Was God's Intent To Be Cryptic?

[POI]

Was God's/Jesus's Word(s) meant to sometimes be vague/mysterious?

Are humans just too stupid to collectively associate the correct intended conclusions behind some of these claimed Bible passages?

Should the reader of the Bible's claims, be at mere face value, even if the seemingly axiomatic claim does not look to comport with later human discovery?

Should the reader conclude, if the claimed passage does not align with discovery, that this is not what God actually meant?

Why would God not want His message(s) to be abundantly clear, which is evident by the reality that we have many mutually opposing sects in Christianity?

I'll stop here....

Thank you in advance!

[We_Are_VENOM]

Thank you! (We_Are_Venom) likes to go blow for blow, which is fine.

Its the eye of the tiger, its the thrill of the fight; rising up to the challenge of (my) rivals.

However, I bet many loose interest or stop reading... I would like to offer up a recap, for him/her to instead respond to, if (s)he so chooses....

I am an African American man.

Below are the presented contradictions for which (We_are_venom) continues to present:

1. You present the idea that belief is a must.

Which is kinda the entire theme of the NT.

However, there exists reasons why many may not believe (i.e.) cognitive inability, never being presented with the necessary/needed evidence - (ignorance), dying as an infant or younger (again in the ignorance category), once believing but then later no longer believing - (as we cannot control how we infer/apprehend new evidence), etc.... Thus, are all these individuals hosed, or do they get a free pass? If they are hosed, then is God truly 'just' and/or does might make right? If they are instead given a free pass, then belief is not a must, and it's better to leave as many as possible in ignorance - (to assure their guaranteed salvation). Or maybe belief is merely hyperbole, and the topic of belief is not a must for salvation at all?

I already answered this.

2. You then stated to keep the Commandments. Well, which ones? Lying is among one of the top 10. Without lying, on a regular willful basis, many would/could be murdered, loose their relationships, loose customers, loose their job, loose their companions, destroy other's lives, etc... Any human, who chooses to interact with any other human(s), will need to rationalize their willful intent, which sometimes/often includes lies. Remember, a sin is deemed "a transgression against God". God hates all 'sin'. No 'sin' is a good 'sin'. Committing a 'lesser' sin to save against a greater sin is your own personal opinion. Again, God hates sin. So please stop trying to water down your response here, 'that he judges us for trying.' What do you think one of the primary reasons was, regarding the story of Jesus? It was for a 'prefect sacrifice.' Hence, all your continued 'sins' are now instead covered/atoned by His grace. He is/was considered the ultimate 'scapegoat'. Which then begs the question... What does His 'grace' not cover? You state that if you commit sin willfully, He will not like this... And yet, it's quite safe to say you will commit willful lies, which God also hates, over and over and over again; as explained above and in previous responses.

Come to think of it, I answered this as well.

3. Jesus tells would-be followers they must give up everything if they want to be considered worthy. You state, "Oh, this is just hyperbole." Can you say this about any of His assertions, or just the ones which you do not like and/or cannot rationalize?

First off, let me admit again; there are some tough verses in the Bible to rationalize. That is why comprehensive Bible studies are needed, and when you sprinkle in some good ole common sense and prayer, you may be able to draw a rationale conclusion.

Me personally, I don't have a problem with the Bible being cryptic, for previous given reasons.

Is it possible you do not possess nearly enough faith, unless you give away virtually everything you own to others, and keep just enough to remain alive to worship Him?

No amount of faith is needed, since I do not believe that Jesus meant what you are insinuating he may have meant.

Seems as though, on more than one occasion, Jesus does not seem to fancy the 'rich'. Maybe He deems you 'rich' --- being that it's safe to say you possess plenty of possessions for which Jesus may think you covet? Maybe it's better to get rid of virtually all your possessions, for which you hold any value, to assure you do not take any of your focus off of Jesus?

Hmm. Lets take a look at NT illustrations. Now remember, everything in the NT was said/written after Jesus resurrection.

We have no commandment from Paul stating for the church (members of the church) to get rid of their possessions.

Nor do we have anywhere in Acts, where believers were required to give up their possessions.

Acts 4:32-36 mentions nothing about believers giving up their possessions, and that is a direct illustration of what believers, at least in that time and in that collective group (however many of them there were), did with their possessions. And no where does it state that they had to give up anything, so obviously, Jesus didn't mean what you insinuate he meant.

When you take the NT as a WHOLE, you do not draw such a conclusion...but if you want to cherry pick, and take one verse out of context and make some sort of doctrine...then I guess you WILL draw such a conclusion.

I'll stop here.... The point of this topic is as follows....

We likely have 2+ billion proclaimed Christians. Most of whom are earnest in their conviction, just like you. I have spoken to many, and have also debated many. Many of you are diametrically opposed to each other in your convictions?.?.?.? It's funny how (most/all) proclaim they know what it takes to be saved. And yet, it comes right back to:

Grace alone, vs. grace by faith alone, vs. grace by works alone, vs. grace by faith + works, vs. etc etc etc etc

Does God pride Himself in knowing He is the purveyor of confusion?

Admittedly, the grace/works/faith is a tough one. I'm not even gonna front.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I keep posting smilies

Smiles will be turned to frowns.

but you really make me laugh out loud.

Laugher will be turned into weeping.

Your 'disprovable to you' is painfully obvious as a faith claim. You can't disprove it to anyone else and you know it.

My point was; Christianity can't be disproven to me.

All you can do is what you did - the last resort 'believe or not'.

Like Ripley's.

Like logic and evidence doesn't count and it's just a Faith matter. We knew that but we also know it's a fail on any basis other than Faith -based denial.

That's why I posted the smiley. And I bet it won't be the last time. I could go on, but maybe we won't need to.

Logic: check

Faith: check

Evidence: check

Checks all across the board here.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Not likely. In the end we will be dead and being dead and all we won't see anything.


Tcg

How do you know? Have you ever been dead?

Can you prove your claim, since it was a claim that you made and history tells me that you are all gung ho about the proveness (new word) of claims.

See, it is all about belief, isn't it?

[Tcg]

Not likely. In the end we will be dead and being dead and all we won't see anything.


Tcg

How do you know? Have you ever been dead?

Can you prove your claim, since it was a claim that you made and history tells me that you are all gung ho about the proveness (new word) of claims.

See, it is all about belief, isn't it?

Nope. It's about acceptance of what is most certainly the result of death. Belief is only needed when one desires to pretend that isn't the obvious result of death. Of course, the motivation and pay-off for this belief is obvious. Humans strongly dislike the idea of their non-existence so they create mythologies that suggest the possibility of eternal life.

Christians are by far not the only religious group to employ this strategy to attract followers. They also aren't alone in suggesting that all the other religions are following the wrong path to eternal life. Even the numerous authors of the Bible couldn't reach agreement on this matter. These contradictions are easily ignored as long as one finds something to provide comfort from the almost certain reality that death is final.


Tcg

[POI]

Okay, I guess this is worth repeating... It becomes quite the assumption to state the disciples circled back to the ones, who merely heard the sheep/goat story, to fill in all the missing blanks about the necessity for belief

Um, no. Jesus was talking directly (and only) to the disciples when he gave the parable...and the disciples went out and preached the same message to all those who wanted to hear it, while also undoubtedly directing the listeners attentions towards Jesus.

How can you know that? You appear to be writing checks you cannot cash. When Jesus was 'spreading the Word', was He sure all His sermons were only inclusive to specific people? Did He also take role call? Jesus did not travel from place to place to place to place, speaking in public for all to hear? Come on now... Please tell me where Matt. 25 specifies that He only spoke of this parable to disciples?

This response is in direct contradiction to what you stated in post #49 (i.e.): "Accept his Son as Lord and Savior" So is belief/repent NOT a requirement now?

Bro, obviously "accept his Son as Lord and Savior" only applies to those who have HEARD THE MESSAGE and will in essence determine whether they want to accept or reject the message.

If you didn't hear the message, then you obviously can't accept/reject the message.

We have scriptural evidence of God not judging someone because of that person's ignorance of the situation.

So please, kill the nonsense.

Your responses become more conflicting, as you continue to forge ahead in this exchange??? Is belief a requirement, or not? You give both (yes) and (no) answers. (i.e.)

You make statements such as "only applies", while also stating belief is required.... You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Is belief/repent an absolute requirement, or not? In your scenario, which one is about belief/repent? Is it the dishes, or is it the vacuuming?

The scenario was offered as a defeater of your false insinuation of "the Bible gives two conflicting accounts on salvation".

"The Bible gives two conflicting accounts on salvation".

"Mom gave two conflicting accounts on what we must do before she gets home from work".

I thought I made that point very clear.

I guess you do not get it.

Your mantra appears to be mandatory (belief) + (works).

But then you bring up (dishes) and (vacuuming). For your scenario to work, one of the two represents belief. Please follow me carefully here...

If mom only tells one to do (dishes), and mom only tells the other to (vacuum), at least one of them is missing a mandatory task. I hope this is clear now

Hahaha. Are you serious? You asked me where the Bible asks that you be baptized...

We are talking about salvation, correct? The question is; where does the Bible say that baptism is a requirement for salvation?

No where in the Bible does it state this.

Jesus said anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who does NOT believe is condemned.

He didn't say anyone who does not believe and isn't baptized is condemned, because baptism isn't required for salvation, and obviously Jesus knows this and neglected to make the statement.

Right, so the Bible also mentions baptism, in the very same sentence, 'just because'... Please If baptism isn't part of that equation, seems He would not mention it in that same sentence, right along side of belief... Baptism would not have been mentioned there....

I gave you the Verse. And in regards to your reply... Seems like the Verse does indicate that belief is a requirement. And yet, you seem to be backing away from this 'requirement'? You are now trying to smuggle in the 'well, ignorance and/or lack in cognitive capacity may be exceptions.' Interesting indeed....

Backing away from this requirement? Let me make this perfectly clear; BELIEF IS A REQUIREMENT FOR SALVATION.

Do I make myself clear?

Clear as mud, yes... But, I would expect nothing less, as the Bible is as clear as mud.

If belief is a requirement, then you cannot also have caveats, which you seem happily to provide This means belief is not a requirement. Capeesh?

Interesting... So how do you know you have given up enough for Him?

That is actually a great question. Like a MMA fighter once said (paraphrasing)...

"I can train hard day and night every day of the year..but once I step in the ring, I will always ask myself two questions".

1. Did I train long enough?

2. Did I train hard enough?

This is exactly how I feel at times.

Well, when you read Scripture, you will find places where you cannot do enough Do you then rely upon 'grace'?

Further, maybe many other assertions are meant to be 'hyperbole'? Is the necessity for belief/repent 'hyperbole'?

Well, tell me what the other assertions are, and perhaps we can add them to the list.

Well, you seem to want to water down Luke 14, and/or call it hyperbole. Maybe (belief) is hyperbole? Why cleave to belief, but hand-wave away giving up your possessions --- to assure that you do not take your primary focus off of Jesus?

I already addressed this... Is there such a thing as a 'good' lie? Lying is not merely sometimes 'slipping up' You will likely have multiple encounters of willful lies; to preserve relationships, not tick off customers, and/or ticking off your boss, etc.... And yet, the 9th Commandment states not to lie, period, (no exceptions). This is impossible... Unless you want to end up alone and jobless. You stated to follow His Commandments. And yet, you will lie with full intent -- (believer or not). I trust you are smart enough to concede this point, and realize that such a given criteria is not possible by anyone.

Regardless of what the lie or the sin is, it is covered by Jesus' blood (except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit).

You are overanalyzing it, when it is simple. Do not lie, and if you do, ask for forgiveness and take efforts not to do it again. Plain and simple and no overanalyzing is necessary.

Along with the hand-waving of (giving up your possessions), you appear to also be hand-waving away what I said here as well....

I'm actually simplifying it... Again, God deems NO lie good. And yet, you will willfully and knowingly lie, all the time. And though you may feel justified in most/all of these lies, God deems them all bad. If you cannot see what I'm saying here by now, then I guess I cannot help you further here on this point?.?...

Which then instead begs the topic of "God's grace". Which then brings up yet another contradiction. (i.e.) Does 'grace' negate 'willful sin'? In other words, why mention a bunch of "thou shall not commands" when God's grace is going to cover you anyways?

Because people needed to know what NOT to do, thus, the commandments...and God's grace is going to cover us, but we may lose out on blessings that we would have otherwise reaped, had we followed the commandments.

Well, the concept of grace tends to negate the necessity to abstain from 'sin' Christian or not, you will willfully lie all the time.

Well, you can strive for belief in Santa Claus, but without qualified evidence, no matter how much you want or strive, it won't matter

So basically, without qualified evidence, X doesn't exist.

Non sequitur.

You either misunderstood my analogy, or are strawmanning me?

My point is that you can strive to believe something. But without evidence, for which you apprehend in a certain way, you cannot will a belief in that something. It's quite odd that God deems proper punishment, for lack in belief, eternal condemnation?

Well, again, you will not try to abstain from lying to preserve your relationships, your job, etc... And again, there is no such thing as a 'good' lie, according to the Bible.

Or, maybe I will tell the truth and deal with the consequences. Telling the truth is a game changer for this whole lie tirade you are going on, isn't it?

- If your spouse asks you what you are thinking, you always tell her exactly what you are thinking. Right
- If you are assigned in a terrorist negotiation, you will never lie to the terrorist. Right
etc etc etc etc etc......................

[TRANSPONDER]

I keep posting smilies

Smiles will be turned to frowns.

but you really make me laugh out loud.

Laugher will be turned into weeping.

Your 'disprovable to you' is painfully obvious as a faith claim. You can't disprove it to anyone else and you know it.

My point was; Christianity can't be disproven to me.

All you can do is what you did - the last resort 'believe or not'.

Like Ripley's.

Like logic and evidence doesn't count and it's just a Faith matter. We knew that but we also know it's a fail on any basis other than Faith -based denial.

That's why I posted the smiley. And I bet it won't be the last time. I could go on, but maybe we won't need to.

Logic: check

Faith: check

Evidence: check

Checks all across the board here.

Pointless chatback, faith -claims and vague threats. Gets your case nowhere.

[We_Are_VENOM]

How can you know that? You appear to be writing checks you cannot cash. When Jesus was 'spreading the Word', was He sure all His sermons were only inclusive to specific people? Did He also take role call? Jesus did not travel from place to place to place to place, speaking in public for all to hear? Come on now... Please tell me where Matt. 25 specifies that He only spoke of this parable to disciples?

You know, there is this thing called "reading the verse(s) in its full context". Have you considered such a thing?

The parable in question (sheep and the goats) begins with Jesus obviously giving a parable, but it doesn't tell us who his audience is.

So we have to go back a chapter (Matt 24) to see who was present when he began his teaching lessons.

And when we go back, we see that Matt 24 begins..

Matt 24 "Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings."

So between chapters 24 and 25, his disciples were only in attendance. The Holy Spirit told me to go back, and back I went.

------------------------

And not only that, but even before the sheep/goats parable, he gave a parable which we title "the parable of the Bags of Gold" Matt 25:14-30, and in this parable (long story short), the servants were expected to make a profit from the bags of gold that they were given, not give away the man's wealth.

Just sayin.

Your responses become more conflicting, as you continue to forge ahead in this exchange??? Is belief a requirement, or not? You give both (yes) and (no) answers. (i.e.)

You make statements such as "only applies", while also stating belief is required.... You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Nonsense.

This is similar to a building with a sign that says "No firearms allowed inside the building".

The obvious exception to the rule is the armed security inside of the building.

The obvious exception to the requirement for salvation are babies, mentally handicap people, and those who have not had the pleasure of hearing the Gospel.

Guess what, you do not qualify for either....so Biblically speaking, you will be held accountable.

And the fact that we are even having this conversation goes to show where your heart and true intentions are.

I guess you do not get it.

Your mantra appears to be mandatory (belief) + (works).

But then you bring up (dishes) and (vacuuming). For your scenario to work, one of the two represents belief. Please follow me carefully here...

If mom only tells one to do (dishes), and mom only tells the other to (vacuum), at least one of them is missing a mandatory task. I hope this is clear now

No, it isn't clear. I already explained what the purpose of the scenario and if you still don't get it, then I can't help ya.

Right, so the Bible also mentions baptism, in the very same sentence, 'just because'... Please If baptism isn't part of that equation, seems He would not mention it in that same sentence, right along side of belief... Baptism would not have been mentioned there....

I can certainly see where the confusion lies, and I will explain the best way I can.

First of all, baptism IS part of the equation, but not in the way you think. Baptism is like the ceremony you partake in, AFTER you become saved.

It is like walking across the stage during a graduation ceremony. But you had already met the requirements to partake in the ceremony days/weeks prior, didn't you.

During that time (so it appears), when a person became saved, they wasted no time and became baptized...so the ceremony occurred shortly thereafter salvation.

And that is why Jesus linked belief with baptism, because that is how it would normally go.

But Jesus isn't saying that a person cannot be saved without baptism, but rather, he is merely stating the facts, that if a person believes and is baptized, the person will be saved. That is just the fact of the matter.

But that is not to say that a person who isn't baptized won't be saved..because all that is required to receive salvation is belief, which is why Jesus did not say that whoever isn't baptized will be condemned, but rather whoever don't believe is condemned.

Which, by the way, Jesus saying whoever doesn't believe is condemned only harmonizes with John 3:16, "whomever believes in him shall not perish (whoever believes in him won't be condemned).

Plus we have scriptures of people being saved without being baptized.

Clear as mud, yes... But, I would expect nothing less, as the Bible is as clear as mud.

The United States Constitution (Bill of Rights), isn't always clear. But that doesn't stop patriots from being proud Americans.



The disciples were often confused, and some even left Jesus (John 6:60-66), but that didn't stop those who remained from following Jesus.

If belief is a requirement, then you cannot also have caveats, which you seem happily to provide This means belief is not a requirement. Capeesh?

It is God who has the caveats, not me. He makes the decisions not me. Take it up with the Almighty. I am just his faithful servant, spreading the word.

Well, when you read Scripture, you will find places where you cannot do enough Do you then rely upon 'grace'?

Pretty much. Yeah. Lord, have mercy on my soul.

Well, you seem to want to water down Luke 14, and/or call it hyperbole. Maybe (belief) is hyperbole? Why cleave to belief, but hand-wave away giving up your possessions --- to assure that you do not take your primary focus off of Jesus?

Again, because I take the NT as a whole, instead of cherry picking a few pieces of verses and making doctrine out of it.

Along with the hand-waving of (giving up your possessions), you appear to also be hand-waving away what I said here as well....

I'm actually simplifying it... Again, God deems NO lie good. And yet, you will willfully and knowingly lie, all the time.

But I don't lie all the time, though.

See how your entire argument comes tumbling down based off one faulty premise.

And though you may feel justified in most/all of these lies, God deems them all bad. If you cannot see what I'm saying here by now, then I guess I cannot help you further here on this point?.?...

Trying to figure out which part of the Biblical concept of "forgiveness" don't you understand.

Well, the concept of grace tends to negate the necessity to abstain from 'sin' Christian or not, you will willfully lie all the time.

Well, a person who isn't trying to overcome their demons, I will question whether a person is truly a Christian.

But that is up to God to decide, not me. I have my own demons.

You either misunderstood my analogy, or are strawmanning me?

My point is that you can strive to believe something. But without evidence, for which you apprehend in a certain way, you cannot will a belief in that something. It's quite odd that God deems proper punishment, for lack in belief, eternal condemnation?

No, what it sounds like is you are trying to negate the requirement of belief in Jesus. Sorry, its not gonna happen.

Acts 4:11-12

11This Jesus is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’

12 Salvation exists in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

Consider verse 12. Can you tell me which part of verse 12 don't you understand.

- If your spouse asks you what you are thinking, you always tell her exactly what you are thinking. Right
- If you are assigned in a terrorist negotiation, you will never lie to the terrorist. Right
etc etc etc etc etc......................

I will keep in a buck with you, I have my own Biblical theory as to whether or not there can be a "good" lie.

I think there can be.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Nope. It's about acceptance of what is most certainly the result of death.

That is an assumption. Thank you for your opinion. I will share mines. My opinion is that when you die, and you don't believe in Christ, you will go where this guy (the rich man) went. Lk 16:19-30.

However, if you believed in Christ before you die, you will go where this guy (thief on the cross) went. Lk 23:42-43

You shared with me your opinion, and I shared mines with you.

Ah, the sharing of opinions is a beautiful thing, isn't it.

Belief is only needed when one desires to pretend that isn't the obvious result of death. Of course, the motivation and pay-off for this belief is obvious. Humans strongly dislike the idea of their non-existence so they create mythologies that suggest the possibility of eternal life.

Christians are by far not the only religious group to employ this strategy to attract followers. They also aren't alone in suggesting that all the other religions are following the wrong path to eternal life. Even the numerous authors of the Bible couldn't reach agreement on this matter. These contradictions are easily ignored as long as one finds something to provide comfort from the almost certain reality that death is final.


Tcg

Smug and contentious. Keep that same energy/demeanor.

[brunumb]

This is similar to a building with a sign that says "No firearms allowed inside the building".

The obvious exception to the rule is the armed security inside of the building.

Not so. Such a sign prohibits ALL firearms from the building. In order for the security guards to be an exception, your sign would need to say "No unauthorised firearms allowed inside the building".

ETA: By the way, the problem with analogies is that although they may help to get a point across, they don't necessarily validate the point that was being made.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Not so. Such a sign prohibits ALL firearms from the building. In order for the security guards to be an exception, your sign would need to say "No unauthorised firearms allowed inside the building".

Nonsense. The signs that I am speaking of does not apply to law enforcement, otherwise in emergency situations law enforcement personnel wouldn't be allowed inside the building without first disarming themselves, which is ridiculous and may be counter-productive to the situation.

ETA: By the way, the problem with analogies is that although they may help to get a point across, they don't necessarily validate the point that was being made.

The point is validated to me, with or without the analogy.

And the fact that out of all that was said, you choose to respond to this..is very telling.