Opinions and conclusions about Religion and God.

I think there is more overlap than this in practice but for the moment: agreed. Lets assume for the sake of argument that the latter is my general position and the former is yours. In which case... ...would apply to yourself. We are left with our own convictions at the end of the day Phat.I don't predicts anyones destiny. I say what their destiny will be should they die in the spiritual condition they are at the moment. That is not a prediction about their destination - that is a certainty...unless they believe.You seem to have a problem pointing that fact out. I do not. I believe that "the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes (it)". That is what I will present and that is what I will argue should anyone seek to evade it or dismantle it. And as long as the door is open then that is the suitcase of goods I will hold out.I have spend time here taking about Gods Love, his Wrath and his Justice. I have explained that all three (not that there aren't other) attributes are to be reckoned with - equally. Mans corruption, mans sin, mans hatred of God, mans destiny (should he remain in Adam) are the ones that people avoid and rail up against most - and for good reason. It should be expected that people will pay lip service and nod in intellectual agreement to a Fluffy Christ Gospel. I asked you to examine the reaction of people to the gospel in the book of Acts. Did you take note? There IS only one way to God. Through Christ. All the rest is diluted soft focus. I never say "you are headed to Hell unless you listen to me" either. I tell them they are headed to Hell because they are born on that path. That is what the gospel says. If they reject that it is not me they were not listening to it was the gospel. I'm a mere messanger boy, Phat. And in the words of John A. Davision may I request that you "write that down" Perhaps you would contemplate instructing more? I consider you as one who uses the instruction "let the love of Christ within you shine out to a lost and needy world" as if it were the only arrow in the quiver. There is a place for that, Phat. No doubt about it. But that is not the gospel. That is how we are to live. The gospel is a mechanical beast. Comprehensible in legal and forensic fashion. It includes Hell, Gods wrath and fury and talk of the Judgement to come.It needs mentioning.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Talk of hell and damnation etc are, I find, good ways to generate conversation about God. For it raises the hackles in a person - in the sense that most consider themselves worthy of heaven ("if it turns out that it exists afterall"). The catchphrase I have heard so often as to render it a truism of peoples view of themselves is:"I'm not so bad - God (if he exists) won't condemn me surely"Addressing the core problem of man: he is a sinner and stands condemned in Gods sight as it is, seems to me to be the best place to concentrate. Man hates being told he is a sinner.ps: A threat takes the form "Do this or else". The Gospel says that man can do nothing to ensure his own salvation. A threat it cannot be.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

See . People who don't believe in God or heaven raise very similar objections to those who say they do believe. Some use biblical analysis as a tool of rebuttal, others use rational argument based on common sense and common justice.But the differences aren't all that great in fact. And it is not surprising really. A person who is not saved and who doesn't believe in God sails in the same ship as the person who isn't saved and who does believe in God (of their own construction).

quote:

---

The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe, first for the Jew (read: Religious) then for the Gentile (read: irreligious)

---

ps: it worked on me. I was one of the irreligiousEdited by iano, : No reason given.

That remains to be seen. Most of my life I never gave a monkeys about the question of God. It was a non-issue. I'd be polite to whatever bible basher called to my door, pose a 'tricky' question or two ("What about the sheep herder up the side of a mountain in Tibet whose never heard of Christ"). It was right before I came to Christ (or rather him to me) that my objections reached the same kind of fever pitch as one sees around here.Hope springs eternal.

In his dissecting of the gospel in Romans, Paul demonstrates that righteousness has always been something which God credits to mans account when man expresses faith in God. In the context of the times he was writing in, Paul was dealing with legalistic religion of Judaism which held/holds that it is mans adherance to the Law of God which will bring about his righteousness. Religion. Paul is still dealing with it today.

quote:

---

Romans 4:

​

1What then shall we say that Abraham, our (the Jews) forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about”but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[a]

​

4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith(equated with belief here) is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7"Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

---

Men were declared righteous before Christ. They were put 'into Christ' before he came as much as any person is after he came. God had a way to call them then. And he still does now.

quote:

---

Romans 1: 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities”his eternal power and divine nature”have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse

---

Man might cry 'insufficient evidence in Nature". This does not mean that God views it that way. Every man too has a conscience which calls on him.The Gospel should be seen as the mechanism of salvation rather than a form of words. See it in the same way as a DVD player is not represented by the words which tell you how it works. The gospel is something that always existed and has always been applied as a saving mechanism to people. That the mechanism isn't talked about doesn't mean the mechanism cannot be applied.Why talk about the mechanism if there other ways for it to be applied? Simply because the Bible tells me so.

Welcome to EvC HT If I was certain that there was no afterlife, etc. (although it is actually impossible to be certain of this) then "eat, drink, be merry - for tomorrow we die" would most definitely be my philosophy.And I wouldn't have any reason to let anyone stand in my way of so living. If that meant having to do what I had to do then I would have no reason not to do it.

That there are 100 mutually exclusive gods to be extracted from the Bible means that God is not to be 'extracted' from the Bible is a non sequitur Ramoss.Edited by iano, : Prophecy: "perhaps, but it is a pretty convincing non-sequitur for all that"

As rare as a hobby horses poo perhaps, but I heartily concur with you there. The 'force' I think you are referring to is Religion - a curse on its house.

I think you are missing mine. I didn't find God in the Bible. I found God and then went to the Bible and found the Bible to be the 'book' which described that which I already knew of God as I had found him. First knowing God then the Bible. That is the sequence. My knowledge of God verified that the Bible came from him - because what the Bible said of him was what I had found of him. Not the other way around. My point re: concluding god-in-my-own-image is always the case just because all sorts of gods can be found in the Bible is a non-sequitur

Fine

Rub them... That requires a certain amount of Faith and Belief. And sufficient I do not have. I don't think you are being obtuse at all. I am wondering why you are plumbing the depths of F&B though..

Can they explain why that is? There is no reason that they may have which usurps my reason to disagree. Each to their own in that case. You and they differ - so what? If (and I say this for the purposes of discussion) God exists, then you and your friends are not as free to act in whatever mannner they/you chose. Freewill within prescribed boundaries is not the same as free will to do anything at all that you please.

One needs a question to exist before one can answer yes/noDo you agree?

Your friends and you are able to act in 'socially constructive' ways whilst all the while not believing in God. Fair enough.But since when does your not believing in God mean that God doesn't believe in you? And in ways which make 'socially constructive' a stronger propensity than 'socially destructive'In other words. How do you escape God if he exists?

Not diminished. Kept within boundaries. You can chose A or B but not C. Restriction not diminishnent Not at all. You presume you are entirely free when in fact you are not. God makes you and decides that you (as a made being) will stand before him to give an account of yourself. What's your beef?