Only Jesus adherents will attain salvation.

[Desert Snake]

"All scripture"? Not.

Yes, it does. If you are reading it in some other context, that is your prerogative/problem.

How do you know so much about angels whereas you can definitively say this, whereas there is very little in scripture to go by. Secondly, the issue of free will is hardly a given, including within the early church. Augustine, for example, really struggled with this because on can use different verses to support different positions.

Actually, we know quite a bit about angels, via scripture.

Augustines problems are of no concern to me, and I don't believe in inherited sin , either. You have a problem with speaking as to others supposed problems, and not speaking for yourself, it seems.

Again, that's only an assumption with basically no evidence to support it from scripture or elsewhere. And, again, the early church struggled with this question.

Which "church"? Jesus adherence is not predicated by the ideas of what you probably mean the early roman church; nice job at insulting the eastern churches, and the christians who weren't part of that church.

So, as a non-Christian and pretty much a non-theist, I'll just say "I don't know", and I feel comfortable saying this.

That is your prerogative. I thought that you practiced judaism, by the way, so not sure how you are fitting that statement into judaism.

 

[Desert Snake]

Again, the Catholic view of "the mystery of the trinity" seems to make more sense as the connection vis-a-vis Jesus and God is not at all clear, and early church history seems to confirm this. There simply is no slam-dunk opinion on this-- quite the opposite.

Then that is really their problem. Even without the nt, my theology is the same, and allows for the manifestation of deity. Perhaps they were trying to fit their theology into some other paradigm, so what?

 

[Nakosis]

We are told sometimes, that people who refused to accept Jesus, will somehow get a "second chance"at judgement. This seems highly unlikely, because of course that will "make"people "convert". It is a silly concept, aside from those who literally never got the oppurtunity. Scripture seems to back this, as well.
This isnt to say there cant be a second chance, but that is contextual

I suppose what I refuse to accept is that folks today posses any real knowledge about Jesus.

There's so many views, versions of Jesus, I suppose one of them could be right, but there's no way to validate any of them.

You have your beliefs about Jesus, which is fine, but there's no particular reason for me to accept anything you claim about Jesus. Any more than dozens of other folks who claim to have knowledge about Jesus.

So picking anyone of those claims about Jesus could be wrong, so I choose none.

If God wants to condemn me for the lack of credibility possessed by God's self proclaimed followers, I guess I have to be judged for my lack of trust in folks I didn't see any good reason for trusting.

 

[metis]

You have a problem with speaking as to others supposed problems, and not speaking for yourself, it seems.

My "problem" is when I deal with people who conflate "belief" with "facts".

Jesus adherence is not predicated by the ideas of what you probably mean the early roman church; nice job at insulting the eastern churches, and the christians who weren't part of that church.

I never insulted any churches, so your response simply is some sort of bizarre strawman you've created through your own disingenuousness. People of faith really are not supposed to make such accusations based on out-and-out lies, and if your church/denomination teaches you that what you just did above is morally right & proper, let me suggest you find one that actually teaches basic Biblical and/or humanistic morality.

I thought that you practiced judaiasm, by the way, so not sure how you are fitting that statement into judaism.

I'm not, nor was I trying to.

Since you're making false accusations and also conflating "belief" with "facts", you simply are not the kind of person I want to discuss topics like this with, so...

nous fini.

 

[Desert Snake]

I suppose what I refuse to accept is that folks today posses any real knowledge about Jesus.

There's so many views, versions of Jesus, I suppose one of them could be right, but there's no way to validate any of them.

You have your beliefs about Jesus, which is fine, but there's no particular reason for me to accept anything you claim about Jesus. Any more than dozens of other folks who claim to have knowledge about Jesus.

So picking anyone of those claims about Jesus could be wrong, so I choose none.

If God wants to condemn me for the lack of credibility possessed by God's self proclaimed followers, I guess I have to be judged for my lack of trust in folks I didn't see any good reason for trusting.

Since christians disagree with each other all the time, I 'm not quite sure as to the logic of your argument. It seems that you simply don't believe any form of christianity, and are somehow relating/justifying that, by claiming that christians aren't credible. Those are two different ideas.

 

[Father Heathen]

I believe that is not true. A master expects obedience from his slave and if he doesn't get it any punishment is valid.

So if I were to capture and subdue you with force, declare you my property and then proceed to beat you until your will is broken, It would be fair for me to pull your fingernails and toenails out with a pair of pliers if you failed to perform 3 flawless black flips immediately upon demand?

See, this is why your beliefs are nothing but the lowest filth, unworthy and deserving only of contempt.

The crime of disobedience is worse than all other crimes put together.

A completely arbitrary - and thus worthless - assertion. The severity of a crime should measured by its consequences.

I believe that is not true. A God of justice must punish the wicked or He is not just.

As we've already explained and established, it is not justice if the punishment isn't proportionate to the crime.

I believe there is no evidence to support this view.

Torturing someone simply for not worshiping or submitting is nothing other than sadism and ego gratification.

 

[Muffled]

Logically, they are either the same or they're different, as an intermediate position is sort of like being partially pregnant.

I believe your analogy has to do with physical things and that does not relate to spiritual things.

I believe that depends on what you are talking about. Jesus has the same spirit as the Father; they are one. However Jesus has a body and the Father does not. That makes them different in that respect.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus in Spirit form, as part of the trinity, means there really is no temporal Jesus.

The nt makes no distinction between Jesus in physical form, and Jesus in spirit form.

This means that Jesus was not the 'same', as other people, clearly. We note this at the beginning of the narrative, not at the time of jesus's baptism, or whatever.

I fail to see how one can reason that from the evidence.

I can't say I have ever seen that in the NT so I believe you must be making a misinterpretation.

I believe the conclusion is true but not because of proper reasoning in this case.

 

[metis]

I believe your analogy has to do with physical things and that does not relate to spiritual things.

I believe that depends on what you are talking about. Jesus has the same spirit as the Father; they are one. However Jesus has a body and the Father does not. That makes them different in that respect.

And that's all assuming that your beliefs are facts. As for me, I'm a skeptic that needs more evidence.

 

[Muffled]

So if I were to capture and subdue you with force, declare you my property and then proceed to beat you until your will is broken, It would be fair for me to pull your fingernails and toenails out with a pair of pliers if you failed to perform 3 flawless black flips immediately upon demand?

See, this is why your beliefs are nothing but the lowest filth, unworthy and deserving only of contempt.

A completely arbitrary - and thus worthless - assertion. The severity of a crime should measured by its consequences.

As we've already explained and established, it is not justice if the punishment isn't proportionate to the crime.

Torturing someone simply for not worshiping or submitting is nothing other than sadism and ego gratification.

I believe this is not the case. God is the creator and therefore He owns His creation.

I believe that is an inapropriate view. The Master is due obedience by right and disobedience can be punished.

No, I don't see. I see that this might be the view of the disobedient because no punishment is pleasant. All those miscreants in jail feel they are being mistreated but they are getting what they deserve.

I believe that is exactly what it is. The worst crime one may commit against his master is to disobey him.

I believe you can breathe fire until your dying day but you will not be able to prove it.

 

[Muffled]

And that's all assuming that your beliefs are facts. As for me, I'm a skeptic that needs more evidence.

I believe the evidence is in the Bible. I will grant that you can be skeptical of the Bible but you can't escape what the Bible says and the reality is there is no other evidence for you to have a contrary opinion.

For instance the Bible says that there is a God. One might be skeptical of that but there is no evidence to contradict what the Bible says and plenty of evidence to support what it says.

 

[Father Heathen]

I believe the evidence is in the Bible. I will grant that you can be skeptical of the Bible but you can't escape what the Bible says and the reality is there is no other evidence for you to have a contrary opinion.

For instance the Bible says that there is a God. One might be skeptical of that but there is no evidence to contradict what the Bible says and plenty of evidence to support what it says.

Circular reasoning - RationalWiki

 

[metis]

I believe the evidence is in the Bible. I will grant that you can be skeptical of the Bible but you can't escape what the Bible says and the reality is there is no other evidence for you to have a contrary opinion.

A "contrary opinion" on what? What objective evidence
can you supply us with that the Bible is more correct than the Bhagavad Gita, for example?

For instance the Bible says that there is a God. One might be skeptical of that but there is no evidence to contradict what the Bible says and plenty of evidence to support what it says.

The reality is quite the opposite, namely that there simply is no objectively-derived evidence that there is one god, or more than one god, or no gods. Whatever one may believe is just that-- belief, not evidence. This is why my faith statement at the bottom of the page reads like it does,

 

[Jeremiahcp]

We are told sometimes, that people who refused to accept Jesus, will somehow get a "second chance"at judgement. This seems highly unlikely, because of course that will "make"people "convert". It is a silly concept, aside from those who literally never got the oppurtunity. Scripture seems to back this, as well.



This isnt to say there cant be a second chance, but that is contextual

Jesus does not give second chances to anyone, as he is dead.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I believe the evidence is in the Bible. I will grant that you can be skeptical of the Bible but you can't escape what the Bible says and the reality is there is no other evidence for you to have a contrary opinion.

For instance the Bible says that there is a God. One might be skeptical of that but there is no evidence to contradict what the Bible says and plenty of evidence to support what it says.

"you can't escape what the Bible says"

Yes you can, as it is a book. You put it down and walk away. It is that simple.

 

[Muffled]

Circular reasoning - RationalWiki

I believe I agree that is circular reasoning.

However I was not arguing that but was counter proposing the null hypothesis against existing evidence. I agree that validating that evidence is difficult but it is still the only evidence in existence.

 

[Muffled]

A "contrary opinion" on what? What objective evidence
can you supply us with that the Bible is more correct than the Bhagavad Gita, for example?
The reality is quite the opposite, namely that there simply is no objectively-derived evidence that there is one god, or more than one god, or no gods. Whatever one may believe is just that-- belief, not evidence. This is why my faith statement at the bottom of the page reads like it does,

I believe one has to accept the Bhagavad Gita as evidence as well. I don't believe there is any objective way to discern which text is correct. My experience of what the Holy Spirit says is subjective. However I believe subjective evidence is valid evidence and I would believe more readily that the Holy Spirit is reliable than I would believe an ancient text.

What kind of evidence is the Bible then. I believe I didn't write it. Anyone can read it. I suppose you could say those who wrote the Bible did so on the basis of their own experience but it seems to me that witnesses to events have to have more validity than people who have not witnessed any events.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus does not give second chances to anyone, as he is dead.

I believe there is no evidence that Jesus is dead. It isn't through the body that Jesus works but through the Holy Spirit.

 

[metis]

What kind of evidence is the Bible then. I believe I didn't write it. Anyone can read it. I suppose you could say those who wrote the Bible did so on the basis of their own experience but it seems to me that witnesses to events have to have more validity than people who have not witnessed any events.

Pretty much all religions have events that were witnessed by those believed to be reliable.

IMO, it's much more important to not take these events as being objective history, but more to concentrate on what the teachings are, and then judging which might be useful today.

 

[Muffled]

Pretty much all religions have events that were witnessed by those believed to be reliable.

IMO, it's much more important to not take these events as being objective history, but more to concentrate on what the teachings are, and then judging which might be useful today.

There is no such thing as objective history. All historians write as witnesses from their own perspective.

I believe that is not so likely. Take the Vedas for instance. There is no reporting of a source from which the information was received and no statement of personal witness. The person is writing of what he knows but we have no way of knowing how he knows it or if he really does know it.

I believe this then sets you up as god.