Gamera

A fascinating question whose answer is staring you in the face. What "saves" us (whatever that means) is not belief in God. It is the gospel message, which relates not to the belief in God, but in the acceptance of God's love and its ability to transform us into loving persons. The gospel message is a question about who we are, not who God is.

Obviously God could easily prove his existence. He could have arranged to have video cameras at the resurrection, or he could put a neon sign in the sky. But he doesn't. So assuming there is a God (and I do) I conclude that belief in God is not the issue. Indeed, that's why "faith" is the issue for Christians, which is acceptance without evidence.

And consider why. If evidence was the basis for believing in God, then rational people would believe and irrational people would not. Thus, beleivers could boast about their salvation. They were simply better than nonbelievers.

But Paul teaches in Ephesians 2:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God-- 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast."

Why is the avoiding of boasting so central to the gospel message. Because the whole purporse of the transformation is the movment from self to a loving person (which according to Paul God intended us to be). It is a choice to be loving, which be definition cannot be something to boast about.

My point is, you're barking up the wrong theological tree in your critique of Christianity. You can discount Christianity all you want, but at least discount it for what it purports to be doing, not for your own theological bete noires.

aa5874

Based on your speculation, then, there was no need for Jesus to die for any trangressions. God already knows who will accept him (i.e. God ), and those person will go to heaven whether or not Jesus died on a cross, as you speculated is happening today.

If you think about it, all the persons who will love God, will love Him whether or not He even had a Son, they will love God whether or not they have heard of Him, even if they have not seen Him, even if they have no knowledge of Him, even if God did no miracles.

The death of Jesus was useless, the flood during the days of Noah was genocide, because all the persons who will love God, will do so regardless of the situation. These persons have faith in God and that's all that matters, even if, incredibly, God does not exist.

Angra Mainyu

The words depend on the version, but here’s another one (Revised Standard Version). I’ll quote 2 Peter 3 in its entirety, to have more context:
In that context, the author of 2 Peter 3:9 seems to argue that the fact that the “new heavens” etc., have not arrived is not a sign of slowness on God’s part, but a sign of patience, perhaps giving people more time to repent.

Would that interpretation be correct in your view?
If not, what interpretation would you propose instead?




I don’t think a person needs to believe that a text is inerrant in order to understand what it says. Else, none of us would be able to understand the posts that we consider to be mistaken.

But apart from the case of mistakes, a person can think that a text – parts of a book, for instance – is metaphoric in nature.

Also, and as pointed out, it’s your interpretation of the Bible that the people who meet certain conditions will go to Heaven. However, other people interpret the Bible differently, and draw their conclusions from the text as well – even if they also recognize only the Bible as the source of their dogma, and even if they consider it to be inerrant.

Moreover, and regarding to the issue of context that you mentioned earlier, others might not limit that context to the Bible, if they recognize other sources of dogma (e.g. the Church’s Tradition, for Catholics).

That aside, I’d like to focus on this part of your post:

Why would you call that “unfortunate”?

After all, if God existed and those people will not go to Heaven, they will go to Hell, where they will suffer infinite torture for their mistake. Given that God inflicts infinite torture, and you think that God is perfect and can do no wrong, it would be (perfectly) right and just that all those people would suffer such fate.

The God in whom you believe would have created a system of infinite suffering beyond hope, wouldn’t he?

If so, why is it unfortunate?

Just curious: which English version(s) of the Bible would you consider inerrant?

Why would God need to make such an obvious statement?

Anyway, you argue that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Do you have any proof of that, or it’s only an assumption that you make?

Also, can you prove that your interpretation of the Bible is correct, and that those who interpret differently, are mistaken?

Why would you make such assumption?

Ok, but why should a claim that God exists and is the source of such text should be assumed?

That would depends on whom you ask.

A possible definition would be that anyone who believes the Jesus Christ exists and is God, is a Christian. Another one would be that anyone who considers herself or himself a Christian, is a Christian. I’ll use the latter for now, but there are many different definitions.

For instance, some Christians believe that those sharing their interpretation of the Bible, or those who perform certain actions, are the true Christians, and they exclude the vast majority of other Christians.


I disagree.

If the God of the Bible existed, people would go to Hell because He would send them there. It’d be His decision, not theirs. In fact, most would not know that they would be tortured for their actions – actions that may not be wrong as far as I could tell, even if Christians would claim that they are.

But the Bible says different things, depending on the interpreter.

If your argument is that there’s a single intended meaning, I’d argue that there’s no proof of that. Even if it were true (if God existed had inspired it), how would it be possible to determine which of the many interpretations, present and past, is correct?

What would that choice be, and how would people know that it’s available?


That would depend on the God(s) they’re worshipping. There might not require sin.
Anyway, I’d ask what the reason for having such belief would be. Because without proof of the existence of the God of the Bible (or of sin), I can’t see any reason for anyone to assume such conditions.


What is that choice, and why is there nothing more for God to do?

If the Christian God existed, I think there’d be much more that He could do. For instance, He could refrain from torturing people; He could have mercy on the ones He’s already torturing, etc.

That aside, if He wanted to make people a choice (any choice), He could make the choice known to them.

As for the Bible, I think it does not qualify as an offer from God, since there’s no reason to believe that the God of the Bible exists. All there’s proof of is the fact that the Bible was written by humans. Some believe there’s a God who inspired the Bible. Others could say the true Holy Book is the Quran and the Bible has only some truth. Others might believe in other deities.

Also, what the Bible actually means is clearly in dispute. For example, the largest Christian denomination is the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), but its take on biblical interpretation is by no means accepted by all the people who believe the Bible to be sacred. Even in this thread, there’d seem to be more than one interpretation of the Bible – indeed, two very different ones.

The errors would prove that a text is not inerrant.

Johnny Skeptic

If faith is all that there is to it, then Jesus would not have performed many miracles in front of thousands of people, he would not have appeared to over 500 people after he rose from the dead, and the disciples would not have "confirmed the message of his grace" with tangible miracles AFTER the Holy Spirit came to the church, reference Acts 14:3. (NIV) John 3:2 says "The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him." (KJV) John 10:37-38 say "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." (KJV) There are numerous other Scriptures where God provided tangible evidence to thousands of people on numerous occasions. If Jesus was a tangible person, then that alone is tangible evidence. The evidence is clear; God DID place great importance on providing tangible evidence during the time of Jesus, and even AFTER Jesus died and the Holy Spirit came to the church.

You speak of love, but many skeptics are more loving, kind, and generous than the typical Christian is. Many skeptics are kind, loving, generous people, some of whom are more kind, loving, and generous than the typical Christian is, and some of whom would risk their lives to save your life. It would be out of character for them to reject a loving God if they knew that he exists.

The Bible says that killing people is wrong, but God kills people, including babies, and he kills innocent animals. God is a hypocrite. He has convicted himself by breaking his own rules. God punishes people for sins that grandparents committed, reference Exodus 20:5. God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11. I know that you never like to discuss the Old Testament. I don't blame you. However, God's behavior at ANY time in human history is most certainly fair game. Even in the New Testament, God killed Ananias and Saphira. You might try to claim that he didn't, but it will not get you anywhere. The texts say that at a result of the deaths of Ananias and Saphira, fear spread among the people. How do you account for this? At any rate, from a Christian perspective, you do not have any choice but to admit that everything that happens in the world is caused or allowed by God. No being except for an irrational, bi-polar, and mentally incompetent being would injure and kill his most devout and faithful followers, or if you wish, allow his most devout and faithful followers to be injured and killed. Even Attila the Hun did not injure and kill his own followers. Will you please tell us why you believe that lying is any worse that injuring and killing people?

If Jesus returned to earth and performed miracles all over the world, surely some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. Are you not trying to convince people to become Christians who were not previously convinced?

No man can fairly be held accountable for rejecting a message that he would accept if he knew that the being who delivered the message exists. My word, it would not at all be difficult for some modern magicians to go to some remote jungle regions and convince at least a few natives that they had supernatural powers, and were Gods. Some skeptics find the Gospel message to be appealing. They are just not reasonably certain that the God of the Bible exists.

The intent of a man's heart is not best revealed by his beliefs, but by his actions. While many of God's actions are questionable according to his own rules, many skeptics are not only not a threat to mankind, but a great benefit to mankind. Moral skeptics are kind, loving, and generous. They do not tell lies, and they would never kill anyone, or make anyone blind, deaf, and dumb. Any moral skeptic who had sufficient power would run the world much better than God does. Any moral skeptic who had sufficient power would heal all of the sick people in the world, just like Christian doctors are trying to do, he would never create hurricances and kill decent people with them, he would never endorse unmerciful eternal punishment without parole, and he would clearly reveal his existence to everyone in the world. Revealing his existence to everyone in the world would immediately end most religious wars, and it would prove that at least one being the in the universe had abilities that were far beyond the abilities of humans. There would be little need for debates to take place at the IIDB, or anywhere else in the world, regarding the existence of such a being. There are much more important things for us to do in our short lives than debate the existence of a supposed God.

I am only interested in accepting a God who has my best interests, and everyone else's best interests at heart, not his. The Calvinist God does not have everyone's best interests at heart. Favoritism is most certainly not an attribute of a loving and fair God.

You have mentioned the importance of having a relationship with God, but how can a baby have a relationship with God if the baby is born with serious birth defects, and dies? Hundreds of millions of people died without having heard the Gospel message because God refused to tell them about it.

You have said that you trust God, but trust must be earned, not simply declared. God has not sufficiently earned the trust of mankind. It is simply too much for a rational minded and fair minded person to trust that a rational, loving, mentally competent God would help AND hurt and kill people, injure and kill some of his most devout followers, and refuse to tell hundreds of millions of people about the Gospel message, while at the same time telling Christians to tell people about the very same message.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is to be expected that tangible benefits would be distributed entirely at random. While tangible good things are frequently DISTRIBUTED to those who ARE NOT in greatest need, they are frequently WITHHELD from those who ARE in greatest need.

What do you believe happens to people after they die?

Angra Mainyu

But why should a person make that assumption?

And even if a person assumes that there is a God, why would they assume it’s the God of the Bible?

If there’s no evidence for the Bible, any other God would do. The question is: why should a person believe, with no evidence, that there’s a Creator that has killed countless people and will torture some, perhaps most, for eternity and with no hope for redemption?

If that’s not your assumption (i.e., if you don’t assume Hell), I’ll concede that your assumption may be better than that of most Christians I know, but I’ll still point out that most denominations do have Hell as one of their tenets.

Another question is:

How can a person make such assumptions?

In my view, a person regularly makes assumptions that seem self-evident to them, such as the existence of the outside world (i.e., not just their mind) and logic. However, if there's no self-evidence, then some proof appears to be necessary (to me, anyway).

For example, I cannot assume the existence of Odin, Hermes, the God of the Quran, Shiva, or the God of the Bible, and actually believe in any of those deities.

Granted, I could assume for the purpose of a debate that a given God(s) exists, and then try to see where that leads - just as I could, say, imagine a variety of thought experiments and try to determine what the consequences would be. But again, that would not make me believe in any of the aforementioned gods, or any other for that matter; it would be purely speculative.

My point is that without evidence, I cannot make myself believe in a given religion – not that I’d have any reason to believe, since I don't: if believing were a choice for me, an available option, why would I choose what I consider to be erroneous?

If that’s different in your case, I’d like to know how.

I mean, is the divine inspiration of the Bible self-evident to you?
If not, how can you believe it?
Do you perceive belief as a choice?

Different branches of Christianity purport to be doing different things.

Also, sometimes, they make certain claims, but from their tenets, different conclusions follow. For instance, a Catholic may argue that God isn’t who sends people to Hell. However, the opposite seems to follow from their tenets (I made an argument in this post, but that’s only an example. )

rhutchin

OK. Instead of “us” one version has “you.” Can anyone do a grammatical (or other) analysis of the verse and trace this “word” and the others back to their antecedents?

I agree with your interpretation. Now who are the “us or you” and the “any” and the “all” to which this applies? Why is Peter even having to make this argument?

People can look at the Bible in different ways. Where there are two different interpretations of a passage in the Bible, at least one must be wrong.

It is unfortunate because these people erroneously believe that they will escape accountability for their sin by doing certain works.

The original autographs are inerrant. No translation is inerrant. For purposes of argument, we assume that the Greek and Hebrew texts that we have are essentially the same as the original autographs (even though we recognize that they are not).

Because it is so obviously misunderstood. Inerrancy is an assumption based on that which the Bible itself says. The proof of any person’s interpretation of the Bible is to look at that which the Bible says and the argument for the specific interpretation.

Because, the Bible states this.

Because, the Bible states this.

Maybe we could define a “Christian” by that which the Bible says about such people.

For example, we can start with—

“Then Agrippa said to Paul, ‘You almost persuade me to become a Christian.’” (Acts 26:28)

and try to discover what Agrippa was talking about.

One of us is wrong.

Yep. My position is that, where two interpretations exist, at least one must be wrong.

That choice relates to the action required for a person to deal with their sin prior to standing before God and being judged. A person would know about that choice by being told about it or reading about it.

Each person decides what to believe.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Trust must be earned, not simply declared in copies of ancient texts. God has not sufficiently earned the trust of mankind. It is simply too much for a rational minded and fair minded person to trust that a rational, loving, mentally competent God would help AND hurt and kill people, including babies, and innocent animals. If Jesus returned to earth and performed miracles all over the world, some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. Are you not trying to convince some people to become Christians who were not previously convinced? No man can be fairly held accountable for refusing to accept a message that he would accept if he believed that the being who delivered the message exists.

The Bible says that killing people is wrong, but God routinely kills people. God is a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is sufficient grounds for rejecting any being.

No rational minded and fair minded man is able to will himself to endorse favoritism, unmerciful eternal punishment without parole, and the indiscriminate killling people with hurricanes without any regard whatsoever to their faithfulness to God. Even Attlia the Hun would not have killed his most faithful followers. Clearly, being a Christian does not entitle any particular Christian to receive any tangible blessing, which is just as any rational minded and fair minded person would expect to be the case if God does not exist. Today, while tangible benefits are frequently DISTRIBUTED to those who ARE NOT in greatest need, they are frequently WITHHELD from those who ARE in greatest need. This is sufficient evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist, or that is he does exist, he is bi-polar and mentally incompetent.

God transfers a sinful nature to each generation, thus ensuring that everyone MUST commit sins at least some of the time. Only a perfect person would be able to not commit any sins. In addition, God punishes people for sins that their grandparent committed, reference Exodus 20:5.

While God plays favorites regarding who he reveals himself to, to his credit, when he kills people with hurricanes, he does not play favorites. When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God essentially said to them "I will create hurricanes and destroy houses with them, and I will make people sick". Adam and Eve essentially replied "not if we, our hurricane shutters, and doctors can prevent it", and the followers of the God of the Bible have been trying to overturn God's tough mandate to Adam and Eve ever since.

Will you admit that some of the most loving, moral, generous, and kind people in the world are non-Christians? Are you aware that some of the first opponents of slavery were non-Christians?

Sauron

I already know what you think. I'm not impressed or swayed by your opinion. My questions to you -- which you have not responded to -- are:

1. there is no agreed-upon list of the bible's underlying assumptions, so your position is a non-starter unless you can produce such a list - can you?

2. You still haven't explained *why* you think it is necessary to approach this with any underlying assumptions at all? The usual way that archaeology or science investigates something is merely to follow the evidence and allow it to reveal whatever it reveals. This is an approach that doesn't rely upon *any* underlying assumptions. Given that an already-existing and proven methodology for investigation exists, why should we abandon it in favor of doing what you want?

It's unavoidable. Since there is no agreed-upon list of the bible's underlying assumptions, any attempt made by rhutchin to list what he thinks are those assumptions will necessarily reflect his personal denominational bias.

Good. Then please proceed to identify a set of assumptions that everyone agrees upon.

Yes, (2) is necessary. If the underlying assumptions are not true, then the document is errant and we can conclude it is not the infallible word of an infallible god.


Because they are counter-factual and counter-intuitive. :huh:

If they are counter-factual assumptions, then the truthfulness of the text has already been judged. It is not truthful. Notice that I was able to make that conclusion without accepting the assumption; merely by examining it.

But it negates your claim above; "That God is the source of the information in the Bible is an underlying assumption." That claims is only valid for some people, or for some viewpoints on the text. For other people, and other viewpoints, your claim is wrong.

No, you have merely restated and re-packaged your initial denominational point of view. Instead of a statement, you have now formulated a question, but retained your denominational point of view as the crux of the question.

The actual real issue here is: is there universal agreement on what the bible claims about its own authorship? The answer is a resounding "No".

The argument that God authored the bible? Yes, those arguments are on the internet -- as are the many arguments against it.

Are you sure you want to say that?

The position with the most contradictions is precisely the position that God wrote the bible.


1. You're just repeating yourself again, without proving your premise. The reality is that

(a) you can't find agreement on what those underlying assumptions are; and

(b) even if you could, it still isn't necessary to employ any assumptions whatsoever. Merely examine the evidence, free of any assumptions, and follow wherever the data leads you.

It isn't necessary to employ underlying assumptions. Merely examining the claims.

Sauron

So you've invoked your denominational point of view on this question as well, ignoring other text and sources that disagree with that view.


Do you now understand why accepting any underlying assumptions merely reinforces conclusions, instead of helping to arrive at them?

rhutchin

So, how do we avoid underlying assumptions?