Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[Nakosis]

Study the timeline for better understanding.

Earliest evidence of a deity I'm aware of is Shiva. Around 3300BCE

Yahweh - 1390BCE

 

[Nakosis]

Where do you base such a conclusion that “you can’t all be correct”?
If you say you don’t know what a means?

Logic and reason failed you on this one. Your reasoning did not come from logic at all.

No it came from Christians. However you are correct, logic and reason failed when it comes to claims from Christians as to what a true Christian is.

 

[Nakosis]

That would depend on what a faith promises. Christianity's promises an experience with God and a relationship with him. I would suggest that that is the goal and constitutes no only evidence to the individual but subjective proof. I cannot evaluate all other faiths but the other big 3 would be problematic. I do not think it possible for the average believer in Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism to know this side of too late if their faith was genuine. They do not even offer any response from God (in general). That is one on the reasons I eventually rejected them and looked at Christianity. They are hollow intellectual agreement issues not experientially justified.

Not justified to your experience. I'm as willing to accept your faith is as genuine as I am willing from others. How could I honestly judge not having had anyone's experience other than my own.

My faith is proven to me by it's success in provoking a response from God. It is objectively validating by thousands of lines of evidence in the fields of history, morality, philosophy, science, etc....... Other faiths may have a partial claim concerning the latter but virtually none concerning the former. Faith as merely intellectual concept to a hypothesis is almost meaningless IMO. My faith is based on experiencing God.

My belief is based on my experience of God. A person can only go with what seems right to them. Though it does seems Christians are more open about expressing this experience. I ask a lot about personal experience. I don't know if you recall me asking you. You replied and I accepted your word on it.

I've been doing this for a very long time. Asking people the reality of their experience of God. They all seem sincere and genuine. I have to leave the judging of the truth of their experiences to them as well as leaving you to judge the truth of yours.

Unfortunately I have seen where I've fooled myself into believing this or that. So I know it's possible. That knowledge was the source of my comment.

 

[1robin]

Not justified to your experience. I'm as willing to accept your faith is as genuine as I am willing from others. How could I honestly judge not having had anyone's experience other than my own.

It is the difference between asking what someone who had never been out of Columbia thought the North pole felt like and someone who had been there. I can credit Muslims with all the sincerity in the world and still not find their faith of any value to me. BTW it is not on my faith or anyone else's you will be held accountable. I am not trying to persuade you based on ho much I believe. It is simply a matter of fact that a person who has been to the North pole would be a better source than one who has read about it concerning how it feels to be there. It was simply a quality of claim issue, not a sincerity one. It is not merely a personal one either, other faiths do not even doctrinally offer the same kind of experiential response to all adherents as Christianity. It is the contrast between experience and theory regardless of how persuasive you find me personally.

My belief is based on my experience of God. A person can only go with what seems right to them. Though it does seems Christians are more open about expressing this experience. I ask a lot about personal experience. I don't know if you recall me asking you. You replied and I accepted your word on it.

Are you claiming to have directly experienced a non Judeo Christian God or were you simply establishing a context? There are three components to Christian faith. 1. Experiential - what I have perceived with the same trust and certainty as my visual or auditory experience. No other major religion offers even a comparable potential with mine in this category. 2. Deductive faith - best explanations for the evidence. 3. Speculative faith - based on the reliability of evidenced faith and he lack of a defeater. The latter two can be defended by other faiths but not the first, at least not on any meaningful comparative basis.

I've been doing this for a very long time. Asking people the reality of their experience of God. They all seem sincere and genuine. I have to leave the judging of the truth of their experiences to them as well as leaving you to judge the truth of yours.

I have been doing this a long time to and before this I spent years researching theological theory. I have found very (surprisingly very) few people of other faiths that claim to have an experience with God. To back that up they do not even doctrinally offer it. To become a Muslim you only have to grant agreement to a single God and Muhammad being his prophet. No divine response promised. In Hinduism only a precious few are enlightened and they live in trees and caves and can't be questioned to often, In Judaism it is a matter of moral conduct and intellectual agreement. Even if you disagree with my debate conclusions the doctrines can't be any more dissimilar. There is not even a hint of equality here.

Unfortunately I have seen where I've fooled myself into believing this or that. So I know it's possible. That knowledge was the source of my comment.

Being born again for those that have not is as difficult to understand as asking a person who hasn't been if they have ever been in love. They want so badly to believe they have they equate other experiences with it or convince themselves of something that does not compare to the real experience once had. I can tell by what you understand I am saying by personal experience to be something I am not saying. I am not talking about an intellectual conclusion similar to wisdom or an emotional episode. I am talking about a palpable undeniable reality which not only exceeded every emotional and intellectual experience in every way but produced undeniable instant and profound changes. I can' even properly articulate it and can spend days describing it but I will include two just as typical examples.

1. I had lost my mother in my teenage years. I had an anger and depression so sever over that it was debilitating. In the course of less than 5 minutes in he absence of any other influence God completely removed every last aspect of it.
2. As a result of the above I had treated my condition with drugs and alcohol for years. I was young enough to function but no matter how hard I tried could not shake either habit. I had repeatedly tried and failed for years. Not even thinking about it one way or the other over the same 5 minutes I lost any desire for either habit completely. I had my first ever taste of complete peace and contentment without looking or even thinking about it directly.

Even if you tried to invent a non-theistic explanation for this event it would pale in comparison to the explanation that God is required to explain it.

As I said I can go on all day about aspects of the same evening that nothing else whatsoever can explain as well.

 

[1robin]

No it came from Christians. However you are correct, logic and reason failed when it comes to claims from Christians as to what a true Christian is.

What Christianity is not up to Christians. I was determined by Christ and far from being arbitrary salvation by grace alone is the only coherent salvation model even possible. Even long after I had become a Christian and was born again I just could not understand why faith and not merit (as man requires) was the only necessary ingredient. That is until I tried to imagine how any merit based system might operate. I soon found it completely impossible and irrational and felt at peace with grace and grace alone. Any other possible system can't survive 5 minutes of scrutiny.

 

[Nakosis]

What Christianity is not up to Christians. I was determined by Christ and far from being arbitrary salvation by grace alone is the only coherent salvation model even possible. Even long after I had become a Christian and was born again I just could not understand why faith and not merit (as man requires) was the only necessary ingredient. That is until I tried to imagine how any merit based system might operate. I soon found it completely impossible and irrational and felt at peace with grace and grace alone. Any other possible system can't survive 5 minutes of scrutiny.

That's Paul. From what I've read. I mean this doctrine of salvation by grace alone. I could be wrong, I'm relying on the expertise of others here. Can you show me that they are wrong? Where does Jesus teach salvation by grace alone?

 

[1robin]

That's Paul. From what I've read. I mean this doctrine of salvation by grace alone. I could be wrong, I'm relying on the expertise of others here. Can you show me that they are wrong? Where does Jesus teach salvation by grace alone?

I have studied salvation more than any subject except maybe military history and math (and math was forced). If you want to discuss the subject be prepared to invest significant time. It is not only Paul who believed in grace and grace alone. It was all the NT authors. Admittedly a surface reading can at times be a little contradictory. However after 20 + years studying continuously (3 years literally continuously) including the only three personal miracles I claim, in confirmation) I can easily show where all the authors agreed on Grace.

1. Paul wrote more of the NT that all others combined. That means at least grace is the majority position. It also means Paul is the easiest to understand because it has far more context available.
2. Paul is in most cases by far the earliest material and represents the first Churche's doctrine the most comprehensively.
3. Much of Paul's work is an expansion on even earlier creeds and hymns which show grace to be among the earliest teachings.
4. Every single apostle accepted Paul as an apostle and Paul won every single disagreement they had. Wrong or right the other apostles were extremely dedicated to their message they would not have accepted a rogue Pauline message.
5. Even admitting some scripture seem on the surface can confuse for a minute, they still only include scriptures that are very rare and far between. James is chief but he was not describing what makes Christian a Christian, he was describing what would be apparent to another person (an apostle in that case) concerning a Christian. A single passage in Hebrews is usually second. I can explain each one in detail as you give them but in the end the total verses that can even be misunderstood to suggest works is tiny in comparison with the mountains of emphatic grace only verses. I can give the universal opinions of all major commentators, etc.. once you light on any specific verse.
7. You are right to suggest Paul as the champion of grace. He emphatically insists on it time and time again and rules out works constantly. If wrong why would Christ commission him, if he did not why did all the other apostles believe he did?
8. However in my opinion the greatest reason to believe in grace alone is the impossibility and logical absurdity of any works based system. Doesn't make grace (only) true, but it does make it the only game in town. BTW grace plus works is a self contradictory standard.

If you want to get into this a bit then I think the best way would be either for you to give me a specific verse and we can derive what was intended using proper exegesis, hermeneutics, and scholarship or you can describe any theoretical works based system and I can tear into it. Your choice, the subject is too deep for me to arbitrarily select what tact might be meaningful to you.

 

[Nakosis]

If you want to get into this a bit then I think the best way would be either for you to give me a specific verse and we can derive what was intended using proper exegesis, hermeneutics, and scholarship or you can describe any theoretical works based system and I can tear into it. Your choice, the subject is too deep for me to arbitrarily select what tact might be meaningful to you.

No, though when you said who was a Christian was determined by Christ it might have made more sense (to me) to say who a Christian is, is determined by the works of Paul and the other apostles. I'm not going to argue that Paul and the other apostles are not at the foundation of Christianity.

You've your reasons plus personal experience with God to justify placing your faith with the Apostles. Who am I to say you shouldn't.

Other Christian's I've spoken to reject Paul. I was hoping to find common ground however I really don't believe there is any.

 

[McBell]

Compromising one’s belief or philosophy and exchanging it for ignorance is really what you call the “serious credibility problem.”

*yawn*

You really need to work on your insults.

 

[Nakosis]

It is the difference between asking what someone who had never been out of Columbia thought the North pole felt like and someone who had been there. I can credit Muslims with all the sincerity in the world and still not find their faith of any value to me. BTW it is not on my faith or anyone else's you will be held accountable. I am not trying to persuade you based on ho much I believe. It is simply a matter of fact that a person who has been to the North pole would be a better source than one who has read about it concerning how it feels to be there. It was simply a quality of claim issue, not a sincerity one. It is not merely a personal one either, other faiths do not even doctrinally offer the same kind of experiential response to all adherents as Christianity. It is the contrast between experience and theory regardless of how persuasive you find me personally.

Agreed, but with Christianity it's a little different. Christians feel they have been to he north pole, er have had the experience of the Holy Spirit. I don't know if you've been out of Columbia but at least you might be able to produce a plane ticket for evidence. I have had my experiences as well. I also believe I was saved by the Holy Spirit strangely enough around about the same age. Teenagers always in crisis... No one who hasn't experienced it could fathom the reality of that experience.

Are you claiming to have directly experienced a non Judeo Christian God or were you simply establishing a context? There are three components to Christian faith. 1. Experiential - what I have perceived with the same trust and certainty as my visual or auditory experience. No other major religion offers even a comparable potential with mine in this category. 2. Deductive faith - best explanations for the evidence. 3. Speculative faith - based on the reliability of evidenced faith and he lack of a defeater. The latter two can be defended by other faiths but not the first, at least not on any meaningful comparative basis.

I don't describe my experiences as Judeo Christian but I also won't say they wouldn't fit that belief.

I have been doing this a long time to and before this I spent years researching theological theory. I have found very (surprisingly very) few people of other faiths that claim to have an experience with God. To back that up they do not even doctrinally offer it. To become a Muslim you only have to grant agreement to a single God and Muhammad being his prophet. No divine response promised. In Hinduism only a precious few are enlightened and they live in trees and caves and can't be questioned to often, In Judaism it is a matter of moral conduct and intellectual agreement. Even if you disagree with my debate conclusions the doctrines can't be any more dissimilar. There is not even a hint of equality here.

I've come across a few that claim otherwise, but mostly you are correct. There is a lot of confusion among people, Christians as well.

Being born again for those that have not is as difficult to understand as asking a person who hasn't been if they have ever been in love. They want so badly to believe they have they equate other experiences with it or convince themselves of something that does not compare to the real experience once had. I can tell by what you understand I am saying by personal experience to be something I am not saying. I am not talking about an intellectual conclusion similar to wisdom or an emotional episode. I am talking about a palpable undeniable reality which not only exceeded every emotional and intellectual experience in every way but produced undeniable instant and profound changes. I can' even properly articulate it and can spend days describing it but I will include two just as typical examples.

1. I had lost my mother in my teenage years. I had an anger and depression so sever over that it was debilitating. In the course of less than 5 minutes in he absence of any other influence God completely removed every last aspect of it.
2. As a result of the above I had treated my condition with drugs and alcohol for years. I was young enough to function but no matter how hard I tried could not shake either habit. I had repeatedly tried and failed for years. Not even thinking about it one way or the other over the same 5 minutes I lost any desire for either habit completely. I had my first ever taste of complete peace and contentment without looking or even thinking about it directly.

However, I do understand.

Even if you tried to invent a non-theistic explanation for this event it would pale in comparison to the explanation that God is required to explain it.

Wouldn't dream of it. Ok, maybe I tried once or twice. Didn't stick though.

As I said I can go on all day about aspects of the same evening that nothing else whatsoever can explain as well.

Here is my issue with Christianity, I went to a number of Churches seeking to understand what I had experienced, I did not feel the Holy Spirit within these churches. I started looking elsewhere.

 

[CG Didymus]

I just realize that I hardly have myself figured out, I know so very little and what I do know comes from very limited sources, and because I usually can't recall what I had for breakfast then how can I ever really be expected to know anything about some sort of deity, should one exist. I'm only human after all, and we hardly know how our own home works and what it looks like.

You know I was a better person by believing in a religion. I put my trust in something greater than myself and let things that normally bothered me, like people, bounce off. The bad news is, the first real religion I committed to was the Baha'i Faith. I was happy and doing fine until a Christian friend told me I was following a false religion.

So I did a little prayer where I admitted I was hopeless and helpless without Jesus. I was happy and doing fine until another Christian asked if I had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. She took me to a little Bible study where the lady running it laid hands on me and told me to start speaking. I babbled out some noises. She interpreted for the group. She said I was praising God and Jesus, but I wasn't. In my secret "prayer" language I was asking God, "Is this bulls%*@ for real?" My problem is, I remember too much.

Have you ever thrown pottery? If a pot collapses, unless it's because of a freak accident, such as someone tripping into it, it is the potters fault.

I used the analogy of us making some robots. We made then to love and worship us, but we put in a faulty computer module. It gave them a way to think for themselves. Eventually, they used the faulty brain we gave them to question us!

It didn't help that the evil prototype, that we allowed to continue to exist, poisoned their heads. He made them believe we weren't real, even though we gave them a user's manual. Of course, we didn't write it. We told them what to write and they printed it out themselves. The manual made it clear that we existed! They wanted more proof, like seeing us and talking directly with us. But that's no good, because then they wouldn't be able to believe in us by faith.

We gave them a bunch of rules, some good, some pretty silly, but we just wanted to see if they'd believe in us and obey our rules. They didn't. I can't understand why?

You are suggesting that God created the evil from the beginning, that God is the author of sin. The devil did not follow the will of God in the garden of eden, but his/LDS own will. Therefore, the devil has his own free will against the will of God and pursued this will in the garden of Eden. [/quote}
Then why, in Job, did Satan need God's permission?

Satan is one such word, which is actually a verb. The several books that have been omitted is further proof. Even the Bibles Baptists and Catholics read are different.

He says "the devil" didn't follow God's will in the garden. Christians have their own way of piecing "The Truth" to make their Bible all come together in an almost sensible way. I always ask, then why don't Jews believe in the "Christian" definition and interpretation of "the devil". They go from a talking serpent to the morning star the Prince and King of Tyre to come up with how The Satan is their devil. And then say, they don't "manipulate" Scripture?

I wonder, why would God create a very powerful spirit being, let him go bad and let him continue to exist? Does he like the evil that is happening on Earth? Is it really necessary to accomplish his intention? Which is what? People that love and worship him in spite of him letting all sorts of evil things befall us? I don't know, but I do know that I was happiest back in the late 60's, early 70's when I was a happy-go-lucky hippie living in the woods... before people and their religion found me.

 

[CG Didymus]

I got no complaint with Semitic Jews. You debate with them if you want.

Wow! That's all you got out of my post? That is why so many of us question a Christian's credibility. They say they go by the Bible. They say it is the infallible word of God, then change it to fit their own version of Christianity's beliefs. The Satan is not the Christian devil/lucifer. Lucifer is a Latin word. Jerome used it in his translation. Why didn't the KJV "translators" go direct to the Hebrew word and translate the equivalent English word for it? Why would they leave an untranslated Latin word in their "translation"?

 

[JM2C]

Do you know what "Plagiarism is". Just kidding, I could not resist the irony there.

What do u mean

 

[JM2C]

If a car "decides" to drive into the ditch, whatever the problem with the car that caused it to drive into the ditch is actually the result of the failure of someone else: either the driver (i.e. not the car), the manufacturer, the designer, the supplier, etc.

Lets not forget that we are still talking about the Potter/God and pots/human.

God and Human, and or as, Manufacturer and Pencils and each one has their own specifications to follow.

Pencil’s manufacturer specified that their pencils can be use only for writings otherwise, no return, no exchange.

While God specified that His creation, the human, either to believe or not to believe in Him.

If one believes in God one will be with God in heaven forever, and if one does not believe in God one goes to hell forever. We all know hell is not a good place to be forever.

To avoid confusion, we should not elaborate, or amplify the details, on how to relate these specifications by God/human and Manufacturer/pencils by giving more analogies, because as I was saying before, giving analogies to an analogy will just create disaster.

The things that we should look at are the specifications of both, God/human and Manufacturer/pencils, and nothing else.

If one goes beyond these specifications on either both, God/human and Manufacturer/pencils, one cannot blame neither one nor both.

Read again your post:

If we're pots and God is the potmaker, then our failures are God's failures.

If we follow God’s specifications, even if it’s either human believe in God or not believe in God, human should not fail at all base on God‘s specifications.

Again, if it’s either human believe in God or not believe in God, human should not fail at all base on God‘s specifications. IOW, failure is absent if we follow God’s specs.

If heaven with God is not a failure to those who believe in God, neither hell is not a failure to those who do not believe in God, because both are just following God’s specs.

Either way, heaven or hell, human wins, but the question is, do they really win in hell? Can we call this as God’s failure? No! because human did follow God’s specifications and chose hell instead of heaven.

When a product fails, the blame can lie with a few possible places:

- the materials were not up to spec. In this case, God provided the materials.

- the designer failed to account for the stresses the product would be subjected to. In this case, the designer is God.

- the user used the product improperly. Again, the "user" of humanity is God.

In the real world of manufacturers and products guarantees only applies base on specifications.

The reality of God and His creation/human guarantees only applies base on specifications too, and they are:
Either do believe in God = heaven, or do not believe in God = hell, and either one cannot be considered as a human failure. IOW, either choice, if we follow God’s spec, human can not fail at all and therefore can not blame God.

 

[1robin]

What do u mean

I was plagiarizing you about the issue of plagiarizing.

 

[1robin]

No, though when you said who was a Christian was determined by Christ it might have made more sense (to me) to say who a Christian is, is determined by the works of Paul and the other apostles. I'm not going to argue that Paul and the other apostles are not at the foundation of Christianity.

We only have the choice to view Christ's words through others. The same is true about most of histories most prominent figures and we can reliably do so. I will supply what Christ said about what it takes to be a Christian as apparently I did not answer you correctly. These verses are from the most comprehensive and emphatic of Christ's words on salvation:

Jesus and Nicodemus
…4Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" 5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.…

You've your reasons plus personal experience with God to justify placing your faith with the Apostles. Who am I to say you shouldn't.

As Christ himself chose the apostles specifically to transmit his word to the world I am offered no alternative if I am to consider Christianity. Are you proposing an alternative method of accessing revelation?

Other Christian's I've spoken to reject Paul. I was hoping to find common ground however I really don't believe there is any.

I have found only a minority who presuppose works based salvation are forced to reject Paul. Catholicism in general does not, the other apostles did not, Christian tradition almost exclusively does not, Christ did not. I have every personal and scholarly reasons to accept Paul as is and deny the fringe of Christianity that oppose him. By any standard he is more fundamental to Christianity than any other apostle and maybe all the others combined. That is not common ground there it is an aberrant island or ungrounded denial that I cannot justify meeting you on.

 

[JM2C]

Lucifer is a Latin word. Jerome used it in his translation. Why didn't the KJV "translators" go direct to the Hebrew word and translate the equivalent English word for it? Why would they leave an untranslated Latin word in their "translation"?

From Ancient Hebrew text translated to Septuangint or the LXX/OG

From LXX/OG translated with prejudice to Hebrew Scriptures?? [See the difference in Isaiah 7:14] and not from the original Ancient Hebrew text?

The Original Greek/LXX translated/adulterated by Aquila and Theodotion into another version of LXX or Greek language.

Latin version by Jerome translated from Hebrew Scriptures and not from the LXX/OG nor from the Ancient Hebrew Text.

KJV and all other versions of the bible came from the Masoretic Text.

Go figure which one came first.

I do not debate Semitic Jews.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lets not forget that we are still talking about the Potter/God and pots/human.

God and Human, and or as, Manufacturer and Pencils and each one has their own specifications to follow.

Pencil’s manufacturer specified that their pencils can be use only for writings otherwise, no return, no exchange.

While God specified that His creation, the human, either to believe or not to believe in Him.

If one believes in God one will be with God in heaven forever, and if one does not believe in God one goes to hell forever. We all know hell is not a good place to be forever.

To avoid confusion, we should not elaborate, or amplify the details, on how to relate these specifications by God/human and Manufacturer/pencils by giving more analogies, because as I was saying before, giving analogies to an analogy will just create disaster.

The things that we should look at are the specifications of both, God/human and Manufacturer/pencils, and nothing else.

If one goes beyond these specifications on either both, God/human and Manufacturer/pencils, one cannot blame neither one nor both.

Read again your post:

If we follow God’s specifications, even if it’s either human believe in God or not believe in God, human should not fail at all base on God‘s specifications.

Again, if it’s either human believe in God or not believe in God, human should not fail at all base on God‘s specifications. IOW, failure is absent if we follow God’s specs.

If heaven with God is not a failure to those who believe in God, neither hell is not a failure to those who do not believe in God, because both are just following God’s specs.

Either way, heaven or hell, human wins, but the question is, do they really win in hell? Can we call this as God’s failure? No! because human did follow God’s specifications and chose hell instead of heaven.


In the real world of manufacturers and products guarantees only applies base on specifications.

The reality of God and His creation/human guarantees only applies base on specifications too, and they are:
Either do believe in God = heaven, or do not believe in God = hell, and either one cannot be considered as a human failure. IOW, either choice, if we follow God’s spec, human can not fail at all and therefore can not blame God.

When a product does not behave according to specifications, we call this either a manufacturing defect or a design flaw.

No manufacturer says "I absolutely guarantee my product unless it misbehaves." That wouldn't be a guarantee at all.

If it's part of our "specifications" to believe in God, then when we fail to believe in God, this means that God has failed.

 

[johnhanks]

While God specified that His creation, the human, either to believe or not to believe in Him.

And that is what makes no sense of any kind - at least, it doesn't if god exists. If god exists, what possible reason could it have for hiding itself and having humans play a guessing game about its existence? What's more, why should it devise a guessing game with such appalling consequences for those who guess wrong?

Where it makes excellent sense, of course, is as a doctrine for believers to cling to if god does not exist - not only does it explain 'his' otherwise inconvenient absence from the world stage, it gives those believers a comforting sense of entitlement to a massive reward while seeing the heathens come to grief. What's not to like?

 

[Nakosis]

We only have the choice to view Christ's words through others. The same is true about most of histories most prominent figures and we can reliably do so. I will supply what Christ said about what it takes to be a Christian as apparently I did not answer you correctly. These verses are from the most comprehensive and emphatic of Christ's words on salvation:

Jesus and Nicodemus
…4Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" 5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.…

3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”
4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

A person relies on their own thinking or perhaps the thinking of someone else to decipher the meaning of these words. You find one meaning, someone else finds another. This is a problem of reliance on written words.

As Christ himself chose the apostles specifically to transmit his word to the world I am offered no alternative if I am to consider Christianity. Are you proposing an alternative method of accessing revelation?

I don't know the people who wrote these words. I've nothing against them but neither do I have anything for them. The only authority they have is the same authority that you or I have, that of our own experience. What I propose is trusting in God to provide the necessary understanding. Even this has its pitfalls. A person who has had a divine encounter, like Paul on the way to Damascus, every random thought that pops in their head, every dream is the result of communication from the Holy Spirit. Being "born again" does not free a person from error. It is only the start of a very long process.

I have found only a minority who presuppose works based salvation are forced to reject Paul. Catholicism in general does not, the other apostles did not, Christian tradition almost exclusively does not, Christ did not. I have every personal and scholarly reasons to accept Paul as is and deny the fringe of Christianity that oppose him. By any standard he is more fundamental to Christianity than any other apostle and maybe all the others combined. That is not common ground there it is an aberrant island or ungrounded denial that I cannot justify meeting you on.

I've nothing against Paul nor anything for him. I do not presume to know him from a few letters he wrote during his life. However I do presume he was human like the rest of us and still capable of error.