[talaniman]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[Athos]

How so? I answered. Soldiers are innocent people.

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

[jlisenbe]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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?

[Athos]

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.

[InfoJunkie4Life]

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.

[InfoJunkie4Life]

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.

[Athos]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[InfoJunkie4Life]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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?

[InfoJunkie4Life]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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?

[Wondergirl]

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?

[jlisenbe]

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.

[InfoJunkie4Life]

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.

[Athos]

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.