rhutchin

This is what we have--

1. ...And that he died for all, that they which live...

Christ died for all but a subset (they) which live (are saved)...

2. ...God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,...

Gid is reconciling the world unto Himself through those whom He saves ("they which live" from the earleir verse).

3. ...the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

Christ is the savior of the world whereby a person may be saved. It does not say, or imply, that Christ necessarily saves, or has to save, everyone or anyone in the world.

Johnny Skeptic

But what if the writer of 2 Peter 3:9 was speaking for himself and not for God? In your opinion, can a person be a Christian and believe that the Bible is not inerrant? If a person can be a Christian and believe that the Bible is not inerrant, then it is not necessary for us to discuss 2 Peter 3:9, or any Scriptures that mention predestination. If it is not possible for a person to be a Christian and believe that the Bible is not inerrant, where is your proof? Why is it not reasonably possible that parts of the Bible are true, and parts are false? Millions of Christians believe that that is the case. In court trials, if a witness is caught telling a lie, that never means that everything else that he claims is automatically considered to be a lie.

If God is willing that some people perish, that is sufficient reason for rational minded and fair minded people to reject him. I discussed this issue in detail in my post #158, which you convenietly did not reply to, and which I will repost as frequently as necessary in order to show readers that you know when you have been beaten. Would you like to have a formal debate with me about the nature of God? If so, I propose that the debate be 10 rounds with a 3,000 word limit per post.

Do you have excellent evidence that God told the truth when he (supposedly) said that the elect will go to heaven? Luke 10:25-28 say "And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live." Logically, a commitment like that would not be possible without excellent evidence that it is much more probable that God is not a liar than that he is a liar. You do not have anywhere near that kind of evidence. If God is a liar, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, it would be impossible for anyone to discover that he is a liar with a reasonable degree of certainty if he did not want anyone to know that he is a liar. One of the perks of being omnipotent and omniscient is that you can accomplish whatever you wish to accomplish. You believe the powerful good and evil supernatural beings exist. If they do exist, your problem is that you do not know which group is most powerful, which group tells the truth, and which groups tell lies.

Angra Mainyu

If, whenever inconsistency is alleged, you argue that it’s because the context has been ignored, could you at least provide your interpretation of said context, to refute the allegation of inconsistency?

Also, have you consider Amaleq13’s argument regarding the context?

Regarding the inconsistency, based on the quoted passages:

1) If a person hate his brother, then he can’t love God.
2) If they don’t hate his brother, then he can’t be God’s disciple.
3) Thus, God’s disciples can’t love God.
4) However, the Bible demands that God’s followers love God (e.g., Matthew 5:22, among others).
5) So, the Bible imposes impossible requirements, which would imply no salvation for anyone.
6) However, from other passages of the Bible, it follows that some people will be saved.

Thus, we conclude that the proposition “some people will be saved”, is both true and false. Thus, every proposition is both true and false.

I know that you’re going to interpret that differently.
I’d like to know what your interpretation is.



I’ve already made my argument. I’ve already provided sufficient context to reasonably determine that he was referring to everyone. Additionally, I quoted more passages that refer to the world. You haven’t replied to those arguments yet. If you think that there are more antecedents that have to be considered, I think that it’s up to you to make your case.


Else, you can always reply “there are more antecedents; prove they’re not”. With that criteria, you’ll never accept any evidence of inconsistency, because you’ve rule it out beforehand. If inconsistency were shown, you could simply argue that the interpretation isn’t correct, without giving a “correct” one of your own. I’ll ask again for an alternative interpretation, if you think mine is wrong.

But that again seems to rule out any arguments that the Bible is errant, because any interpretation that led to that would be considered erroneous, even if you have no counter-arguments.

Further, even if a possible interpretation of the Bible would be correct compared with some absolute truth, there would be no way of determining which one is. I think that two thousands of years of unsuccessful attempts clearly show that – and the attempts were unsuccessful from the perspective of an observers, since clearly there are plenty of different interpretations of the Bible, and not a single method of interpretation that people would agree on, and that would lead to a single solution.


That’s not the point. How is it unfortunate that they’re not trying to escape sin, if perfect justice will be served, and those people will receive infinite torture for the thought crimes of reaching erroneous conclusions?

My point, again, is that “unfortunate” would be the case (or a big understatement, but still), only if Hell is recognized as wrong.

Of course, if there existed a God who tortured people for eternity in Hell, that would be the most evil monster one could possible imagine, and that is what would make the situation more than unfortunate.

However, if such infinite atrocities were considered good, and even perfect justice, I’d see no reason to call that unfortunate.

If no one should use only translation, that would put the Bible beyond the reach of the vast majority of people, even in predominantly Christian countries.
Still, the fact remains that you can only work with interpretations – your interpretation of the text in the original language, if you can read it.

Incidentally, Amaleq13 used the text in the original language, and the case for inconsistency can still be made.

What data?
If the data is the data according to you, you’re just assuming your interpretation to be correct. Can you prove it’s better than that of others?


Also, if inconsistency is shown, is that the result of a bad interpretation?
With that criteria, inconsistency can never be shown to you. Yet, you still fail to provide an interpretation of your own.

But can you show that your position is correct, and that that of the others is wrong?

First, what makes you think either one is true?
Second, how would you propose to decide?

Now, let’s suppose 1000000 texts are taken as inerrant.


Ok, let’s I make that claim. How would you decide between the Bible, the Quran, and my statements?

According to whom?
The Bible is a book, and cannot talk. If a person claims that the Bible says A, and another person claims – A, how can you decide?

My point is: if you want to define “Christian” in a meaningful way, your definition should allow me to tell apart Christians from non-Christians.

However, if you say that a Christian is whom the Bible describes as such, then I have no way of deciding, because many people have different opinions on what the Bible says, and the Bible is inconsistent to me, so I’d need someone’s interpretation as the basis for the distinction.

If you argue that a Christian is whom the Bible according to your interpretation describes as such, I’d like to ask you about that interpretation, so that I can tell what you call a Christian, and why.

That doesn’t mean I’m going to agree with that definition, though.

Assuming God, etc:

First, they didn’t merit entry into Heaven because God made the rules about merit.

Second, they’re in a catch 22 because God made the rules about only Heaven and Hell.

Third, they committed sins that they didn’t know were sins (most people aren’t Christians, by any definition), and it’s not that they didn’t want to be held accountable for them – in many cases, it never even occurred to them that there was anything wrong with what they were doing, let alone something that would entail torture, let alone eternal torture.

Fourth, accountability for sins such as having a different opinion (e.g., concluding that the Bible is wrong) or not having heard of the Bible, means infinite torture because God made the Universe that way.

If God existed, He would be the one responsible for the ultimate crime: Hell.

What data?
The original text?
Do you have access to it?
Can you read it?

Have you done that, before concluding that your interpretation is correct?

All that aside, the fact remains that you’d be the one making the interpretation of the data – if by that you mean the text in the original language, at least the one that’s been preserved.

For instance, the Catholic Church has spent centuries interpreting the texts in the original language. So have Eastern Orthodox churches. Protestantism are more recent, but still, they’ve spent a lot of time.

Result?

As many interpretations as you can see today…

Could you provide an example of choice, so that I can try to understand your position, please?

As for being told many things, how would that person decide which one if to their advantage?
Further, what about the people who were never told about the Bible?

And further yet, how do you know that what you were told is the correct “choice”, and that what others were told, is not?

How can you know that “sin” is what the Bible has defined as such, according to the interpretation you were taught or you came up with, and not what the Quran says (in its different interpretation), or what Catholics say, or Eastern Orthodox Christians, etc.?


Ok, then, based on the information available to me, I conclude that all three are not real.

Based on the info available to them, Muslims conclude that the God of the Quran is the real God.

Based on the info available to them, Hindus believe in their Gods.

Based on the info available to them, most people in the world are not Christians.

Based on the info also available to them, ancient Egyptians, Greeks, pre-Columbus Native Americans, and people from many cultures that never heard of the Bible, reached their own conclusions.

Now, if your beliefs are right, the God of the Bible will torture the vast majority of people for eternity, as a punishment for reaching conclusions based on the information available to them!

If that God existed, He’d be powerful, but He’d be a monster, evil beyond everything. No dictator or group of dictators in the world has ever inflicted so much torment – they're not even in the same league different, since God’s atrocities would be infinite in nature.

If that God existed, and I reached that conclusion, I’d still go to Hell, because I could never love such a Being.

Then again, inconsistency could save me.

Through history, different groups make different claims about supernatural events.

However, the events themselves are not considered history, unless the historian acts as a believer, not as a historian. Claims of supernatural events are not considered evidence of their happening.

On that note, the vast majority of historians do not consider the Bible to be an accurate account of past events. What makes you think you’re right, and why should others reach your same conclusion?

Even today, many people, all over the world, claim to have a variety of powers – talk to the dead and/or different spirits, heal the ill, etc. Would you believe that such events occur?

Then, why would the past claims would be more credible?

In order to present proof of a God’s existence, said God would have to do miracles today, and in a way that people can see.

And the problem with considering the Bible an accurate account isn’t “only” lack of evidence, but actually strong counter-evidence. Apart from history, one would have to consider geology and biology, which also indicate that the Bible is wrong.

The account of the Flood, for example, is a fable.

It's puzzling that, based on the information available to you, you conclude that the Bible is correct, and evolution and geology are wrong.

aa5874

Your statement is contrary to the KJV Bible. Belief in God determines salvation, see, Mark 16:16, He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved: [/b] but he that believeth not shall be damned'.[b]
John 3:15, 'That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life'.
John 3:36, 'He that believeth on the son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the son shall not see life.....'

There are numerous passages in the Bible that claims belief in God/Jesus is the salvation of mankind.

You have also overlooked a major factor, belief in God/Jesus does not prevent anyone from committing sinful acts. All persons will continue to sin until they die, whether they are atheist, christian, muslim, hindu or mormon.
Belief in God does not guarantee freedom from sin, only salvation, if the Bible is true.

Another error you have committed, is claiming that the gospel's message is about who we are and not God, this statement is contradicted again in Mark 4:11, 'And he said unto them, 'Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God...'

The Bible attempts to show who God is, that is its primary purpose, not who we are.

God has video cameras and neon signs! You have no evidence, only faith, right?

Can an irrational person make a rational decision. You have let me down considerably, I may conclude you are also irrational because you are a believer.

Again, the Bible contradicts itself, James 2:20, 'But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead.'



A person who claims to be loving can still carry out sinful acts, even if they believe in God. The claim of the Bible is not perfection but salvation through belief.
Luke 5:32,' I came not to call the righteous, but sinners unto repentance'.

Gamera, your belief is irrational.

Gamera

[QUOTE=aa5874;3840753]To believe in the son is to believe in the gospel message. Plenty of people believed in God -- like every single beleiveing Jew the apostles knew. But the issue is belief in the gospel message (which is about the son) not in God. Hence:

Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Ephesians 1:13 - In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit

John and others often speak in shorthand (since they are writing to already believing Christian communities, not nonChristians) and speak about "belief in Jesus" as the means of salvation. This simply means acceptance of the gospel message, as Paul says explicitly.

You can't "beleive" in Jesus, without hearing the gospel message, which is the narrative of Jesus.

Gamera

That's because salvation is not really an issue of sin, but identity and love. Sin is the terminology used at the time, but the issue is existential not soteriological. That's why there is no doctrine of original sin in the Christian scriptures, but are imputed by later theologians. Paul uses the terminology of the time, but his intent is clearly that the gospel saves you from being a selfish, self involved person, and allows you to love others. He specifically throws out the idea of sin as a transgression of the law, and says we are free from the law. The issue for Paul is always and ever: is one's conduct loving toward others.

Romans 7:4 - Likewise, my
brethren, you have died to the law
through the body of Christ, so that
you may belong to another, to him
who has been raised from the dead
in order that we may bear fruit for
God.

Gamera

[QUOTE=aa5874;3840753] None. The gospel is a text. And its meaning is in its meaning, not in evidence. Why do you find meaning so meaningless?

The discerning of meaning in a text is not rational or irrational. It is inevitable. Texts are meaningful (even when not meaningful, that's a form of meaning). Your preoccupation with "evidence" is simply off the point. The issue is, is the gospel text meaningful in a profoundly existential way for Christians. That's not subject to imperical verification. If it's meaningful to us, it's meaningful to us. Period.

This is simply quibbling. I'm sure you're aware of how Christians deal with this. Real faith produces works. So as James (and Jesus) rightly point out, if you don't have works (loving acts toward others), you don't really have faith.

Thus Matthew 25: 31-. Plenty of people claim they have faith. It's fashionable enough. But those who really have faith will show it in their lives, as Jesus says. Those who don't show it in their lives, don't really have faith. It's mere profession for whatever self-serving reasons.

Yep, thank God, God doesn't require me to be perfect, just that I accept his love and try to love others, even though I will sometime fail.

The statement is a non sequitur. I accept a text and derive profound meaning from it. That's neither rational or irrational. The meaning of texts aren't subject to imperical verification. Finding meaning in texts is an hermeneutical endeavor, not an epistomological endeavor. You have confused the two.


I suspect you derive all kinds of meaning from historical texts without giving the slightest thought about the epistomological basis for doing so. That's what history is, a bunch of texts. Nothing more. You've naively divided texts into the ones you accept and the ones you don't and then privileged your texts as "history" and "rational" and other texts as "irrational." You might want to provide the basis for this remarkable claim of yours.

Gamera

This is consistent, isn't it, with the concept that we choose ruination or salvation, and that acceptance of the gospel is essentially an existential issue, not a theological one, because it's about what kind of person we choose to be, not what creeds we profess?

My reading of the Christian scriptures is that they are profoundly nontheological.

Gamera

This is a rhetorical trope used often by Jesus (and Paul): exaggeration.

Jesus says if your right eye offends you, pluck it out. He's making a rhetorical point, not recommending self-mutilation. Jesus says the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds. It's not. It's just real small, which is his point. Paul says the gospel has been preached to the entire world. It hadn't. It had just been preached widely, which was his point.

None of this has any theological significance.

Gamera

This is utterly naive. As postmodernists have abundantly pointed out, every text is self-contradictory. It's the nature of texts and language to refer to what is not, and to be self-contradictory at their core. The entire project of postmodernism is to deconstruct important western texts to show how their claims lead to contradictions.

The issue is not whether a text is without internal contradictions, but what a text means, and how that meaning gets dispersed in a culture through institutions and forms of discourse.

The gospel texts have a meaning (which really isn't that complex). That meaning is the basis for Christianity. Discerning contradictions in the Christian scriptures does nothing to affect that meaningfulness.