Gamera

[QUOTE=Johnny Skeptic;3828980]How is this relevant to your claim that Christiany is about getting to heaven, which I rebutted?

Again, how is this relevant again?

Who said my relationship with God is the onlyl thing important in my life. I think I said the opposite, quoting Paul, that one expresses faith through love of other. Maybe you didn't read my post.

Gamera

[QUOTE=Johnny Skeptic;3828980]Your attacking a straw man. I said I'm not interested in the OT, but only the NT, for reasons I discussed at length. The main one being as a Christian I don't think the OT ever saved anybody. Only the gospel does that, and it's embodied in the NT. The gospel isn't in the OT. You seem to have a fetish for rebutting the OT. It truly seems to trouble you. Why is that?

Regarding there being a lot of loving people in the world, I disagree on imperical grounds.

You've confused eternal life with heaven. A common mistake of nonChristians and naive Christians alike. The idea of "life" in the gospels is very complex, but really means a loving existence in which the limitations of the ego are overcome. That's why Jesus says he is "the life." Jesus isn't heaven is he?

Honestly, Johnny, it is rather funny to hear you, a nonchristian, tell me I'm not a christian because I disagree with your strange and uninformed views of Christianity. It's rich.

Not being a fundamentalist, that's OK with me.

aa5874

[QUOTE=Gamera;3830869]It is rather deadly when another christian tells another one that he is not a christian.

www.fordham.edu/hasall/mod/1535luther.html

If the Pope were the head of the Christian Church, then the Church were a monster with two heads, seeing that St. Paul says that Christ is her head. The Pope may well be, and is, the head of the false Church.

www.truecatholic.org/pope/prevpope-eugenius4.htm

It (the Catholic Church) believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and lunatics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels...


There is nothing funny about believers!

Sauron

The NT also contains such promises, despite your broken rebuttal (below). And besides the first section I quoted from Matthew, there is also:

But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.

Context only helps my argument.

Nonsense. There is no rule of contextual interpretation to establish that. You're trying to say that God would provide food and clothing for apostles, but for the rest of the christians - tough luck, you're on your own?

Besides, the opening of Matt 5 (where my original source quotation about the lilies of the field comes from) indicates that Christ was talking to more than just the apostles.

MAT 5:1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

MAT 5:2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

It goes on for all of chapter 5, and continues into chapter 6. In those sections, we have the Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer, the Golden Rule, instructions on how to do good, instructions on how to pray, quickly resolving disputes with your brother, restraining from swearing, etc. etc. By your argument, this was all intended for the apostles only - not the multitude that followed Christ up to the mountain???

As I said - the context works for my argument, but against yours.

Yes, it is.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Gamera: My main argument is that God refuses to do everything that he can in order to reveal his existence and will to everyone so that they will be able to enjoy a relationship with him. If Jesus returned to earth and performed miracles all over the world, some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. Humans place great important on good health. ANY supposedly supernatural being who showed up and healed all of the sick people in the world would immediately attract a large following. If such a being wanted to start a new religion, it would quickly become that largest religion in human history. My word, it would not at all be difficult for some modern magicians to go to some remote regions of Borneo and convince at a few natives that they had supernatural powers, and that they were Gods. Healing and feeding people are compassionate things to do. Consider the following Scriptures:

Matthew 14:14 And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.

Matthew 15:32 Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way.

Matthew 20:34 So Jesus had compassion on them, and touched their eyes: and immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed him.

Mark 1:41 And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.

42 And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed.

Johnny: We need a lot more of that kind of compassion from God. Humans have tangible needs too, not just spiritual needs. Just as loving human parents are concerned with the tangible needs of their children, a loving God would be just as concerned with our tangible needs as he would with our physical needs.

Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. (KJV)

John 3:2 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)

Johnny: In those cases, Jesus' miracles confirmed his words. His words did not confirm his miracles.

Lest you claim that now we have the Holy Spirit as evidence, even AFTER the Holy Spirit supposedly came to the church, Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders." Most humans are much more convinced by tangible evidence than they are by spiritual/emotional evidence. Almost no one doubts that George Bush is President of the U.S., but three fourths of the people in the world doubt that the God of the Bible exists. If the God of the Bible exists, he could easily change that. Wouldn't you be pleased if he did?

Will you please tell us how a baby is able to have a relationship with God who is born with serious birth defects, suffers for a few weeks, and dies?

Will you please tell us where hurricanes come from, and what determines where they go? Will you please tell us where the bacteria (Bubonic Plague) came from that killed one fourth of the people in Europe?

Jefferson Davis was President of the Southern Confederacy during the U.S. Civil War. Will you please tell us why God did not tell Davis, tangibly, in person, that slavery is wrong? Davis believed that the Bible endorses slavery. Whether it does or doesn't, God could easily have convinced Davis to change his mind by telling him that slavery is wrong. In the Civil War, Christian killed Christian, and brother killed brother. What kind of God would allow such a needless war? What about colonization? Are you aware that no thanks to God, the largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion was conquered by Christian nations by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property.

Humans are typically weak, ignorant, gullible, and superstitious. They need much more help from God than the Bible gives them. They need a good deal of tangible evidence, not just spiritual/emotional evidence. Tangible evidence is typically objective. Spiritual/emotional evidence is typically subjective. God could easily provide us with a lot more tangible evidence, but if he does not exist, then we certainly cannot expect any more tangible evidence than we have. The best evidence indicates that tangible benefits are distributed in a completely RANDOM manner. 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 EXACTLY what rational people expect would be the case if God does not exist. If a loving God DOES exist, we can be sure that he would not act like the God of the Bible acts.

What do you believe happens to people after they die? Please quote the Scriptures upon which you base your answer.

How do you interpret 2 Peter 3:9?

rhutchin

It is an argument for universalism. If God does not save everyone, then God has not done everything that He could to save people. The Bible does not provide a case for universal salvation (despite the few verses whose uncertain meanings are used by universalists to advance their claim). You basically seem to be saying, "I don't believe in God, but if He really exists, I don't want to be excluded from heaven and end up in hell (given that I can testify that I am a good person even if that is just my opinion)."

rhutchin

You do good at copying lists. Can you explain why any of them illustrate error? Start with one and explain it in a new thread so anyone can see your reasoning. That is, if you can explain the error. You can pick something that is significant.

rhutchin

Christ is that person identified and described in the Bible.

aa5874

Which one? The Jesus that was born before Herod died and was living in Egypt as a child, or the Jesus that was born during the census by Cyrenius or the Jesus who was a deceiver.

rhutchin

I don’t think so. I think it is necessary to determine any underlying presumption on the basis of the available information – that which the Bible provides. I don’t see where denominational biases should be considered.

Not really. This seems to be the difference—

rhutchin: The issue comes down to the underlying assumptions of the Bible

Sauron: (1) first identify a set of assumptions that everyone agrees upon are being used here

You basically add, “that everyone agrees upon.” I don’t think that is a necessity, but we might be able to make progress with that condition.

Your number (2) is not necessary. The assumptions do not have to be true. They just have to be that which the Bible says. For example, the Bibles starts, “In the beginning, God…” One underlying assumption is that an entity called God exists. That assumption does not have to be true. The Bible is to be understood consistent with that assumption regardless whether it is true.

Why not? If they allow you to understand what the religious text says and thereby allow you to judge the truthfulness of the text, what requires that you refuse to accept those assumptions?

If you were seeking to decipher a message written in code and one of the assumptions used by the code was 2+2=5, you would accept that assumption in order to break the code. Once the code was broken, you could then read the message and evaluate its truthfulness.

Sure. As a consequence, with each unique set of assumptions, you get a different understanding of the Biblical text. You have people claiming that the Bible says different things. That just makes it harder to determine what the Bible says.

Then the real issue is whether the Bible makes claims to the effect that God is its author. The argument for this position can be found on the internet. However, if one set of assumptions leads to contradictions, then you might decide not to believe the Bible under those assumptions.

You need the underlying assumptions (e.g., there is God) in order to understand what the Bible says. If you cannot understand what the Bible says, how can you evaluate whether it is true?