Grace (and/or) Belief/Faith (and/or) Works?

[POI]

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? What is God's criteria for His selection process? Is it by grace alone, belief/faith alone, works alone; or it is a combination of the three? Or is it maybe other? Please, not only present your case, but please also explain why the other asserted methods are incorrect.

[TRANSPONDER]

As said before, it is not about what you personally (appealing to Bibletext or not, as though that proved anything) want to go for and believe, but what evidence - based and logical arguments you can post.

The thread is about Grace/Belief/Works, and how to be save. I believe it refer to Biblical teaching.

The forum is a debate forum, not about posting your beliefs and no arguments or evidence for. Preaching without anything more is against Tos.

I am not preaching, my evidence is from the Word of God of which I already had explained, and I know you won't believe my arguments, just like us of yours. And I believe this thread refers to Biblical teachings.

Not preaching yet, but just quoting Bibletext and faithclaims with no argument comes close. It's friendly suggestions to do a bit more. What you and i believe or don't doesn't matter, but the discussions we make, that, and not Bible teachings, is what the forum is about.

It was just on that post that I summarized my explanation, if you read our prior exchanges you may see my explanation of my beliefs basing on the quoted Bible text.

Very well. The point is made that citing Bibletext as a basis for faith or citing faith as support for Bibletext gets us nowhere and comes close to preaching.

Explanations as to why you trust either are welcome.

Of course my belief in God and to where my argument is from His teachings. Just like you, your belief (faith) is from some scientists who believe that their mind can grasp truth. You believe in science, you believe that God doesn't exist. That is not the only irony that atheism offer of no ground for faith that they themselves cannot do without.

You understand atheism as little as you appear to understand science or indeed the logic of reason. Your Faith at best is based on what's in the Bible, which is now coming under discussion about how much, if any, can be trusted. You appear to share the common delusion that science is accepting the Word of Authorities in Books. Even anti - evolutionists and science - deniers know that science 'is always changing its' mind'. It questions everything, and only Dogma refuses to do that. Yet we (and you) rely on science every day, because we know that (broadly) we can.

I believe I have said this before (echoing thunderfoot (1) that science - sceptics help themselves to the near paradaisical life that science has given us and sneer and decry it in hopes to make a case for a religious Dogma that led to wars, superstition and misery in the old days. Not to mention persecutions and exploitation by the church. Which still goes on today.

I question science and keep an open mind, but credit as much as any theist does, but knowing and admitting that i do. Bible - believers only credit science when they think it suits them. Your logical fail is the classic one that all theist apologists ought to know but not one of them seems to. Atheism doesn't know whether a god exists or not, but the evidence for any of them isn't persuasive.

And the debunk - you don't 'believe' any of the other gods, so why should atheists believe yours?

Gaps for god apply for other gods, too. Your god depends on the Bible, not gap for god arguments. They were a futile waste of time from the start.

Your final point apparently is also a fail. So we cannot 'do without' the validated database of science that underpins the materialist default that throws the burden of proof onto the etheist - claimants. Apart from your ill - founded sneer, what is wrong with that?

(1)

[POI]

My reply you highlighted does not fit to A).
G) If you would allow. As my belief just don't fit to just one of your made choices.

Yes, it does fit A)

A) Everyone now goes because Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice. All fall short, so Jesus paved the way.

Everyone falls short in one way or another. Since we have finite and fallible minds, Jesus's sacrifice provides true grace, since all humans need it. Some believe, some don't. No one repents enough, and no one regrets enough. Jesus's complete grace then necessarily applies to all.

[Capbook]

My reply you highlighted does not fit to A).
G) If you would allow. As my belief just don't fit to just one of your made choices.

Yes, it does fit A)

A) Everyone now goes because Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice. All fall short, so Jesus paved the way.

Everyone falls short in one way or another. Since we have finite and fallible minds, Jesus's sacrifice provides true grace, since all humans need it. Some believe, some don't. No one repents enough, and no one regrets enough. Jesus's complete grace then necessarily applies to all.

Everyone goes, that's not where I stand. I would prefer B) & C) if you would not allow my request.

[POI]

Everyone goes, that's not where I stand. I would prefer B) & C) if you would not allow my request.

If you opt for B) and C), you already explained. Which means your answer would actually be ((E) no one is worthy and no one goes.)) Why? Believers will not repent of all sin, so they fail B). Unbelievers will not regret of all knowingly wrong 'deeds/acts', so they fail C). Hence, for you, it looks to either be A) or E). Pick your poison.

[Capbook]

As said before, it is not about what you personally (appealing to Bibletext or not, as though that proved anything) want to go for and believe, but what evidence - based and logical arguments you can post.

The thread is about Grace/Belief/Works, and how to be save. I believe it refer to Biblical teaching.

The forum is a debate forum, not about posting your beliefs and no arguments or evidence for. Preaching without anything more is against Tos.

I am not preaching, my evidence is from the Word of God of which I already had explained, and I know you won't believe my arguments, just like us of yours. And I believe this thread refers to Biblical teachings.

Not preaching yet, but just quoting Bibletext and faithclaims with no argument comes close. It's friendly suggestions to do a bit more. What you and i believe or don't doesn't matter, but the discussions we make, that, and not Bible teachings, is what the forum is about.

It was just on that post that I summarized my explanation, if you read our prior exchanges you may see my explanation of my beliefs basing on the quoted Bible text.

Very well. The point is made that citing Bibletext as a basis for faith or citing faith as support for Bibletext gets us nowhere and comes close to preaching.

Explanations as to why you trust either are welcome.

Of course my belief in God and to where my argument is from His teachings. Just like you, your belief (faith) is from some scientists who believe that their mind can grasp truth. You believe in science, you believe that God doesn't exist. That is not the only irony that atheism offer of no ground for faith that they themselves cannot do without.

You understand atheism as little as you appear to understand science or indeed the logic of reason. Your Faith at best is based on what's in the Bible, which is now coming under discussion about how much, if any, can be trusted. You appear to share the common delusion that science is accepting the Word of Authorities in Books. Even anti - evolutionists and science - deniers know that science 'is always changing its' mind'. It questions everything, and only Dogma refuses to do that. Yet we (and you) rely on science every day, because we know that (broadly) we can.

I believe I have said this before (echoing thunderfoot (1) that science - sceptics help themselves to the near paradaisical life that science has given us and sneer and decry it in hopes to make a case for a religious Dogma that led to wars, superstition and misery in the old days. Not to mention persecutions and exploitation by the church. Which still goes on today.

I question science and keep an open mind, but credit as much as any theist does, but knowing and admitting that i do. Bible - believers only credit science when they think it suits them. Your logical fail is the classic one that all theist apologists ought to know but not one of them seems to. Atheism doesn't know whether a god exists or not, but the evidence for any of them isn't persuasive.

And the debunk - you don't 'believe' any of the other gods, so why should atheists believe yours?

Gaps for god apply for other gods, too. Your god depends on the Bible, not gap for god arguments. They were a futile waste of time from the start.

Your final point apparently is also a fail. So we cannot 'do without' the validated database of science that underpins the materialist default that throws the burden of proof onto the etheist - claimants. Apart from your ill - founded sneer, what is wrong with that?

(1)

Yes, my faith at best is based on what's in the Bible, evidence of Jesus existence would somehow prove of His used and quotes of the Scriptures, Genesis included. The common delusion I would say that some scientists are accepting the Word of God. And some on mindless, unguided evolution that always changes or mutate.
Neither are mutations in DNA in any sense outside God’s creative will. It is, after all, mutations that help to generate the variation that make us all physically different. Genetic diversity is a reminder of our individual uniqueness in God’s sight.

I believe 1st and 2nd world war was not about religion.The main causes of World War 1 were alliances between countries, militarism, nationalism, imperialism, secret diplomacy, and internationalism. And the major causes of World War II were numerous. They include the impact of the Treaty of Versailles following WWI, the worldwide economic depression, failure of appeasement, the rise of militarism in Germany and Japan, and the failure of the League of Nations. But when there is no clear boundary of rational morality of atheism, more troubles would happen in the future. Natural world is not there to teach us morality. We know God’s moral laws by Biblical revelation not by studying nature.

Bible-believers only credit scientists where their stand is that science is not the only source of truth.
Of course, you know what atheism is, it is in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.

Because we believe on a Creator God. Intelligent Designer, who design the rational intelligibility of the universe.

God of the gaps" is a theological concept that emerged in the 19th century and revolves around the idea that gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God. (Wikipedia)

My point did not fail, the belief of some scientists that science is the only source of truth, which is not a scientific idea has not been refuted.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes, my faith at best is based on what's in the Bible, evidence of Jesus existence would somehow prove of His used and quotes of the Scriptures, Genesis included. The common delusion I would say that some scientists are accepting the Word of God. And some on mindless, unguided evolution that always changes or mutate.
Neither are mutations in DNA in any sense outside God’s creative will. It is, after all, mutations that help to generate the variation that make us all physically different. Genetic diversity is a reminder of our individual uniqueness in God’s sight.

I believe 1st and 2nd world war was not about religion.The main causes of World War 1 were alliances between countries, militarism, nationalism, imperialism, secret diplomacy, and internationalism. And the major causes of World War II were numerous. They include the impact of the Treaty of Versailles following WWI, the worldwide economic depression, failure of appeasement, the rise of militarism in Germany and Japan, and the failure of the League of Nations. But when there is no clear boundary of rational morality of atheism, more troubles would happen in the future. Natural world is not there to teach us morality. We know God’s moral laws by Biblical revelation not by studying nature.

Bible-believers only credit scientists where their stand is that science is not the only source of truth.
Of course, you know what atheism is, it is in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.

Because we believe on a Creator God. Intelligent Designer, who design the rational intelligibility of the universe.

God of the gaps" is a theological concept that emerged in the 19th century and revolves around the idea that gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God. (Wikipedia)

My point did not fail, the belief of some scientists that science is the only source of truth, which is not a scientific idea has not been refuted.

Right, let's have a look at that. The historic Jesus is not the Jesus depicted by Christian gospel - writers. The Christian apologist can no longer leap from an actual Jesus to validation of Christianity any more than a real Ron Hubbard means validation of Scientology.

You defeat your own argument by accepting, apparently, that some are theists, some are Christians and some perhaps even Creationists. You ignore that some scientists even in Biology or medicine may not be experts in Palaeontology, so even if they do reject that science, they are not authorities in that field. You seem to confuse men of the cloth with valid authorities in an expertise. bottom line, I suppose is that even if some scientists previously or today, were trying to prove a god, rather than find facts, their discoveries actually tend to refute the god claim.

Bottom line of the bottom line, trying to cite scientist theist as validation for Christian creationism is invalid and always was.

Bottom line of the DNA argument, too. Yes, even if you accepted (and understood) how mutations enabling DNA - fixed natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, you could still claim that a god did it. That is why 'some' Christians are evolutionists. You would still have to show which god, of course, which is why the gap for god arguments are irrelevant. Gospel validity is the only argument relevant to the Christianity debate.

Of course, not all wars were wars of religion. Just that without religion there would have been less, and it is a bad rap on religion that any of them were, never mind that religion often rallies behind war - as we see with KGB - run orthodox Christianity in Russia just now.

True, the natural world is not intended to teach us morality. Nor it is there to teach us philosophy, art, poetry, music or indeed science (apart from evolved problem - solving, found also in animals) but it is what we devised to help ourselves cope, it is not given by a god, or we'd all have the same Bible.



What Bible -believer sdo or do not credit regarding the science they do not understand and do not want to, is irrelevant. Any scientist who has a 'stand' that science is not the current best and only validated way of finding truth, is severely compromised in their thinking. No other way of getting to truth, not even philosophy - has been able to match science when it comes to results. Which is why there is only one science worldwide, but theur are may conflicting paths that supposedly lead to various different Truths.

Atheism is in its' specific sense an absence of belief in any deities. Creationists believe in an intelligent designer of everything in the universe, and the universe itself. Fine. So far they have not been able to make a valid case for that even though they have tried innumerable ploys, gambits, lawyer tricks and fudged philosophy. All of which have been shown to be inadequate at best and invalid at the less worst. Dishonest is the worst, like lying about the evidence. Because evidence doesn't actually matter; Faith does.

Yes, I know what a gap for God is. The point is that gaps for god, even when valid, do not make a case for a god (name your own) but now the gaps for a god are closing because Cosmic origins, origins of Life and coinsciousness all have explanations, if not proof. a god is no longer the only possible answer, and the whole gap for God argument depends of proving any other explanation impossible, and then to make a case for a particular god, unless one is an irreligious theist.

Your point did fail, not leans because you don't seem to understand your own argument. It is not that ALL scientists should see science as the only known reliable way of getting the truth (making the best models of reality, based on evidence) it is that there is something wrong with that and that some other method of reaching truth is as good. You have to do better than posting faith - claims to validate that.

I have to ask, did you not know that was a false argument or were you just hoping that i wouldn't see it? I often wonder. My money is on - in this case- you really didn't understand the argument.

[POI]

Christians, why is your answer(s) not unified? How does one achieve salvation? All you fine folks have responded, and I assume all of you have read your Bibles. And yet all of you offer differing responses? As I see it, giving the answer here should be as universal and easy as asking all you fine folks Q) how does one achieve entrance into next week's rock concert? A) You buy a ticket before they sell out, etc.

What IS the answer Christians? In an effort to consolidate/simply, I've grouped the possible answers. Just pick one and explain why.

A) Unconditional grace - (Jesus already did all the dirty work, everyone goes now since he had to die for all, as all fall short)
B) Faith/belief - (accept him as your savior, ask him for guidance, apply trust in him)
C) Works - (necessary additional acts or tasks in which Jesus also deems 'good')
D) Both B) and C)
E) No one goes, no one is worthy
F) Other, which does not already include the topics of B) and/or C)

********************

Provided Christian answers, thus far:

Post 11: JW No answer
Post 27: Eloi No answer
Post 49: Bjs1 answer B)
Post 76: Tam answer D)
Post 236: kjw47 answer D)
Post 239: DJT_47 answer D)
Post 321: AFG answer D)
Post 758: Mea Von H answer A) or E)?
post 805: 1213 answer A)
Post 904: Capbook answer A), B), C) or E)?

[1213]

Christians, why is your answer(s) not unified?...

Why not take what Bible tells and follow teachings of Jesus, instead of trying to follow some Christian?

A) Unconditional grace - (Jesus already did all the dirty work, everyone goes now since he had to die for all, as all fall short)
....
post 805: 1213 answer A)
...

I don't think you have understood my answer correctly. I don't say "Jesus already did all the dirty work, everyone goes now since he had to die for all, as all fall short".

[TRANSPONDER]

Christians, why is your answer(s) not unified?...

Why not take what Bible tells and follow teachings of Jesus, instead of trying to follow some Christian?

A) Unconditional grace - (Jesus already did all the dirty work, everyone goes now since he had to die for all, as all fall short)
....
post 805: 1213 answer A)
...

I don't think you have understood my answer correctly. I don't say "Jesus already did all the dirty work, everyone goes now since he had to die for all, as all fall short".

That's what was called 'Christianity has failed' in the old days. The Christian reply - excuse was to blame man. That's the failure. Or rather, like many a religion, it did the best gob it could to aspire to making us better. But the failure is built - in as it relies on bribes and threat to get people to play nice, and worse, the religions that aren't true and (thus) were just devised by men have their faults and prejudices.

Islam for instance was based on expansion by war. While Christianity was expansion by door- knocking. Medieval Baghdad was a golden age of humanism with tolerance, learning and discovery. Half of the star names are arabic. Then religious fundamentalism 'reformed' this backsliding and turned it back to Jihad. And it has never really recovered.

I'm not sure I can point to any golden age of Christianity, from the crusades to missionary conquest, bigotry, Holy wars and ignorance. Perhaps when the old famous scientists who were all 'creationists', as the apologists like to put it, were finding out how stuff worked rather than just saying 'God did it', let alone punishing anyone who questioned what the Bible says.

In short, just like the liberal age of Baghdad, Christianity and any other religion, looked best when it has humanism.

Which is where we came in - Religion taking the credit for human successes and blaming its; own failure on men. Worse, it denies that it fails. Slavery is a particular one. At best, Christians agree with a broadly humanist rejection of slavery and deny that the Bible condones and endorses it, and we have seen the denial and fiddling that goes on to deny that Bible says what it clearly does say, and we have the same with evolution and how much medicine and science is based on it, and yet fundamentalist Christianity and Islam embrace the science - denial of Creationism and this leads to denial of a lot of science, including medicine.

The message is clear. Religions may aspire to humans doing better, but they fail in doing so, and they fight the humanism that can do better, because the religions then lose their authority and control.

"Ah gatta dream, terday..." that the religion - driven cult that threatens democracy will fail, lose power, be investigated and the dirty stuff be exposed even more that happened in a NY court recently; and one day, the religions will not have the privilege of secrecy and will be open to judicial examination, like any other business (and pay their taxes, too) and if we cannot make man behave better, Religion will no longer be cover and protection for those who behave worse.

[POI]

Christians, why is your answer(s) not unified?...

Why not take what Bible tells and follow teachings of Jesus, instead of trying to follow some Christian?

I'm making an observation. None of your answers are unified. And all of you have read your Bibles. This tells me the message is NOT clear.

I don't think you have understood my answer correctly. I don't say "Jesus already did all the dirty work, everyone goes now since he had to die for all, as all fall short".

You told me your answer was A). Would you like to change it now?