rhutchin

We have the Bible, the writings of people from the first century forward, and textual criticism to demonstrate that there was a man named Jesus who lived in the first century and who had a great impact on people so much so that great numbers of people became devoted followers of Him and His teachings. We have many writings of people collected in a book called the Bible that provides descriptions of this man and what people said they witnesssed. That is all you get.

God is that entity described in the Bible. Your problem seems to be that God has given people the ability to do what they wanted largely without interference from Him. Millions of Johnny Skeptics have gone out into the world refusing to tell others about God with the result that millions of people have died without hearing the Gospel message.

djrafikie

"Millions of Johnny Skeptics have gone out into the world refusing to tell others about God with the result that millions of people have died without hearing the Gospel message."

He does'nt believe in it! so TBF he would have to tell everyone about EVERYTHING, guys gotta eat sometime you know!

djrafikie

anyway, the people that have "died without hearing the gospel message" will go to heaven right? I mean, it's not their fault they did'nt hear it, so why would'nt they?

In FACT, if no one ever heard it, they would (by definition) ALL GO TO HEAVEN.
you are trying to send people to hell!
*backs away slowly*

Johnny Skeptic

There is reasonable proof that the Bible is not inerrant, but you are conveniently not willing to discuss the proof. Therefore, you are not nearly as confident of your position as you pretend to be. As such, surely very few of the undecided crowd will pay any attention to a person who refuses to discuss reasonable proof that his position is wrong.

That is quite odd since you believe that God empowered a savage Devil to terrorize mankind without much interference on his part. Of course, God is a proven terrorist too.

Now really, rhutchin. You are well aware that I have told people about the detestable God of the Bible on many occasions. I usually DO NOT argue against the existence God. I usually argue against his CHARACTER, which is in fact THE fundamental issue assuming that he exists. Why haven't you replied to my most recent post in the thread that is titled '2 Peter 3:9'? You must have read it by now.

God has gone out in the world and refused to tell hundreds of millions of people about the Gospel message who died without hearing it, so you are in no position to ask skeptics to tell the world about a message that God is not very interested in telling people about himself. Would you ask a human father to try to prevent his children from drowning, and refuse to try to prevent your own children from drowning?

If you were to sell some of your assetts, you would be better able to spread the Gospel message. Why don't you do that, and instead of watching football games, why don't you use that time to tell more people about the Gospel message? What is your net worth? Why do you wish to deprive people of hearing the Gospel message? From a Christian perspective, what good are earthly pleasures in this brief life?

rhutchin

People will be denied entry into heaven if they have sinned. The gospel message tells people how to get into heaven if they have sinned. Of course, if a person has not sinned, then there is no basis to exclude them from heaven.

If a person does not hear the gospel message and has sinned, then they would not know how to get into heaven. I do not know why all people "would (by definition) ALL GO TO HEAVEN."

rhutchin

You are free to start a new thread to discuss this proof if you want.

God did create the devil and does give him some freedom to operate. A person can always ask God for protection. If a person does not want protection from God, that does not make God a terrorist.

Hmmm. A noticeable bias in your presentation.

Gamera

[QUOTE=Johnny Skeptic;3874622]They both assumed resurrection, what ever that means. Whatever it means, it's unrelated to heaven.

I don't even know what it means to "oppose" homosexuality. Do you mean, do I think it's morally wrong, the answer is no. No action is right or wrong per se in my axiology. The issue is whether an action is loving or selfish. Some sexual relationships (between any genders) are loving, some are selfish and exploitative. Based on my reading of the Christian scriptures, God looks to whether a relationship is loving or not. That's the only thing that counts.

Hence Paul's statement: Galatians 5:6 "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."

This is Christian axiology in a nutshell.

seebs

So, really, "if they have sinned, but not done X", where X is explained in the Gospel?

Probably because conventional wisdom has held that ignorance is a defense in that particular court.

seebs

Except that apparently, according to you, repentence and seeking forgiveness provides salvation from sins.

I would be curious, though: Do you distinguish between refusal to act on a conviction, and not having yet been convicted against a given thing? For instance, most Christians today believe that keeping others as slaves is sinful. If in fact it is, would someone who grew up in a culture that had no doubts on the issue, and kept slaves, be able to find salvation, depsite never having even considered repenting for the action?

To ask the question more generally: If you never find out that something is a sin, are you still on the hook?

I know how a few churches answer this, but I'd be curious about your take on it.

If society wants to follow God, society must not attempt to impose God's laws; to do so is to usurp God's position.

The Bible makes no mention of tampons. There is no basis for making an exception here; if you believe we should follow God's law, there is no excuse for failing to follow that particular component too.

If you are asserting that technological innovations can change the morality of actions, then I simply observe that the Bible only talks about gay men who have no access to condoms.

Which is odd, given that Peter knew at the time that it applied to eating with Gentiles, not to food in and of itself.

However, all I've ever found on the internet is people asserting that one thing is in one category, another thing in another; none of them give any suggestion as to how they decide, except that they want to enforce the laws which apply only to other people.

I agree.

However, sexual immorality and sexual impurity are distinct categories. Gay sex was ritually impure, clearly; it was "abomination", like shellfish or eating with people of other faiths. Sexual immorality has to do with the relationship between people and their bodies; rape is sexually immoral (although the Bible never specifically condemns it), as is adultery, but purity standards (such as the requirement to wait a while after a woman's period before touching her) are no longer at issue.

It seems to me that, if there is indeed a distinction between moral rules and purity rules, gay sex is unambiguously in the "purity" category. Morality in Christianity is rooted in love, not in following arbitrary rules. As gay sex, unlike rape, is entirely compatible with love, it seems clear to me that it's only a purity concern. I have no reason to believe that gay sex is any more immoral than cheeseburgers, even if I grant that both contradict our understanding of the OT purity laws.

Johnny Skeptic

I believe that the Bible opposes homosexuality, but I am pleased that you do not automatically oppose it. There is no need for use to discuss this issue further. We have more important issues to discuss in the thread on 2 Peter 3:9.