Can you explain the doctrine of salvation better than the Bible?Bible does?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
amortalman
Site Supporter
Posts: 577
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:35 am
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Can you explain the doctrine of salvation better than the Bible?Bible does?

Post #1

Post by amortalman »

In a fairly recent thread, POI posted a new topic and I present it here as a preface to an offshoot topic of my own:

Grace (and/or) Belief/Faith (and/or) Works?
Post #1
Post by POI » Thu May 05, 2022 12:20 pm
Seems there exists an unresolved topic amongst Christians... Seems as though the way to salvation is not unified among the many in which I engage. I'd wager they all have a case to support their position(s).?.?

For debate: How does one get to Heaven?
POI's follow-up post:

Re: Grace (and/or) Belief/Faith (and/or) Works?
Post #2
Post by POI » Tue May 10, 2022 4:48 pm
I find it odd that no Christian wants to chime in here? How does a Christian get to Heaven?

- Grace alone
- Grace by faith/belief alone
- Grace by faith/belief + works
- Other
After POI's second post a number of debaters jumped in with their favorite scripture verse or verses as to how a Christian can get to heaven. However, it didn't settle the issue definitively. And that is indicative of one of the major problems with the Bible. It just isn't that clear. In fact, it can be downright confusing. I think Dan Barker (atheist, speaker, debater, writer, and former evangelical preacher) was right when he said: Can you think of any book more confusing than the Bible?

In my humble opinion, God could have headed off all this confusion on this issue and dozens of others we find in the "holy book" by making them crystal clear. Maybe this would have prevented the splintering of Christ's church into a thousand denominations. It certainly wouldn't have hurt.

So, here is the debate question and challenge: How might the important doctrine of salvation have been presented in the scripture in a clear and coherent way that left little doubt as to the real meaning?
I am not asking for your exegesis of the relevant passages. That has been done in POI's thread. I'm asking for ideas as to how the relevant passages might have been more clearly presented so that each one separately does not confuse the whole.

By simply taking the options POI presented (and I have taken the liberty to slightly modify), How does a Christian get to heaven? Is it by grace alone, faith alone, works alone, grace+faith, grace+works, faith+works, or another way?

I have my own thoughts on this but I will reserve them for later. I want to hear your ideas.

So, if it were up to you, how might you relieve the confusion over this teaching?
Last edited by amortalman on Tue Jul 12, 2022 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Can you explain the doctrine of salvation better than the Bible?Bible does?

Post #61

Post by theophile »

Duplicate.
Last edited by theophile on Tue Aug 02, 2022 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Can you explain the doctrine of salvation better than the Bible?Bible does?

Post #62

Post by theophile »

amortalman wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 10:23 pm I appreciate the time you took to write your response. But I think that we're approaching this topic without really understanding where the other one is coming from. Consequently, I'm having trouble making sense of much of what you say. I'm sure you understand what you're saying, but to me, it sounds like a lot of double-talk.
...
One more thing before I go. I would be interested to know where you got your philosophy on the Bible. Perhaps it is your own? It seems to me that you have a very unique (putting it kindly) view of God and the scriptures.
And I appreciate the effort you put in. I feel like that's a rare quality on here, to read so closely and really try to pick apart what someone is saying. And I definitely have unique and often subtle views that I agree can sound like double-talk at times. I swear it all coherently fits together in my head. :)

But yah, it's mostly of my own making. There are some deep influences -- Nietzsche for example stands out pretty strong in my posts here. Differences aside, he taught us to revaluate all values and say 'Yes!' to life. To be rule-makers. And there are contemporary theologians who I have a lot of common ground with as well, so it's not like I'm completely out in left field. Catherine Keller for example (see her Face of the Deep and roots in process theology). Or John Caputo (see his Weakness of God and philosophical underpinnings in Derrida).
amortalman wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 10:23 pm Take this for example:

You said: "What I mean is that we are called to affirm life in all its forms. In such a way that all life can be (/can be together), and fill the heavens and the earth. Like the lilies of the field for example, or lions laying down with lambs. Where every life can express itself in its own unique way. That is the biblical vision and what it is all geared towards. To value life above all else and create the conditions for it."

To me, that sounds like so much mumbo-jumbo. But the very next paragraph you wrote is even stranger:

"One does this, for example, by doing things we see God do in Genesis 1. By bringing light for example, or dry land. Or food and healing to any life in need per the gospels. Or even going so far as destroying life that has become irredeemable per the Sodom example I raised before. (Life that has fallen so far into sin, or down the path leading to death, that there's no other recourse). Just look at our original calling: to tend and keep the garden. To make sure all the various plants and animals are all thriving together (which may require cutting back some invasive species now and again that would choke out the others).

(emphasis mine)

Do you actually believe that "one" (you and others) affirms life above all else by "destroying life" like those in the Sodom story?? That's what you said. I would rather believe and hope that you're just having trouble communicating your thoughts which would explain a lot of the difficulties we're having.
I 100% believe that. There are countless scenarios of judgment and destruction in the bible for a reason. The flood. Sodom. Egypt. Israel... That's one of the difficult (/confusing) things we have to wrap our heads around because it is a key responsibility of ruling the earth, not just because the bible says it, but because it really does follow from the affirmation of life.

We're talking extreme cases here though, after all efforts at redemption break down (e.g., after we turn the other cheek 7x70 times even). I could use the classic example of a Hitler. Or the everyday practical example of literally cutting back an overgrowth of weeds in a garden. There comes a point when there is no recourse. When certain ones among us are so far gone, so oppressive and destructive to all the other life trying to be around it, that a final decision is called for. Destruction in such cases is a necessary action to recreate the conditions for life and to give life a chance.

To go back to your original question on the doctrine of salvation, I first said there are two distinct salvation logics at play in the bible that need to be disambiguated. The first is pretty straightforward: it's saving life by providing the needs of life. By feeding it, clothing it, watering it, what have you. Jesus exemplifies this in communion when he gives his body and blood to his disciples for their sustainment (bread) and enjoyment (wine). All perfectly in line with the affirmation of life...

The second logic is more complex and relates back to this seeming dichotomy. It's when evil has become so deeply rooted that there's a real question if the perpetrating life is worth saving. This second logic is all about saving us (sinners) from sin like Jesus does on the cross. This is what we see at Sodom, for example, when God says he would spare (/save!) the city for the sake of 10 good people if found. The 10 good people would have literally saved the rest, not by providing for their needs (per the first salvation logic), but through their redeeming examples.

To put it in more practical terms, imagine you have a basket of apples that look rotten on the surface. But when you cut one open to prove it you find it still crisp and sweet. That one apple (like the 10 good people in Sodom, or Jesus on the cross) has a redeeming effect on the rest. It literally saves them, if just for a time, from the ash heap.

That's the second salvation logic, and it too is perfectly in line with the affirmation of life, even as it marks the borderline where affirming life may call for destroying it (should no good ones be found). And so to circle back, or to come full circle, it starts to show how far we have to go before we take any ultimate steps. And how much we have to work to preserve and foster whatever hope may be there.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Can you explain the doctrine of salvation better than the Bible?Bible does?

Post #63

Post by William »

William: You create whatever experience you will have in the next phase based upon the type of personality you shaped your self into during this one.
[Replying to amortalman in post #60]

You must have come up with that belief from some source other than the Bible.
Sorry. Would you clarify that?
If there was/is a God he did just that. Why make what is arguably the most important teaching in the NT clear?
Why do you think it is not clear? You live, then you die, then you experience the fruits of your own personality.
I've thoroughly covered that already.
I haven't read what you covered re this. Can you bullet-point your main arguments? Are you suggesting that because there are different interpretations and accompanying beliefs about afterlife activity [what I call "The Next Phase/Level"] re biblical script - perhaps something along the lines that "everyone cannot be correct - therefore "How to be saved?" remains unanswered?
You live, then you die, then you experience the fruits of your own personality.
non-Biblical
Sorry. Would you clarify that?
William: Ultimately we each have to deal with our demons...
Amortalman: Theists can deal with demons.
William: It's an expression.
Amortalman: Of course, it is. But it comes from the Bible.
What does the Bible say about dealing with your own Demons?
The question is a cart before the horse as it fist must be established as to why the Bible God made us so incoherent.
That does not have to be established at all. God has made no one either coherent or incoherent.
Since you wrote asking why the Bible God did not make things crystal clear and are asking - how might the important doctrine of salvation have been presented in the scripture in a clear and coherent way that left little doubt as to the real meaning - I went along with that and deduced that the God hadn't instilled a way - any obvious practical way - in which Humans can be coherent with one another.
That also reminded me of the Biblical story where the God's Messengers purposefully confused Humans so that they couldn't work together coherently and had to abandon all their projects they had been working on together, prior to that.

If you are now dropping that line of argument, I am fine with that.
William: Those are the angels and demons we are dealing with in the shadowy realms of the subconscious....inherited Archetypes...
Amortalman: There are no angels or demons in our subconscious minds. Only chemistry.
William: You are confusing mind with brain.
Amortalman: To show that I'm confused you would have to bring convincing evidence that the mind is a separate entity from the brain. As far as I know, science hasn't done that yet. I only trust science.
Science hasn't shown us either way.

I don't see what trust science is asking you to place in it.

I think you are confusing atheism with science...that is unhelpful to anyone.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Can you explain the doctrine of salvation better than the Bible?Bible does?

Post #64

Post by William »

[Replying to theophile in post #62]

I enjoyed your post theophile.

What you are describing is also known as the Ouroboros ... the fine balance of staying alive while consuming aspects of yourself.

The Earth does this, and it is how a foothold in spacetime was established by consciousness.

In some circles it is referred to as "Survival" or even "Survival of the Fittest" and involves a commitment to giving 'life' [consciousness] every chance to make it - to stay alive in this universe and reap the rewards available in that process.

In terms of the difference between the life-spans of Humans and The Universe - sacrifice is forced upon each of us while death remains a constant...our bodies die and feed the planet one way or another - consciousness is passed on through reproduction - the design being a type of self-replication process which enables this to occur...the knowledge is saved through a collective type consciousness which carries said knowledge on into predictable-enough futures where it helps the overall purpose instilled within the programming of the Human Specie - to Survive.

Destructive elements surface within the collective consciousness bent upon controlling the direction this program will move into the future. Anything too suppressive will choke the life out of it, which works against the Survival instinct and is therefore resisted, even to the point of using drones to deal with those who seek to dominate the Species using such suppression techniques - "Nature" won't allow that because the point of consciously expanding into Cosmos would be curtailed - and such threat must be dealt to and "Nature" is more than capable of doing so.

Epochs make this process seem long and drawn out - but that is also known as "Grace" - which means that suppressive elements are tolerated to any degree in which they do not threaten the primary - overall - agenda of "Nature" to send out consciousness into the Cosmos.

Once the threat is real, the Grace is withdrawn and those against, perish. Collateral damage is acceptable to those who die in the crossfire, because "death" is not "the end."....

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Can you explain the doctrine of salvation better than the Bible?Bible does?

Post #65

Post by theophile »

William wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 10:12 am [Replying to theophile in post #62]

I enjoyed your post theophile.

What you are describing is also known as the Ouroboros ... the fine balance of staying alive while consuming aspects of yourself.

The Earth does this, and it is how a foothold in spacetime was established by consciousness.

In some circles it is referred to as "Survival" or even "Survival of the Fittest" and involves a commitment to giving 'life' [consciousness] every chance to make it - to stay alive in this universe and reap the rewards available in that process.

In terms of the difference between the life-spans of Humans and The Universe - sacrifice is forced upon each of us while death remains a constant...our bodies die and feed the planet one way or another - consciousness is passed on through reproduction - the design being a type of self-replication process which enables this to occur...the knowledge is saved through a collective type consciousness which carries said knowledge on into predictable-enough futures where it helps the overall purpose instilled within the programming of the Human Specie - to Survive.

Destructive elements surface within the collective consciousness bent upon controlling the direction this program will move into the future. Anything too suppressive will choke the life out of it, which works against the Survival instinct and is therefore resisted, even to the point of using drones to deal with those who seek to dominate the Species using such suppression techniques - "Nature" won't allow that because the point of consciously expanding into Cosmos would be curtailed - and such threat must be dealt to and "Nature" is more than capable of doing so.

Epochs make this process seem long and drawn out - but that is also known as "Grace" - which means that suppressive elements are tolerated to any degree in which they do not threaten the primary - overall - agenda of "Nature" to send out consciousness into the Cosmos.

Once the threat is real, the Grace is withdrawn and those against, perish. Collateral damage is acceptable to those who die in the crossfire, because "death" is not "the end."....
Very similar logics at play for sure. But I daresay this version sounds much colder than the biblical narrative, with terms like 'Nature' (versus an interpersonal God), 'survival' (versus a vision of the heavens and the earth flourishing with life), and 'programming' (versus free and responsible human beings). I suppose I like a story that gives more of the warm and fuzzies :)

Your last point is an interesting one though on the acceptability of death because death is not the end. It's an argument I've wanted to deploy myself at times, since death and destruction takes on a whole new meaning once you believe in life and the resurrection. It changes the calculus entirely, even though it may be hard to swallow, or even more difficult to do. But it gives more reason to why Abraham would sacrifice Isaac for instance (or why God would ask for it). Or why Jesus would walk the cross.

What are such things when we have faith and hope in life?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Can you explain the doctrine of salvation better than the Bible?Bible does?

Post #66

Post by William »

[Replying to theophile in post #65]
Very similar logics at play for sure. But I daresay this version sounds much colder than the biblical narrative, with terms like 'Nature' (versus an interpersonal God), 'survival' (versus a vision of the heavens and the earth flourishing with life), and 'programming' (versus free and responsible human beings). I suppose I like a story that gives more of the warm and fuzzies :)
Yes. This is an off-shoot of the experience of Hugs [specifically a Mothers] and it would be incorrect to abandon that warm fuzzy as some kind of unnecessary attempt to superimpose something false upon something real.

While I may not wonder re the idea that we exist within a creation, I do - naturally enough - have to wonder at the state of the mind which thought up this monstrosity;

Image

The image typifies the Planet Earth experience in general...the hidden Gems are coming through the Human experience of it, which isn't so much a monster as it is a lost soul in need of a Mothers Hug.

Hence the projection out onto the Reality being Experienced.
Your last point is an interesting one though on the acceptability of death because death is not the end. It's an argument I've wanted to deploy myself at times, since death and destruction takes on a whole new meaning once you believe in life and the resurrection. It changes the calculus entirely, even though it may be hard to swallow, or even more difficult to do. But it gives more reason to why Abraham would sacrifice Isaac for instance (or why God would ask for it). Or why Jesus would walk the cross.

What are such things when we have faith and hope in life?
Yes that is the dressing of mythology over the reality being experienced.

It takes shape through many guises which can - with a passing glance - appear to be different, but closer inspection reveals there is no difference at all.

I went to a funeral yesterday in support of my wife at the loss of Her Mother.

There was no warm fuzzy in viewing the suffering demise of The Mother, nor Her cadaver - which lay cold and waxen but those too are outward appearances to which we have no direct way of knowing what She was going through consciously...once She slipped into the realm of unconsciousness...

The Funeral Service was performed at a Roman Catholic Basilica, so I could see first hand the surrounds of imagery meant to entice the warm fuzzies and give everyone a sense of ... being embraced ... by something large and loving...

While we who walk through life hereabouts all head towards our experience of bodily deaths, we are best not to run away from it screaming...might as well use our time here to prepare for that inevitable.

Christ IS the hope that death is not the end of conscious experience...and that said continued experience is a happier one than the previous monstrosity.

So we diligently pick the fruit we enjoy the most, which sorts folk into various categories in preparation for the inevitable...and the living support the living in their understanding that life might be all that there ever can be and is.

I myself prefer the thrill of seeing Mother Earth as She truly is - some demonic-like entity who has been manifesting Her particular projections out into that which She is awakening to - slowly and surely... and in the process, I hope to witness therein a transformation of a demon-like entity into a god-like entity...and be a part of that rather than dressing it up n too much fluff that I distort things far too impractically.

User avatar
amortalman
Site Supporter
Posts: 577
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:35 am
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Can you explain the doctrine of salvation better than the Bible?Bible does?

Post #67

Post by amortalman »

[Replying to theophile in post #62]

Again, thank you for your input but the Bible remains confusing.

User avatar
amortalman
Site Supporter
Posts: 577
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:35 am
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Can you explain the doctrine of salvation better than the Bible?Bible does?

Post #68

Post by amortalman »

William wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 9:43 am William: You create whatever experience you will have in the next phase based upon the type of personality you shaped your self into during this one.
[Replying to amortalman in post #60]

ME: You must have come up with that belief from some source other than the Bible.
YOU: Sorry. Would you clarify that?
What you described is not Biblical, and we're discussing the Bible here. You are throwing oranges in my basket of apples.
Me: If there was/is a God he did just that. Why make what is arguably the most important teaching in the NT clear?
YOU: Why do you think it is not clear? You live, then you die, then you experience the fruits of your own personality.
ME: I've thoroughly covered that already.
YOU: I haven't read what you covered re this. Can you bullet-point your main arguments? Are you suggesting that because there are different interpretations and accompanying beliefs about afterlife activity [what I call "The Next Phase/Level"] re biblical script - perhaps something along the lines that "everyone cannot be correct - therefore "How to be saved?" remains unanswered?
I was responding to your question: "Why do you think it is not clear," and I've already addressed that question in the OP and in my responses.
YOU: You live, then you die, then you experience the fruits of your own personality.
ME: non-Biblical
YOU: Sorry. Would you clarify that?
What you said is not in the Bible. If you can show me in the Bible where it says that after we die we "experience the fruits of our own personality" then it is Biblical. Otherwise, it isn't Biblical and should not be introduced in this thread.
William: Ultimately we each have to deal with our demons...
Amortalman: Theists can deal with demons.
William: It's an expression.
Amortalman: Of course, it is. But it comes from the Bible.
YOU:What does the Bible say about dealing with your own Demons?
ME: The concept of demons is from the Bible. That's what I meant.
YOU: The question is a cart before the horse as it fist must be established as to why the Bible God made us so incoherent.
ME:That does not have to be established at all. God has made no one either coherent or incoherent.
YOU:Since you wrote asking why the Bible God did not make things crystal clear and are asking - how might the important doctrine of salvation have been presented in the scripture in a clear and coherent way that left little doubt as to the real meaning
That's good so far...
- YOU: went along with that and deduced that the God hadn't instilled a way - any obvious practical way - in which Humans can be coherent with one another.
Ah...now you've gotten off-topic. If you want to discuss incoherence in humans and why God made us so, I suggest you start a new thread.
YOU:That also reminded me of the Biblical story where the God's Messengers purposefully confused Humans so that they couldn't work together coherently and had to abandon all their projects they had been working on together, prior to that.


The confusion of languages at the tower of Babel was for a specific purpose so that mankind could not communicate and build a tower to heaven - as ridiculous as all that is. The point is, that odd little story is a far cry from your claim that the God character made humans incoherent.
YOU:If you are now dropping that line of argument, I am fine with that.
I'm all for staying on topic.
William: Those are the angels and demons we are dealing with in the shadowy realms of the subconscious....inherited Archetypes...
Amortalman: There are no angels or demons in our subconscious minds. Only chemistry.
William: You are confusing mind with brain.
Amortalman: To show that I'm confused you would have to bring convincing evidence that the mind is a separate entity from the brain. As far as I know, science hasn't done that yet. I only trust science.
YOU:Science hasn't shown us either way.
Then I'm not confused, am I? My position is as valid as yours.
YOU:I don't see what trust science is asking you to place in it.
If you jumped out of an airplane at 10,000 feet you would probably trust science to strap on a parachute before you leaped. Then you would have to trust the science again to pull the rip cord. Specific to the comment, I'm not going to assume that the mind exists in some supernatural realm unless science establishes it to a high degree of certainty.
YOU: I think you are confusing atheism with science...that is unhelpful to anyone.
Why would you think that?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Can you explain the doctrine of salvation better than the Bible?Bible does?

Post #69

Post by William »

William: You create whatever experience you will have in the next phase based upon the type of personality you shaped your self into during this one.
[Replying to amortalman in post #68]
What you described is not Biblical, and we're discussing the Bible here. You are throwing oranges in my basket of apples.
Why would you argue that? Is there a coherent description about this in the Bible that you can point us to, showing clearly that you are correct?

What does your basket of apples say about how we will experience the next phase? How does the
doctrine of salvation in the Bible differ from my description?
What you said is not in the Bible. If you can show me in the Bible where it says that after we die we "experience the fruits of our own personality" then it is Biblical. Otherwise, it isn't Biblical and should not be introduced in this thread.
What are you expecting, something word for word? Are you saying that folk cannot and do not interpret the Bible differently and does not the OP make that observation in the complaint that the God didn't make things obvious or crystal clear about the doctrine of salvation?

Isn't that what this thread is about?
What does the Bible say about dealing with your own Demons?
The concept of demons is from the Bible. That's what I meant.
Yes. It is from a large number of religious literature as well. But how does that answer my question?
Q: What does the Bible say about dealing with your own Demons?

How do you think that fits in with the doctrine of salvation? Is salvation like being saved from your own demons? Something else?
If you want to discuss incoherence in humans and why God made us so, I suggest you start a new thread.
So you are not interested in putting the horse before the cart? Of what value [re the doctrine of salvation] is it to make a statement that implies the inability of humans to understand the doctrine coherently - as being a problem - without wanting to also try and reason the possible sources for the problem?

The Bible came through humans and was not dictated by any being as it was allowed to be presented as stories from hearsay about others claiming to be directly involved with the God.

As a result, we have a smorgasbord of stories which have passed through many different filters of individual beliefs and which sometimes lead to folk feeling it necessary to make threads such as this one, in which questions can be asked and answers might be given.

I am unconvinced that the answers I am giving are as irrelevant as you are making them out to be, so if you want to discuss this with me more, then ceasing with such hand-waving would be beneficial to that.
The confusion of languages at the tower of Babel was for a specific purpose so that mankind could not communicate and build a tower to heaven - as ridiculous as all that is. The point is, that odd little story is a far cry from your claim that the God character made humans incoherent.
Are you arguing that it is not Biblical enough for your tastes? Why argue that something which was once credited as one of the ways in which the God did things re Humans, is now somehow no longer relevant to discussion on the way that the God did things?
Given that the long ago confusion of languages is still an ongoing problem being worked out by Humans, why is that incident not related to explanations and interpretations re OP topic of Biblical concepts/doctrines?
I don't see what trust science is asking you to place in it.
If you jumped out of an airplane at 10,000 feet you would probably trust science to strap on a parachute before you leaped. Then you would have to trust the science again to pull the rip cord.
You are conflating science with industry. Industry is how science is applied and what you are saying is that you place your trust in industry. That in itself is unspectacular and doesn't cover anything outside of the realm of living and breathing here in this Experiential Reality. What has faith in industry got to do with the Biblical Doctrine of Salvation? [the main topic of the thread.]
Specific to the comment, I'm not going to assume that the mind exists in some supernatural realm unless science establishes it to a high degree of certainty.
What has science got to do with the OP Topic?
What does the Bible say about this [so-called] "supernatural" realm? What makes this realm unable to be scrutinized using science, and why is 'the mind' only subject to existing in one realm when the actual mind is not subject to having to do so at all?

User avatar
amortalman
Site Supporter
Posts: 577
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:35 am
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Can you explain the doctrine of salvation better than the Bible?Bible does?

Post #70

Post by amortalman »

William wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:42 am William: You create whatever experience you will have in the next phase based upon the type of personality you shaped your self into during this one.
[Replying to amortalman in post #68]
What you described is not Biblical, and we're discussing the Bible here. You are throwing oranges in my basket of apples.
Why would you argue that?

Because it is not Biblical.
Is there a coherent description about this in the Bible that you can point us to, showing clearly that you are correct?
The following is about as coherent as it gets:

God's Plan of Salvation


GOD'S PART

1. The great love of God for man (John 3:16)
2. He gave His Son, Jesus Christ, as the Saviour (Luke 19:10)
3. Sent the Holy Spirit as a guide (John 16:13)
4. Gave the Gospel as "the power" unto salvation (Romans 1:16)
5. Provided atonement by the blood of Christ (Romans 5:9)

MAN'S PART

1. Hear the Gospel. (Romans 10:17, John 8:32)
2. Believe the Gospel (Hebrews 11:6, John 20:31)
3. Repent of past sins (Luke 13:3, Acts 17:30)
4. Confess faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 10:10, Matthew 10:32)
5. Be Baptized (Galatians 3:27, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38)
6. Be faithful unto death (Revelation 2:10)

Here are some more:

Mat 24:13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

Rom 10:13 For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.

Rom. 19:9-10 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified,
and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

I invite you to look up these verses in a good, rigid, translation and tell me if any of them talk about one's personality. The verses point out beliefs and actions. If it was all about personality why didn't the writers say that?
What does your basket of apples say about how we will experience the next phase? How does the
doctrine of salvation in the Bible differ from my description?
Read it for yourself. Compare what the bible says with what you say. I provided the verses since you seem to be unaware of them.
What you said is not in the Bible. If you can show me in the Bible where it says that after we die we "experience the fruits of our own personality" then it is Biblical. Otherwise, it isn't Biblical and should not be introduced in this thread.
What are you expecting, something word for word?
Words do have meanings. If we are debating Bible literature we should use Bible language. The words you have used (more than once) do not convey the same meanings. The term "the next phase." How am I supposed to know what you mean by that? It's not in the Bible so the best I can do is guess what you mean. "Personality" is another. That word is not used either and does not accurately portray what the bible says. I have to wonder if you've even read the bible, much less studied it.
Are you saying that folk cannot and do not interpret the Bible differently and does not the OP make that observation in the complaint that the God didn't make things obvious or crystal clear about the doctrine of salvation? Isn't that what this thread is about?
But don't you see? You're making it even more confusing. People can and do interpret the bible and it's often invalid interpretations. That's why scholars labor to translatethe scripture as best they can and in their translations they chose other words than "the next phase" and "personality." As for the OP, I wasn't saying that the bible made unclear statements [/i]in themselves,[/i]but rather that the statements were scattered about and not presented in a unified way. Consequently, there is confusion when people read these and start comparing and trying to figure out how any one statement supports or does not support what the scriptures say in another place. This isn't my opinion. All you need to do is look at how many religions and denominations there are. So that we don't miss seeing the forest for the trees what we have been debating is a microcosm of the bigger picture.
What does the Bible say about dealing with your own Demons?
The concept of demons is from the Bible. That's what I meant.
Yes. It is from a large number of religious literature as well. But how does that answer my question?
Q: What does the Bible say about dealing with your own Demons?
The only thing I will say is to go back to the previous posts and read them carefully, in context. I wasn't saying anything about what the bible says about it. The concept of demons is from the bible. It originated with the bible. It wasn't used in literature until hundreds of years after the canon of scripture was closed.
How do you think that fits in with the doctrine of salvation? Is salvation like being saved from your own demons? Something else?
It doesn't.
If you want to discuss incoherence in humans and why God made us so, I suggest you start a new thread.
So you are not interested in putting the horse before the cart? Of what value [re the doctrine of salvation] is it to make a statement that implies the inability of humans to understand the doctrine coherently - as being a problem - without wanting to also try and reason the possible sources for the problem?
I left the cart and horse thing way back there. Let's move on. You're the one who implied the inability of humans to understand doctrine coherently, not me. The problem with not understanding does not lie with man but with the supposed inspired writers of the bible. That's my whole point, and the point of the Op, in case you forgot.
The Bible came through humans and was not dictated by any being as it was allowed to be presented as stories from hearsay about others claiming to be directly involved with the God.

As a result, we have a smorgasbord of stories which have passed through many different filters of individual beliefs and which sometimes lead to folk feeling it necessary to make threads such as this one, in which questions can be asked and answers might be given.
I don't understand how you obviously could not have understood that the OP was written primarily to debunk what millions, if not billions, of Christians believe - that the bible was written by God. So, I have to wonder why you responded at all since you already believe that it was not written by God.
I am unconvinced that the answers I am giving are as irrelevant as you are making them out to be, so if you want to discuss this with me more, then ceasing with such hand-waving would be beneficial to that.
I have been on point and concise with everything I wrote, William, to the best of my ability. I resent the accusation of hand-waving.
The confusion of languages at the tower of Babel was for a specific purpose so that mankind could not communicate and build a tower to heaven - as ridiculous as all that is. The point is, that odd little story is a far cry from your claim that the God character made humans incoherent.
Are you arguing that it is not Biblical enough for your tastes? Why argue that something which was once credited as one of the ways in which the God did things re Humans, is now somehow no longer relevant to discussion on the way that the God did things?
I'll say it again: "The confusion of languages at the tower of Babel was for a specific purpose so that mankind could not communicate and build a tower to heaven - as ridiculous as all that is. The point is, that odd little story is a far cry from your claim that the God character made humans incoherent." You were grasping at straws with that one.
Given that the long ago confusion of languages is still an ongoing problem being worked out by Humans, why is that incident not related to explanations and interpretations re OP topic of Biblical concepts/doctrines?


It just isn't! Violating the ten commandments is also still a problem, but does that make it relevant to the OP?
I don't see what trust science is asking you to place in it.
If you jumped out of an airplane at 10,000 feet you would probably trust science to strap on a parachute before you leaped. Then you would have to trust the science again to pull the rip cord.
You are conflating science with industry. Industry is how science is applied and what you are saying is that you place your trust in industry. That in itself is unspectacular and doesn't cover anything outside of the realm of living and breathing here in this Experiential Reality. What has faith in industry got to do with the Biblical Doctrine of Salvation? [the main topic of the thread.]
Did I say I place my faith in industry? No. I said I place my faith in science. Science. Look up the definitions and you might see that science and industry have two totally different meanings. So don't put words in my mouth.
Specific to the comment, I'm not going to assume that the mind exists in some supernatural realm unless science establishes it to a high degree of certainty.
As far as I'm concerned we're done here. We spend all our time trying (or maybe not trying) to figure out what the other is saying. We're wasting our time.

Post Reply