittled and even mocked the use of proof texts, calling them "Bible Bingo". You did, of course, until you thought the practice might be useful in this case, and you have attempted to bring forward proof texts to perhaps establish your point.
Nope. You demanded I supply proof passages because YOU wanted to play Bible Bingo. I sighed mightily, considered dragging out my Bible Scrabble board, but then sighed mightily again and gave in (just like a submissive woman, hmm) to your request. You claim your Bible passages are better than mine. Yup! -- I KNEW that would happen! And that's because you and I don't agree from the get-go on various Christian teachings. I really wish you and I could have a civil discussion. Apparently, it won't happen in this life. *sigh*

I am still surprised that you linked to a Catholic website to defend your Lutheran beliefs. Luther would be appalled.
Luther had been a Catholic monk and had great respect for much of that church and its members, but disagreed with various teachings (and selling forgiveness of sins so a cathedral could be built).

For many years, my Catholic, Baptist, and agnostic/atheist neighbors and I had a weekly Bible study. Best learning experience in my life!

It makes me sad that you have so little understanding of the Bible. You place your own emotional beliefs above Scripture. Truthfully, you are saying, if I understand you correctly, that you have never personally repented. You have never personally put your faith in Christ and made a personal, individual decision to trust and follow Him. You have never made a personal decision to "Look unto (God) and be saved, all ye ends of the earth," as Spurgeon and untold millions of others have done. You have placed your faith, not in what God says, but in what some people said when you were three weeks old. All of that worries me about you. And with a Bible sitting in front of you, you can make no excuses. I would encourage you to toss aside what other people have told you and read it for yourself. There is much at stake.

What an unChristian, even unloving thing to say! And no, you don't understand me correctly AT ALL! I'm so glad God is my judge (and not you).

if I understand you correctlyFeel free to set the record straight. I could very well be wrong. I'm just going on what you have stated. But if I don't understand you correctly, then correct me. I am happy to listen. I did not say that with any malice in mind. However, you do seriously concern me. If you want me to mind my own business, then just say so. I'm just reacting to your profession that you somehow became a Christian at the age of three weeks on the basis of what other people said about you. You did not repent, ask for forgiveness, or profess a faith in Christ, but you say others did that for you. I think you will search the Bible in vain to find evidence for that.

You guys are pretty sensitive. I suppose I say things in a way that would not bother me to hear. The people I discuss issues with in the real world are about as blunt and honest as I am. I'm not accustomed to this level of sensitivity, and I'm not real sure how to say things in a way that does not offend you, but my apologies if it somehow came across that way. Still, I will continue to encourage you to read the Bible for yourself.

Nope. You demanded I supply proof passages because YOU wanted to play Bible Bingo. I sighed mightily, considered dragging out my Bible Scrabble board, but then sighed mightily again and gave in (just like a submissive woman, hmm) to your request. You claim your Bible passages are better than mine. Yup! -- I KNEW that would happen! And that's because you and I don't agree from the get-go on various Christian teachings. I really wish you and I could have a civil discussion. Apparently, it won't happen in this life. *sigh*I've demanded nothing from you.

I haven't claimed my passages are better than yours. I've claimed you have no passages that support your position.

I don't think I'm being uncivil. I think I'm asking questions that make you uncomfortable.

You guys are pretty sensitive. I suppose I say things in a way that would not bother me to hear. The people I discuss issues with in the real world are about as blunt and honest as I am. I'm not accustomed to this level of sensitivity, and I'm not real sure how to say things in a way that does not offend you, but my apologies if it somehow came across that way.
Blunt/honest is one thing. Derogatory and shaming comments create sensitivity and cause the recipient to find more uplifting things to do with his/her time.

How to say things in a non-offensive way? Ask honest, thought- and discussion-provoking questions -- "Have you ever been involved in family devotions? If so, what materials were used?" or "Why is God so vicious and violent in the OT, yet Jesus is so loving in the NT?" or "Does God have a plan for our lives? If so, how can we know what it is?"

You ask your questions. I'll ask mine.

But here's one. Was Jesus loving when He made a whip and drove people out of the Temple, or was He loving when he dressed down the Pharisees, or was He loving when He engaged in His "Woe unto you" criticism of the Jewish religious leaders? Was God vicious and violent when He delivered the children of Israel from slavery in Egypt, or when He delivered Rahab, a prostitue, and her entire family from destruction in Jericho, or when He patiently tolerated Israel's blatant disobedience for centuries?

I'm disappointed you did not correct what you said were my misconceptions about you. You complained loudly, but then passed up an opportunity for clarity.

I'm disappointed you did not correct what you said were my misconceptions about you. You complained loudly, but then passed up an opportunity for clarity.
Why are you so eager to learn about my life as a Christian? Past experience tells me I will only get slammed by you if I post anything more about it.

I'm not eager. You claimed I had it wrong, so I thought you might want to correct me. As for me, I love telling people about my life as a Christian. It's my favorite thing to do and I am always willing.

If only you were so eager to apply and share that great experience in a way other than blunt disgusting, honest though you think it is. May I remind you that YOU told us to call you on it when you act like an overbearing bully? Just doing as you asked. The name calling was my personal touch as true as the facts you claim as truth.

Before you say it..."takes one to know one", but you admit your flaws even if you keep doing it. I don't know if that's such a great example of salvation, but what would I know, except I recognize callous disrespect and don't like it.

If only you were so eager to apply and share that great experience in a way other than blunt disgusting, honest though you think it is. May I remind you that YOU told us to call you on it when you act like an overbearing bully? Just doing as you asked. The name calling was my personal touch as true as the facts you claim as truth.Show me where I have done that. Be specific. Seriously. If I am going in that direction, I want to know. Now just a broad, general accusation won't get me anywhere.


Before you say it..."takes one to know one", but you admit your flaws even if you keep doing it. I don't know if that's such a great example of salvation, but what would I know, except I recognize callous disrespect and don't like it.I'm perfectly willing to admit to flaws. Now for a guy who has done the name calling you've done, and made the disgusting comments you have made, to fuss about me is pretty much a stretch. But like I said, be specific about how I have been an "overbearing bully" or "blunt disgusting". You might also want to discuss the need for all of us, including you, to be a good example.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jlisenbe https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=3858314#post3858314)
Oh stop whining. It really, really gets tiresome. This is a discussion between adults. I believe you are completely able to defend your positions, and so I ask questions to clarify your thinking. I'm not going to treat you like a weak, silly female.

This is but ONE of many.

So you don't believe a loving God can work faith in babies. That makes me sad that you don't have that much faith.


Why is it so strange that someone interacts with fellow humans on many levels and always has? I can say the same about my experience with Islam, Hindi's, gays, Hispanics, and a host of others. I don't care about religious affiliations.



The Bible Bingo going on here has been instructive.

Faith in God's creation of babies, and loving our fellow human neighbors whether Islam, Hindis, gays, Hispanics, and a host of others - basic notions about God but beyond the ken of jlisenbe who prefers to list so many Bible verses dwelling on hell and its eternal torture and claiming where so many of those listed and "the host of others" will spend eternity since they haven't accepted Jesus. So very sad.

And some interesting points about the Bible. Words not found in the Bible that undermine traditional teachings – like “Trinity”, for one.

It truly is a fool's errand to discuss the Bible with fundamentalist Bible literalists. Their absurdities can't be pierced by even the most rational of arguments. A literal Bible prevents them from ever seeing the wider, full picture of God.

A classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Oh stop whining. It really, really gets tiresome. This is a discussion between adults. I believe you are completely able to defend your positions, and so I ask questions to clarify your thinking. I'm not going to treat you like a weak, silly female.



This is but ONE of many.It was a bit over the top. I'd agree to that, but you should see the primary point as being me saying WG is "completely able to defend (her) positions..." It's like I've told her. If she wants me to mind my own business, I'll do that. She hasn't asked me to, so I continue to ask questions. The complaining does get old, but I did express that rudely, so I'll admit to that for her. Now for YOU, who tosses around "b@stard" like it's a compliment, I have nothing. It's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. You have no room to complain.

I said that was just one of many instances I feel you totally disrespected a posters responses and in a callous personal way, quite beyond just rude. No need for that and after it was pointed out, you just keep right on so here we are and we can just keep down that path or not.

Amazing you can dish it out but not take it! You STOP, I stop! Very simple solution. Up to you!

I did ask you to correct me and you have, so that is appreciated. However, I do think WG can take care of herself.

Dish it out but can't take it? Who's guilty of that now?

I did ask you to correct me and you have, so that is appreciated. However, I do think WG can take care of herself.

Dish it out but can't take it? Who's guilty of that now?

You are always free to dish on me whenever you want but WG has asked you nicely numerous times to back off, so please back off.