Is belief a choice?

[Justin108]

Christians tell me all the time that atheist deserve hell because they "chose" to reject god by not believing in him. They tell me that of I believe then I will be saved as though I can simply choose what I want to believe. How is belief a choice?

If I offered you $10 000 to believe that I was George Clooney, would you start choosing to believe I'm George Clooney?

[Clownboat]

There are 38,000 denominations of Christianity, this "God's Plan of Salvation" varies and the odds are against you that your explanation is right.

And yet, we all share the same Bible (for the most part), and we all have some version of God's Plan of Salvation. Your comment is simple a denial for denial's sake IMHO.

Thank you for at least slyly admitting that you all don't share the same Bible and that there are many versions of god's plan of salvation. Your agreement proves that I was not denying for the sake of denying as you claimed.

No. I do not believe that an all powerful god would do this. I once did, but that was only through indoctrination and threats of hell.

Well, you are free to reject the Biblical version and explanation of WHY Jesus was sent. Yet you offer no alternative theory, and yours would be based on?

You did not ask for my version of why Jesus was sent. I will offer it now though. A man and women had sex and Jesus was born. I do not claim that Jesus actually existed since there is no trustworthy proof outside the Bible, but IMO, he was most likely a real person. I base this on the fact that people are born because other people had sex.

Therein lies the issue brother.

This is not an issue IMO, but if you had wanted my explanation, you could have just asked for it instead of falsely claiming I had none.

You can agree or disagree to your heart's content, but you cannot tell simply disagree with a group of Christians for accepting a valid Biblical interpretation. That makes little sense.

Make up your mind. Can I agree or disagree or not? You claim I both can and can't above. THAT makes little sense.

First of all, being tortured for a day and being dead for a couple more in order to save all of mankind, then you get to spend eternity at the right hand of god is not much of a sacrifice. Would you not do the same in order to save all of mankind?
Secondly, why would god offer us wisdom? Ecc 1:18 - For in much wisdom is much grief, and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Have you ever been tortured to death? Have you spent any time in Hell unjustly? Have you been resurrected?

1. No. Strange question to ask by the way.
2. No. Please provide evidence for this hell you speak of. A book written by men will not suffice by the way.
3. I have never been resurrected. No one in the history of man has been either as far as I can tell.

And we complain when we get speeding tickets unjustly.

Um... ok.

Besides, what Jesus did fulfills the OT law. Before Jesus, before grace, men were cleansed of their sin by sacrificing animals (which were themselves an 'economic' admission of the cost of sin). It was that blood that cleansed the sin and allowed a fresh start. What blood would cleanse ALL of man kind's sin? Only divine blood of the Father can achieve that. Ergo ... and yet, though our sin demanded death and entrapment of Jesus in Hell, through power of the Father, through Jesus Christ, he overcame that price and was resurrected and rejoined the Father.

Jesus, did not meet all the criteria for being the Jewish messiah if that is what you are trying to say. Please visit the "Is Jesus the Jewish messiah" thread if you would like to try to prove this wrong.

Your alternative in dealing with sin is?

Sin is your concept. However, I am responsible for my good and bad behavior. I cannot do something bad and just simply pray for forgiveness and call it good. I hold myself accountable.

I realize you believe this. Please realize that IMO it is not a realistic explanation.

Once again, anyone is free to disagree. Yet what is your alternative theory that is compelling enough to drive it away? What purpose was this universe made for? Science cannot help you there brother, indeed it rarely can in the realm of purpose.

I'm sorry, I do not have the answers for these questions. If you need answers in order to live your life or to feel special or something, I suggest you pick a religion to follow. Just about any will do. Almost all religions have answers to your questions. Pay no mind that most contradict each other and that all of them can't be true and that no religious follower has a way to show that they speak the truth. No need for evidence though, just convince yourself that you need faith and you can believe in any religion of your choice.

Please prove this "god's plan of salvation" before you go on to accusing us of ignoring it.
Also, please stop ignoring unicorns.

I believe I did. I provided a non-denominational source based on direct quotes from the Bible.

Why is the Bible true? Is it true because it says it's true, or is it true because you say it's true?

And who said anything about unicorns?

No one. You told me to stop ignoring god's plan of salvation, so I told you to stop ignoring unicorns. Both statements are equally meaningful IMO.

Thanks for your assurance. Any reason I should trust you over other religious beliefs and do you have anyway to show that you are speaking truth?

Well, you could do what I did and simply ask God. I did. Remember we are all different. We all have things we need to learn, are at various aspects of our lives. We all think differently, we all learn differently, we all love differently.

I have done what you asked and it did not show me that you are speaking the truth. Got a way that works that shows me you are speaking the truth?

Why does it shock you that God would have 'more than one church'?

I'm not shocked that a god would have more than one church. You made that claim up. I am shocked that he would have 38,000 different denominations though which disagree with each other.

Besides, there is a simple question in reverse, why not?

No need to rebut this since your "why does it shock you" claim was a strawman logical fallacy.

[stubbornone]

There are 38,000 denominations of Christianity, this "God's Plan of Salvation" varies and the odds are against you that your explanation is right.

Thank you for at least slyly admitting that you all don't share the same Bible and that there are many versions of god's plan of salvation. Your agreement proves that I was not denying for the sake of denying as you claimed.

Well, which ones are different? Mormons have complete additional volumes, and Catholics have extra chapters. Guess what? BOTH have God's Plan of Salvation.

Its not like grace isn't part of any particular Christian sect. So what exactly are you claiming?

You did not ask for my version of why Jesus was sent. I will offer it now though. A man and women had sex and Jesus was born. I do not claim that Jesus actually existed since there is no trustworthy proof outside the Bible, but IMO, he was most likely a real person. I base this on the fact that people are born because other people had sex.

Well, one, period scholarship disagrees with you. There is indeed a lot of extra Biblical (source and archaeological) that points to Jesus. But believing that he was born naturally does not explain WHAT HIS PURPOSE was.

Why he taught what he taught. You've simply answered a different question, brother.

This is not an issue IMO, but if you had wanted my explanation, you could have just asked for it instead of falsely claiming I had none.

Once again, why would Jesus, even born naturally, claim that he was the Son of God, allow himself to be sacrificed, where his common blood no longer gives us the gift of grace, and then be resurrected for no particular reason? Why did the Apostles not preach this instead?

Please, if you feel that you have been falsely accused, please share your opinion, but do so with the knowledge that the picture of Jesus is not just Biblical, it has withstood millennia of Ph.D level scrutiny.

Make up your mind. Can I agree or disagree or not? You claim I both can and can't above. THAT makes little sense.

Semantics. You can disagree with a person's opinion, but you cannot say, "Gee that one is not Christian because I choose to think that." When something is common within Christianity, it make no sense to claim it isn't Christian, and indeed, one making such a claim needs to support that claim with WHY is isn't Christian.

1. No. Strange question to ask by the way.
2. No. Please provide evidence for this hell you speak of. A book written by men will not suffice by the way.
3. I have never been resurrected. No one in the history of man has been either as far as I can tell.

You do understand what the Synoptic Gospels are do you not? They are what modern historians call first person accounts, and there are detailed documentation of what they represent. These are the basic building blocks of historical documentation. That is how we do things in history. But you reject that process?

Again, you are entitled to an opinion, but if you reject a process based on any random thing, considering peer reviewed process withstanding millennia of examination as 'not good enough' - well, I will submit that nothing ever will be.

No amount evidence will ever convince someone who has already made up his mind to ignore it.

Jesus, did not meet all the criteria for being the Jewish messiah if that is what you are trying to say. Please visit the "Is Jesus the Jewish messiah" thread if you would like to try to prove this wrong.

That is a debate worth having, but obviously, as a Christian, we think he's the messiah. We are talking about Christian doctrine correct?

Sin is your concept. However, I am responsible for my good and bad behavior. I cannot do something bad and just simply pray for forgiveness and call it good. I hold myself accountable.

So atheists never tell lies? Atheists never commit adultery or blow their stacks?

And, without atonement, pray tell, how exactly do you hold yourself accountable? What set of standards do you follow? Or are you simply prone to rationalization?

Please bear in mind, I was an atheist. I know what atheists claim they can do, but I am fully aware of making a claim of what one CAN do, and walking into a church one a week and giving an account of your actions to God.

So when do you do that?

I'm sorry, I do not have the answers for these questions. If you need answers in order to live your life or to feel special or something, I suggest you pick a religion to follow. Just about any will do. Almost all religions have answers to your questions. Pay no mind that most contradict each other and that all of them can't be true and that no religious follower has a way to show that they speak the truth. No need for evidence though, just convince yourself that you need faith and you can believe in any religion of your choice.

And tell me again, what about God's Plan of Salvation conflicts with atonement? Forgiveness? Love?

I have the answers I need don't I? It is you brother who have taken the time to come and caste your doubt upon them. And your evidence is presented where brother?

Why is the Bible true? Is it true because it says it's true, or is it true because you say it's true?

Are you offering to answer my questions for me? I believe it is true because I am a trained historian and know that the process used to create the gospels is a valid intellectual process. Additionally, having taken the precepts and put them into practice, I have discovered that the wisdom is indeed true.

And you think it is fake because?

You do realize that there is historical evidence all over the record brother? That the alternative to the Bible being real is that cabal of guys go together, faked an entire series of stories, made up eye witnesses to them, bribed Roman, Jewish, and Early Christian figures to support them, even some to lambaste the new Christ, and then planted enough evidence all over the historical and archaeological record to fool ... everyone but atheists who discovered that there was a vast conspiracy uncovered by Wells to fake all this?

http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm

That brother, is the consensus opinion of period scholars, including many atheists, who reject such a view with prejudice. Why would you accept a disproven conspiracy theory over millennia of scrutiny and scholarly acceptance?

No one. You told me to stop ignoring god's plan of salvation, so I told you to stop ignoring unicorns. Both statements are equally meaningful IMO.

Accept no on offered unicorns into the discussion record. One of us did offer God's Plan of Salavation into the record.

I'm not shocked that a god would have more than one church. You made that claim up. I am shocked that he would have 38,000 different denominations though which disagree with each other.

No brother, I made the claim that God's Plan of Salvation is based on the Bible an major portion of Christian theology that crosses all denominations. Including Mormons who have 'extra Bibles' if you will.

It a very common precept.

How making that claim equates to, "God only has one church"? I am lost brother.

No need to rebut this since your "why does it shock you" claim was a strawman logical fallacy.

Yes brother, if you are claiming logic, then there must be a chain of reasoning that supports a defined conclusion. As in, "I do not believe God's Plan of Salvation is a common Christian precept ... because ...."

If we are not doing this brother, then what we are engaged in, on either side, is a conspiracy. It's no different that offering evidence to ... those who deny the moon landing occurred. It doesn't matter to them that faking the moon landing would have cost MUCH more money than actually going to the moon, etc. Such conclusions are not based on evidence, but on emotion. I will not say all atheists are doing it, but I think it would be a trap to simply claim that it is not happening either (or at least a potential weakness at any rate).

Please bear in mind brother, I say that as a former atheist who made many, many cogent and damaging logical cases to denounce and deny God. Yet I look back and I know that what the real problem was, was that I was an angry young man looking to shake my fist at God.

Perhaps I see a bit of that in many atheists today as well? Regardless, the trap of denial by any means is as much an intellectual trap as affirmation by any means necessary. Both sides in this debate have potential intellectual and logical pit falls that should be avoided carefully.

[Clownboat]

There are 38,000 denominations of Christianity, this "God's Plan of Salvation" varies and the odds are against you that your explanation is right.

Thank you for at least slyly admitting that you all don't share the same Bible and that there are many versions of god's plan of salvation. Your agreement proves that I was not denying for the sake of denying as you claimed.

Well, which ones are different? Mormons have complete additional volumes, and Catholics have extra chapters. Guess what? BOTH have God's Plan of Salvation.

You tell me. Let me remind you of your claim:

" we all share the same Bible (for the most part), and we all have some version of God's Plan of Salvation.

Its not like grace isn't part of any particular Christian sect. So what exactly are you claiming?

My claim was that you agreed (and I showed your agreement) that Christians share the same Bible for the most part and we all have some version of God's Plan of Salvation.
I made no claim about grace. I was showing that you were false when you said I was denying for the sake of denying and I was showing that you agreed that not all denominations have the same Bible or the same version of god's plan of salvation.

You did not ask for my version of why Jesus was sent. I will offer it now though. A man and women had sex and Jesus was born. I do not claim that Jesus actually existed since there is no trustworthy proof outside the Bible, but IMO, he was most likely a real person. I base this on the fact that people are born because other people had sex.

Well, one, period scholarship disagrees with you. There is indeed a lot of extra Biblical (source and archaeological) that points to Jesus. But believing that he was born naturally does not explain WHAT HIS PURPOSE was.

Holy crap. I never claimed that there are no scholars that disagree with me. Are you following along because it seems you keep insisting that I am making arguments that I am not actually making.
On to your claim, please offer for review these extra Biblical sources that point to Jesus. Again, I am not claiming that Jesus did not exist, I think most likely that he did exist.

Why he taught what he taught. You've simply answered a different question, brother.

What are you talking about brother?

This is not an issue IMO, but if you had wanted my explanation, you could have just asked for it instead of falsely claiming I had none.

Once again, why would Jesus, even born naturally, claim that he was the Son of God, allow himself to be sacrificed, where his common blood no longer gives us the gift of grace, and then be resurrected for no particular reason? Why did the Apostles not preach this instead?

You did not address the fact that you falsely claimed I had no alternative theory for why Jesus was here.
Now on to your questions again:
- IMO, the apostles were creating a new religion and it would be futile to claim that Jesus is the son of a god but also naturally human like the rest of us.

Please, if you feel that you have been falsely accused, please share your opinion, but do so with the knowledge that the picture of Jesus is not just Biblical, it has withstood millennia of Ph.D level scrutiny.

No need to share my opinion, I have shown to all reading here where you have falsely accused me.
Please explain what you mean by "the picture of Jesus is not just Biblical, it has withstood millennia of Ph.D level scrutiny." What does this claim entail?

Make up your mind. Can I agree or disagree or not? You claim I both can and can't above. THAT makes little sense.

Semantics. You can disagree with a person's opinion, but you cannot say, "Gee that one is not Christian because I choose to think that." When something is common within Christianity, it make no sense to claim it isn't Christian, and indeed, one making such a claim needs to support that claim with WHY is isn't Christian.

This is not Semantics. Let me remind all what your claim was:

You can agree or disagree to your heart's content, but you cannot tell simply disagree with a group of Christians for accepting a valid Biblical interpretation.

Can I agree or disagree with Christians or not?

1. No. Strange question to ask by the way.
2. No. Please provide evidence for this hell you speak of. A book written by men will not suffice by the way.
3. I have never been resurrected. No one in the history of man has been either as far as I can tell.

You do understand what the Synoptic Gospels are do you not? They are what modern historians call first person accounts, and there are detailed documentation of what they represent. These are the basic building blocks of historical documentation. That is how we do things in history. But you reject that process?

You failed to provide evidence for this hell of yours.
You failed to show that a person has ever been resurrected in history.
Now on to your claim. The Synoptic Gospels are not known to be first person accounts and we don't even know who wrote them. We do know they were written many decades after the supposed events happened though.
What are the basic building blocks of historical documentation so I can know if I truly reject this process or not.
With all the false claims you have made about me so far, I have to assume this is just another.

Again, you are entitled to an opinion, but if you reject a process based on any random thing, considering peer reviewed process withstanding millennia of examination as 'not good enough' - well, I will submit that nothing ever will be.

The Bible has been not good enough for millions of people for thousands of years already, so I fail to see your point.

No amount evidence will ever convince someone who has already made up his mind to ignore it.

This is another false claim about me. "You will know them by there fruits". Your fruits are not appearing well in my opinion.

Jesus, did not meet all the criteria for being the Jewish messiah if that is what you are trying to say. Please visit the "Is Jesus the Jewish messiah" thread if you would like to try to prove this wrong.

That is a debate worth having, but obviously, as a Christian, we think he's the messiah. We are talking about Christian doctrine correct?

Yes, like the Christian doctrine that Jesus will:
- Bring about 1000 years of peace?
- All the Jews will return to Israel?
- Set Israel up as a nation.
- Will rule on earth.
- Will destroy the Assyrians.

He did fulfill the Bethlehem and lineage requirements, just like millions of other humans have through history. Wow!

Sin is your concept. However, I am responsible for my good and bad behavior. I cannot do something bad and just simply pray for forgiveness and call it good. I hold myself accountable.

So atheists never tell lies? Atheists never commit adultery or blow their stacks?

More claims that I did not make. I am also not an Atheist, just thought I would point out another false claim you have made about me.

And, without atonement, pray tell, how exactly do you hold yourself accountable? What set of standards do you follow? Or are you simply prone to rationalization?

My father once told me:
"I have given you 2 precious things. A good name and a good reputation, don't screw either of these up."
Also, I was raised a good Christian boy. I still consider myself a good Christian man, just without the belief part. Jesus was claimed to have said many valuable things IMO and I still can live my life by those things. No atonement is necessary.

Please bear in mind, I was an atheist. I know what atheists claim they can do, but I am fully aware of making a claim of what one CAN do, and walking into a church one a week and giving an account of your actions to God.

So when do you do that?

I'm not an atheist and I don't go to church once a week to ask for forgiveness. If I have wronged someone, it is up to me to make it right with the person I wronged. It would be much easier to just pray and ask for forgiveness I must admit, but to me, that is the easy way out.

I'm sorry, I do not have the answers for these questions. If you need answers in order to live your life or to feel special or something, I suggest you pick a religion to follow. Just about any will do. Almost all religions have answers to your questions. Pay no mind that most contradict each other and that all of them can't be true and that no religious follower has a way to show that they speak the truth. No need for evidence though, just convince yourself that you need faith and you can believe in any religion of your choice.

And tell me again, what about God's Plan of Salvation conflicts with atonement? Forgiveness? Love?

I don't claim there to be a god that has a Plan of Salvation. That is you, so you need to support your claim. I should not have to do your work for you.

I have the answers I need don't I? It is you brother who have taken the time to come and caste your doubt upon them. And your evidence is presented where brother?

I believe Christianity does supply you with the answers you need. That bares no evidence that your beliefs are true and my evidence of this would be the millions of people that get the answers they need through different religious concepts. Which evidence of mine do you need presented?

Why is the Bible true? Is it true because it says it's true, or is it true because you say it's true?

Are you offering to answer my questions for me? I believe it is true because I am a trained historian and know that the process used to create the gospels is a valid intellectual process. Additionally, having taken the precepts and put them into practice, I have discovered that the wisdom is indeed true.

I doubt your credentials if you believe that books written by unknown authors decades after the fact is a valid intellectual process. I agree there is wisdom in much of what Jesus is said to have said. I have put some of it in practice myself and found that it is true. However, I never said that the Bible does not contain some wisdom.

And you think it is fake because?

I don't believe that god would let humans live on this planet for 100's of thousands of years without knowledge of him only to deliver his message to desert nomads that did not have written language. The Chinese at the time would have been a better avenue.

Also, I find it illogical that a god would inspire the writing of a book with a message for everyone and then require theologians to interpret and explain the book.

And finally all the contradictions in the Bible make for its inerrant belief to be an impossibility.

You do realize that there is historical evidence all over the record brother? That the alternative to the Bible being real is that cabal of guys go together, faked an entire series of stories, made up eye witnesses to them, bribed Roman, Jewish, and Early Christian figures to support them, even some to lambaste the new Christ, and then planted enough evidence all over the historical and archaeological record to fool ... everyone but atheists who discovered that there was a vast conspiracy uncovered by Wells to fake all this?

Please offer this evidence outside the Bible that shows Jesus to be the son of a god. I do NOT claim that there is no historical evidence in the Bible that is not at least partially true, just none outside of religious promotional material that claims Jesus to be the son of a god.

http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm

That brother, is the consensus opinion of period scholars, including many atheists, who reject such a view with prejudice. Why would you accept a disproven conspiracy theory over millennia of scrutiny and scholarly acceptance?

Just so I am clear, what is it that you claim I'm rejecting?

No one. You told me to stop ignoring god's plan of salvation, so I told you to stop ignoring unicorns. Both statements are equally meaningful IMO.

Accept no on offered unicorns into the discussion record. One of us did offer God's Plan of Salavation into the record.

Not true. I offered unicorns up to show you that you are claiming that I am ignoring something non-evidenced, so I supplied you with unicorns to ignore (that are also non-evidenced).

I'm not shocked that a god would have more than one church. You made that claim up. I am shocked that he would have 38,000 different denominations though which disagree with each other.

No brother, I made the claim that God's Plan of Salvation is based on the Bible an major portion of Christian theology that crosses all denominations. Including Mormons who have 'extra Bibles' if you will.

Here is your direct quote"

"Why does it shock you that God would have 'more than one church'?"

You did claim that I was shocked about something I am not shocked about.

How making that claim equates to, "God only has one church"? I am lost brother.

I was lost too, that is why I had to take the time to show you that you claimed I was shocked that god would have more than one church when I did not make that claim. Please see your quote above.

No need to rebut this since your "why does it shock you" claim was a strawman logical fallacy.

[stubbornone]

Thank you for at least slyly admitting that you all don't share the same Bible and that there are many versions of god's plan of salvation. Your agreement proves that I was not denying for the sake of denying as you claimed.

That is just it, I shared with you a non-denominational source, one based on Bible quotes. It is the basics as shared by all denominations. We all have grace and we all teach the same thing, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, even Mormons. They differ a bit in emphasis and detail, but the main picture is remarkably similiar across the board.

Denying that is simply denying it for the sake of denial. Its simply making a mountain out of mole hill.

My claim was that you agreed (and I showed your agreement) that Christians share the same Bible for the most part and we all have some version of God's Plan of Salvation.

Now, show me just ONE that has a vastly different version of God's Plan of Salvation. What you are saying is because we have slight differences in detail that we should therefore ignore a major tenet of Christianity ... one that answers the question you asked.

Why bother asking a question if you have already decided you will ignore the answer?

I made no claim about grace. I was showing that you were false when you said I was denying for the sake of denying and I was showing that you agreed that not all denominations have the same Bible or the same version of god's plan of salvation.

Then you clearly do not understand God's Plan of Salvation and the role that Grace play, and the purpose of Grace as brought to us by Jesus Christ. That is a stroy that runs from the most liberal non-denominational sect, to Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism, and even Mormonism.

Holy crap. I never claimed that there are no scholars that disagree with me. Are you following along because it seems you keep insisting that I am making arguments that I am not actually making.
On to your claim, please offer for review these extra Biblical sources that point to Jesus. Again, I am not claiming that Jesus did not exist, I think most likely that he did exist.

You claimed the the historically supported version of the Bible is inaccurate, in disagreement with scholarship for reasons we still have to guess at.

Here is a primer:

http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-n ... dor-people

What are you talking about brother?

If the Bible is wrong as you say, then what is the purpose of Jesus? The Apostles? Why would he teach what he taught? Do what he did?

You did not address the fact that you falsely claimed I had no alternative theory for why Jesus was here.
Now on to your questions again:
- IMO, the apostles were creating a new religion and it would be futile to claim that Jesus is the son of a god but also naturally human like the rest of us.

And you substituted 'why' with sex rather than purpose. I believe I was very clear in asking about purpose over procreative origins. If not, then let me make that clear again.

Please explain what you mean by "the picture of Jesus is not just Biblical, it has withstood millennia of Ph.D level scrutiny." What does this claim entail?

It means the period Scholars, people with Ph.D's, have repeatedly examined the evidential record and found it to be remarkably strong. In short, the evidence for Jesus, using EXPERT opinion, is strong.

Those scholars who deny, namely Wells, have been repeatedly ripped apart by ACTUAL period scholars. In short, the story of Jesus, to the best ability of greatest historical minds, is perceived as remarkably accurate.

Can I agree or disagree with Christians or not?

you are simply using semantics. State your opinion. If you claim, as you do above, that God's Plan of Salvation is not Christian because we have slight variations on the same thing, you are not disagreeing in a logical sense. You are saying, EVERYONE on your side has to accept everything the exact same way, or you can ignore it. That is not disagreement, it is deliberately avoiding something.

You failed to provide evidence for this hell of yours.
You failed to show that a person has ever been resurrected in history.
Now on to your claim. The Synoptic Gospels are not known to be first person accounts and we don't even know who wrote them. We do know they were written many decades after the supposed events happened though.
What are the basic building blocks of historical documentation so I can know if I truly reject this process or not.
With all the false claims you have made about me so far, I have to assume this is just another.

Well, you failed to show the false either.

Why would I reject first person accounts of these miracles from guys that are proven, in what we can verify, to be telling the truth? There are some things that we simply cannot verify. Why assume clearly honest men are lying?

The Bible has been not good enough for millions of people for thousands of years already, so I fail to see your point.

Its good enough for billions today and the unanimous opinion of period scholars. I'd say that makes it pretty strong.

This is another false claim about me. "You will know them by there fruits". Your fruits are not appearing well in my opinion.

Attempting to explain to you the historical record and what God's Plan of Salvation is ... is upsetting to you?

Or are you using something you do not understand to avoid getting exactly what you asked for?

We don;t all get the same spiritual gifts brother, but I will tell you that one of them is discernment - the ability to spot what is good and what is not.

You are not the subject of this discussion, please take yourself out of it. I have no intention of discussion - you - but rather theology. If you cannot discuss this subject without it being personal, then perhaps it is best we simply stop?

Yes, like the Christian doctrine that Jesus will:
- Bring about 1000 years of peace?
- All the Jews will return to Israel?
- Set Israel up as a nation.
- Will rule on earth.
- Will destroy the Assyrians.

Israel was a Nation. The Assyrians are gone. And as you know the process on the rest evolving. he was born in Bethlehem, by a very round about method, to a virgin, and met many, many other criteria for being named the messiah.

What does this have to do with God's Plan of Salvation? Obviously, we believe he was the Messiah and that he came here for a specific purpose. It seems to me that you are simply introducing a different topic entirely.

He did fulfill the Bethlehem and lineage requirements, just like millions of other humans have through history. Wow!

Lots of people were born to virgins in Bethleham in the year zero - in the middle of a tax migration? Really?

More claims that I did not make. I am also not an Atheist, just thought I would point out another false claim you have made about me.

When you say Sin is our concept, then the question become what atheists, or whatever you want to call yourself, call it when people lie? Its the same thing.

This is also an argument from semantics.

My father once told me:
"I have given you 2 precious things. A good name and a good reputation, don't screw either of these up."
Also, I was raised a good Christian boy. I still consider myself a good Christian man, just without the belief part. Jesus was claimed to have said many valuable things IMO and I still can live my life by those things. No atonement is necessary.

So what do you do with the inevitability of sin in your life. How do you give an account of yourself and your good name? Do you seek feedback from others about what you do or will do? Is defending your reputation more important that the actuality of honesty? For example?

Again, its a stark difference. Once a week we go in and deal with our sin. What gets you to hell? Unrepentant sin.

So what do you do with your mistakes? Nothing. And if I did the same thing, I go to hell to.

I'm not an atheist and I don't go to church once a week to ask for forgiveness. If I have wronged someone, it is up to me to make it right with the person I wronged. It would be much easier to just pray and ask for forgiveness I must admit, but to me, that is the easy way out.

All of this previously addressed. And you simply ignored atonement. We are required to repent as well. But, we go once a week and actually hold ourselves to standard. THAT is the main difference.

It would be much easier to simply talk about what you MIGHT do, or WOULD do, but again, what DO YOU DO. And that is where the lack of atonement fails.

I don't claim there to be a god that has a Plan of Salvation. That is you, so you need to support your claim. I should not have to do your work for you.

you do understand the subject title? Why non-believers go to hell? And the answer is that YOU earn your path to hell. Just like everyone else.

I believe you are simply disagreeing to disagree.

I believe Christianity does supply you with the answers you need. That bares no evidence that your beliefs are true and my evidence of this would be the millions of people that get the answers they need through different religious concepts. Which evidence of mine do you need presented?

Once again, period scholars and billions of people disagree. Evidence actually supports the narrative of Jesus.

Does it make you feel better to think that we are stupid or something?

I doubt your credentials if you believe that books written by unknown authors decades after the fact is a valid intellectual process. I agree there is wisdom in much of what Jesus is said to have said. I have put some of it in practice myself and found that it is true. However, I never said that the Bible does not contain some wisdom.

I don;t. I trust the opinion of period experts. I trust my own analysis. I trust the fact that serious scholars have looked at eh narrative of detractors like this and thoroughly destroyed them.

Also, I find it illogical that a god would inspire the writing of a book with a message for everyone and then require theologians to interpret and explain the book.

And how would he make a permanent record of his words in the year 30-40AD?

And it doesn't take theologians to read the book does it?

And finally all the contradictions in the Bible make for its inerrant belief to be an impossibility.

So now you reject our Bible because you think we all interpret the book as literalists? Even though it contains known parable?

Please offer this evidence outside the Bible that shows Jesus to be the son of a god. I do NOT claim that there is no historical evidence in the Bible that is not at least partially true, just none outside of religious promotional material that claims Jesus to be the son of a god.

Its already done above.

Just so I am clear, what is it that you claim I'm rejecting?

When you ask for evidence as to why something is strong evidence, and you are claiming it is weak, well, period scholars disagree with you. That simple.

Not true. I offered unicorns up to show you that you are claiming that I am ignoring something non-evidenced, so I supplied you with unicorns to ignore (that are also non-evidenced).

God's Plan of Salvation was both mentioned and referenced.

Your pointing to unicorns is not analogous.

You did claim that I was shocked about something I am not shocked about.

Nope, just worried about contradictions while contradicting yourself. You demand sameness above, and then claim diversity is not surprising?

Which is it? Do we all have to be robotic in our assessments, or are we a allowed a modicum of diversity?

In short, you are doing what Wells did, which is taking any proposition and simply finding an excuse to deny it. Hence:

A: God's Plan of Salvation - pretty much the same all over, but identical so you ignore it.

B. God has more than one church - well, diversity is no surprising, so now this diversity allows you to claim that you were misquoted.

But in the end you just employed two opposing standards to deny something. I think that such things point to a contrarian nature in denial. It is easy to never be wrong when you simply deny everything. But what do you get out of that?

Again, a reminder, at some point denying to absurdity is the same as affirming to absurdity.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Well, what does God's Plan of Salvation say about all this?

No idea. Is there such a thing?

I mean you don't have to take God's word for it, you are free to rebel and do what you wish.

What is God's word?

Take a simple one, thou shalt not lie. Anyone who says he has never lied ... frankly, unless you are Jesus himself, you have lied. At best, our lies save us from consequences of our own actions, but those consequences are passed onto someone else are they not? When you flub a play on a football team, and blame someone else ... you may not get extra practice time, but if the coach believes you and punishes someone else ... there was a consequence to that lie. Having violated the commandment, having seen the consequence ... oh no, right?

Any action is capable of causing undue harm, lying, just as much as honesty can do this. This is not true of all cases though. Lying, just like honesty, can be harmless, it all depends on the situation.

Well, you asked specifically about Satan in the example, and here once again Satan serves a purpose. No unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God. So how, if we are all perfect servants of God, are we introduced to the concept of Sin? By Satan. That is exactly the role he fills in Genesis. Without him, we live in perfection in the 'Garden of Eden'. With him ... we live on earth and some of us will indeed fall to his temptations, given the free will we have been granted.

I disagree, the Serpent in the Garden of Eden was not Satan, this is shown to be the case when you take a careful look at God's reaction to what the Serpent did. God punished all serpents to crawl on their belly and eat dirt for the remainder of all existence. If the Serpent was merely a guise for Satan (an angel), why would God punish all serpents for all time for the actions of an angel in disguise?

Science however, cannot answer the why this was all created. The Bible does. Everything in the universe was created so you, and many others, could be placed upon this earth and have a chance to learn, to grow, and to explore.

This isn't what the Bible proposes is the reason for creation, the Bible posits that God created everything in order for his glory to be realized and revered. It has little and less to do with other beings' enjoyment.

http://bible.org/article/gods-plan-salvation

Well, there is a non-denominational explanation of God's Plan of Salvation. You can, with time trace the entire thing out directly with Bible quotes, but that is ... probably a bit much for a debate forum.

There are many different idea's for, "God's plan of salvation," not all of them Christian, why should I take this one more seriously than any or all of the others?

I will also say that you are picking and choosing various things without really making a case, merely attempting to, IMO, to disagree with what I laid out.

If I were to convey all of my beliefs regarding the bible and interpretations of it's text, it would take a long time to write, read and respond to. Best to keep it brief especially given most of what I would say would be off topic for this thread.

For example, do you believe that God would send Jesus down here, his Son, and allow him to be tortured and killed, his blood to cleanse our sins ... why exactly would he do that? God's plan of salvation is reason provided in the Bible.

I find this dubious at best, the meaning of "son" in the relationship between Jesus and God escapes me entirely, especially if one were to suggest that the Trinity is an actual thing. It's all good and well to propose that a man was tortured and killed and that has meaning. But when you say that this man was "God in the flesh" suddenly, saying this man was killed and tortured no longer carries the same meaning. I don't know what meaning it carries because I don't know what God is or how torturing and killing God effects Him (It). It seems that the common belief is that these things (killing especially) does not effect God in the same way that it effects us (humans).

And yet the reality is not that Christians think that God gave us all this just so we can go glory him. We believe, as you see above, that God made all this for us ... all of us - even you.

You may believe that but that is beside the point, the Bible makes it clear that the reason for all of his actions is to spread his own glory and for that glory to be known and recognized.

Ex 9 : 14-16 For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth. For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth. And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

Is 48:8-11 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb. For my name's sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off. Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction. For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

**EDIT** Is 43 : 6-7 I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

In all seriousness, what do you gain by simply ignoring God's Plan of Salvation? Either intellectually or spiritually? It is, given your questions, what we believe.

Am I ignoring God's plan to Salvation? What is God's plan to Salvation? Do you have any means to verify one of these proposed plans over another? There are quite literally thousands of different ideas on the issue.

BTW - I skipped it, apologies, but lying (morality). There is a difference between lying and honesty, and no doubt there are some extreme example (usually involving highly unlikely scenarios like hiding Jews from Nazis or some such), but generally speaking lying is WORSE than honesty.

I assure you, the above actually happened, look up Schindler's List. It was much more than just a film. "Generally speaking". Re-asserting your original claim is not debating, show why one is better than another and that it isn't entirely circumstantial.

The fact is, if you believe that lying and honesty are equally good and bad, you were given an opportunity down here to test that hypothesis out. See for yourself whether your analysis is right, or whether God admonition to tell the truth is the correct one.

You misunderstand my position. I advocate that it is circumstantial and that neither is inherently better than the other, lying is sometimes the right thing to do, same goes with honesty.

Note: Edited my previous post as I accidentally left out info I meant to put in.

[stubbornone]

There are many different idea's for, "God's plan of salvation," not all of them Christian, why should I take this one more seriously than any or all of the others?

By actually evaluating it?

By not making excuses to avoid it?

That would perhaps be a start.

If I were to convey all of my beliefs regarding the bible and interpretations of it's text, it would take a long time to write, read and respond to. Best to keep it brief especially given most of what I would say would be off topic for this thread.

Well, you could try keeping it to those relevant to hell, which would include addressing the role of grace and sin and how that push us into hell ... and extract us from hell. Indeed, as its the Christian and Muslim versions you are ostensibly worried about, you could stick to common theological interpretations of just that ... as opposed to tossing out every religion in the world in order to avoid the ones that are relevant to the discussion?

I find this dubious at best, the meaning of "son" in the relationship between Jesus and God escapes me entirely, especially if one were to suggest that the Trinity is an actual thing. It's all good and well to propose that a man was tortured and killed and that has meaning. But when you say that this man was "God in the flesh" suddenly, saying this man was killed and tortured no longer carries the same meaning. I don't know what meaning it carries because I don't know what God is or how torturing and killing God effects Him (It). It seems that the common belief is that these things (killing especially) does not effect God in the same way that it effects us (humans).

And yet Jesus was resurrected.

As simply as I can state this, regardless of denomination, all Christian believe in the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost. Whether they are all the same thing or separate is a matter of some theological debate. Yet either way, those three entities fill three specific purposes and the real goal, as you grow in your relationship, is to understand those roles so you can garner the correct ideas.

For example, the Son had to be flesh and blood or his sacrifice cannot be made. His resurrection pointless as it would not be needed.

what matters when discussion Christian theology, is Christian theology. That you would personally do it differently does not mean God agrees with you, or that it happened that way instead of the way it happened in the Bible.

You may believe that but that is beside the point, the Bible makes it clear that the reason for all of his actions is to spread his own glory and for that glory to be known and recognized.

Its not a zero sum game. More than one thing can be accomplished. But I trust that when God says its for reason X, it probably is.

Ex 9 : 14-16 For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth. For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth. And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

Why? Because atonement saves. Shall I quote verses and doctrine for you about atonement, resurrection? Do these things not exist in the Bible?

Am I ignoring God's plan to Salvation? What is God's plan to Salvation? Do you have any means to verify one of these proposed plans over another? There are quite literally thousands of different ideas on the issue.

I believe I provided you with a non-denominational source of what God's Plan of Salvation is. Its quite common in Christianity, and it appears you are simply choosing to quite literally ignore it even when all you have to do is click on it and read it.

And yet, you find excuses to avoid it?

I assure you, the above actually happened, look up Schindler's List. It was much more than just a film. "Generally speaking". Re-asserting your original claim is not debating, show why one is better than another and that it isn't entirely circumstantial.

Are you seriously attempting to base a debate on thinking your opponent has no idea what the Holocaust is?

Have you personally been involved in the local Nazis knocking on your door to find the Jews hidden in your seller? Yep, most people do not face problems like that. So its best to not base right and wrong based on extremes but rather norm.

Its that last sentence about context that was made quite clear. And ignored again? Why?

You misunderstand my position. I advocate that it is circumstantial and that neither is inherently better than the other, lying is sometimes the right thing to do, same goes with honesty.

And my position is that this is false. Even in the intense situations involving the proverbial Nazis, lying is still inherently risky. If they catch you lying ... that's it, game over. You can very accurately misdirect people too.

"Are there any Jews in this house?"

"Of course not!" (They are hiding under it!)

A lack of creativity is a poor excuse to lie, but, if you are poorly creative and someone's life is on the line ... which we all deal with every day of course, I guess that would be acceptable.

In the mean time, in our everyday lives, I cannot think of a single good reason to lie. Nothing good comes of it. So your contention that truth and lying are equal, or good and bad, is wrong. It is always better to tell the truth.

That is however, well off topic. If that is really one you want to discuss, I recommend a different thread entirely.

[Goat]

I find this dubious at best, the meaning of "son" in the relationship between Jesus and God escapes me entirely, especially if one were to suggest that the Trinity is an actual thing. It's all good and well to propose that a man was tortured and killed and that has meaning. But when you say that this man was "God in the flesh" suddenly, saying this man was killed and tortured no longer carries the same meaning. I don't know what meaning it carries because I don't know what God is or how torturing and killing God effects Him (It). It seems that the common belief is that these things (killing especially) does not effect God in the same way that it effects us (humans).

And yet Jesus was resurrected.

]

Was he??? I don't have a choice but to be skeptical of that claim. It goes against my personal experience as a human being, and from what I know about biology, physics, and chemistry. Can you show evidence of that with something more than religious doctrine, opinion and rumor?

As simply as I can state this, regardless of denomination, all Christian believe in the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost. Whether they are all the same thing or separate is a matter of some theological debate. Yet either way, those three entities fill three specific purposes and the real goal, as you grow in your relationship, is to understand those roles so you can garner the correct ideas.

Do you consider Jehovah Witnesses to be Christian? How about Oneness Pentecostal?? Or Mormons?

[Filthy Tugboat]

There are many different idea's for, "God's plan of salvation," not all of them Christian, why should I take this one more seriously than any or all of the others?

By actually evaluating it?

By not making excuses to avoid it?

That would perhaps be a start.

I have read it, evaluated it and I have found no reason to take it any more seriously then all of the others. When did I make an excuse to avoid it? Given some of your later comments, you may have confused me for someone else you are debating. Honest mistake if that is what has occurred, I've done it a few times myself.

If I were to convey all of my beliefs regarding the bible and interpretations of it's text, it would take a long time to write, read and respond to. Best to keep it brief especially given most of what I would say would be off topic for this thread.

Well, you could try keeping it to those relevant to hell, which would include addressing the role of grace and sin and how that push us into hell ... and extract us from hell.

You asked why I was only mentioning a few pieces of information, I answered your question. If you believe it to be off topic, you shouldn't have asked for an explanation in the first place.

Indeed, as its the Christian and Muslim versions you are ostensibly worried about, you could stick to common theological interpretations of just that ... as opposed to tossing out every religion in the world in order to avoid the ones that are relevant to the discussion?

Ostensibly worried? Explain how you reached the conclusion that I am ostensibly worried about Christian and Muslim versions of God's plan to salvation. I made a pertinent point, there are thousands of different ideas about God's plan to Salvation presented and millions (if not billions) that simply have not been put out there for public scrutiny. When someone tells me I should listen to this interpretation and ignore others that disagree with it, I want some good reason as to why I should listen to them.

I find this dubious at best, the meaning of "son" in the relationship between Jesus and God escapes me entirely, especially if one were to suggest that the Trinity is an actual thing. It's all good and well to propose that a man was tortured and killed and that has meaning. But when you say that this man was "God in the flesh" suddenly, saying this man was killed and tortured no longer carries the same meaning. I don't know what meaning it carries because I don't know what God is or how torturing and killing God effects Him (It). It seems that the common belief is that these things (killing especially) does not effect God in the same way that it effects us (humans).

And yet Jesus was resurrected.

As simply as I can state this, regardless of denomination, all Christian believe in the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost. Whether they are all the same thing or separate is a matter of some theological debate. Yet either way, those three entities fill three specific purposes and the real goal, as you grow in your relationship, is to understand those roles so you can garner the correct ideas.

Actually no, the Trinity doctrine and it's advocates are pretty much the only group advocating that "The Holy Spirit/Ghost" is a thing that is important. Most others don't view the Holy Spirit as a separate entity and I can see where they are coming from. But I definitely agree that all Christians place a high level of importance on God and Jesus.

For example, the Son had to be flesh and blood or his sacrifice cannot be made. His resurrection pointless as it would not be needed.

I disagree with the necessity you place on a blood sacrifice. Your final point, that if Jesus were not flesh and blood, the sacrifice and resurrection would be meaningless. To be honest though, as I already mentioned earlier, the meaning of the sacrifice for me is undetermined. It cannot be looked at in the same way it would for other people. If a man sacrifices himself to save his family, that carries a lot of weight but there is no comparison between that sacrifice and the "sacrifice" of Jesus as the meaning of torturing/killing a manGod/God-in-the-flesh is completely unknown to me and, as far as I can tell, everyone else too.

what matters when discussion Christian theology, is Christian theology. That you would personally do it differently does not mean God agrees with you, or that it happened that way instead of the way it happened in the Bible.

Where did I say I would do it differently? I completely disagree, when you preach Christian theology, it is completely on point for me to bring up the fact that Christian theology is not alone in it's claims and to Ask why I should take Christian claims any more seriously than others of a similar topic(salvation).

You may believe that but that is beside the point, the Bible makes it clear that the reason for all of his actions is to spread his own glory and for that glory to be known and recognized.

Its not a zero sum game. More than one thing can be accomplished. But I trust that when God says its for reason X, it probably is.

Ex 9 : 14-16 For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth. For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth. And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

Why? Because atonement saves. Shall I quote verses and doctrine for you about atonement, resurrection? Do these things not exist in the Bible?

You can but I don't see how that would show your point to be correct, it is absolutely clear that the bible proposes the main motive for all of God's action and indeed the admitted reason for creation is for God's glory.

Am I ignoring God's plan to Salvation? What is God's plan to Salvation? Do you have any means to verify one of these proposed plans over another? There are quite literally thousands of different ideas on the issue.

I believe I provided you with a non-denominational source of what God's Plan of Salvation is.

You presented something and called in a non-denominational source of that plan, you ceased commenting on it right then and there though. You have also put no evidence forward to show that what you presented as God's plan to Salvation is actually God's plan to Salvation.

I assure you, the above actually happened, look up Schindler's List. It was much more than just a film. "Generally speaking". Re-asserting your original claim is not debating, show why one is better than another and that it isn't entirely circumstantial.

Are you seriously attempting to base a debate on thinking your opponent has no idea what the Holocaust is?

No? You are the one that brought up the Nazis :/

Have you personally been involved in the local Nazis knocking on your door to find the Jews hidden in your seller? Yep, most people do not face problems like that. So its best to not base right and wrong based on extremes but rather norm.

Again, you brought up the scenario and tried to pretend it was not a big thing or a reasonable situation. I merely pointed out the fact that it was real and that lying saved thousands of lives and those lives were kept from horrendous torture. This is one part of support for my claim that good and bad in relation to lying and honesty is circumstantial, not the whole base.

Its that last sentence about context that was made quite clear. And ignored again? Why?

Again? When did I ignore it in the first place? I ignored it because it is a baseless claim, I am the only one who has put evidence up to back my claims, and you pretty much did that for me by bringing up the Nazi/Jew scenario. I have shown evidence that lying can be a good thing to do where honesty in it's place would have been a bad thing, you have made no such effort to show evidence for your claim.

You misunderstand my position. I advocate that it is circumstantial and that neither is inherently better than the other, lying is sometimes the right thing to do, same goes with honesty.

And my position is that this is false. Even in the intense situations involving the proverbial Nazis, lying is still inherently risky. If they catch you lying ... that's it, game over. You can very accurately misdirect people too.

"Are there any Jews in this house?"

"Of course not!" (They are hiding under it!)

A lie by omission. Still a lie. Also, your claim that if they catch you lying it's "game over". What do you think would happen if you told the truth? Soon you'll say we shouldn't help people in a situation like that at all because it would be a risk to ourselves (and technically to them).

A lack of creativity is a poor excuse to lie, but, if you are poorly creative and someone's life is on the line ... which we all deal with every day of course, I guess that would be acceptable.

In the mean time, in our everyday lives, I cannot think of a single good reason to lie. Nothing good comes of it. So your contention that truth and lying are equal, or good and bad, is wrong. It is always better to tell the truth.

More unsubstantiated claims. If you are going to make claims on this website, you are obligated by the forum rules to support them. You can rattle on about how wrong I am all day, until you show that you speak the truth, I have no reason to take your claims seriously.

That is however, well off topic. If that is really one you want to discuss, I recommend a different thread entirely.

I would be more than happy to, I'll pm you about the thread so we can have the question/topic tailored specifically to our needs.

[PREEST]

I would throw away my dignity and integrity if I start acting like a child and believing in superstitious religious nonsense. So for me, there is no 'choice'. I just don't believe because it makes no sense, it cannot be believed by a thinking person, so it's not really a choice to be made.

[Cewakiyelo]

I would throw away my dignity and integrity if I start acting like a child and believing in superstitious religious nonsense. So for me, there is no 'choice'. I just don't believe because it makes no sense, it cannot be believed by a thinking person, so it's not really a choice to be made.

That is why children don't believe. Because it makes no sense. Children can think but they are not yet mature enough to understand .