Christianity vs Other Religions

[Willa]

41 minutes ago, theInquirer said:

Here's the thing: is the argument you just made above a rational one?  If not, then one may discount the assertion that rational arguments do not mean anything.  If so, then you just used reason to try to disprove reason.

I guess I am saying that your experience is in a way a rational argument in and of itself.

My point is that one experiential demonstration was far more effective than had I only reasoned probabilities in a classroom.  I was a witness of the puzzling expression when I gave them the check and the amazement when they took it all in when they held the bank notice.  You can read about God's provision for the Jews in the wilderness, but it quite another when you see it happen before your eyes.  Moreover, If God can do this things today, It doesn't take any stretch of the mind to believe that God did it so many centuries ago.

[theInquirer]

32 minutes ago, Willa said:

My point is that one experiential demonstration was far more effective than had I only reasoned probabilities in a classroom.  I was a witness of the puzzling expression when I gave them the check and the amazement when they took it all in when they held the bank notice.  You can read about God's provision for the Jews in the wilderness, but it quite another when you see it happen before your eyes.  Moreover, If God can do this things today, It doesn't take any stretch of the mind to believe that God did it so many centuries ago.

That's true, I see what you're saying now.  Although I wonder why it is that we are more likely to take seriously things that we experience as opposed to things that we merely hear about.  After all, both types of events are perfectly verifiable and just as true for one as the other; maybe it's because of emotions we experience during the real life one?  Who knows?  In theory they should both hold equal weight, but I suppose it doesn't work thus in real life for people.

[Willa]

55 minutes ago, theInquirer said:

That's true, I see what you're saying now.  Although I wonder why it is that we are more likely to take seriously things that we experience as opposed to things that we merely hear about.  After all, both types of events are perfectly verifiable and just as true for one as the other; maybe it's because of emotions we experience during the real life one?  Who knows?  In theory they should both hold equal weight, but I suppose it doesn't work thus in real life for people.

1Jn 1:1  That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—

1Jn 1:2  the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—

1Jn 1:3  that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

John is also very convincing.  The point is he was a witness to the resurrection and so is more convincing than than someone who is merely reporting about it third hand.  That perhaps is why Jesus said He would give us power to witness after the Holy Spirit had come upon us.  We witness as to what we have seen and heard and touched.  

[Still Alive]

On 5/18/2019 at 10:39 PM, theInquirer said:

True, people sometimes try to follow God only because they're afraid of hell, but in truth, if you're really following God, it will be because you love Him; thus, if the turn or burn message does truly turn even one person to God, it is worth it to the utmost.

So essentially, "turn or burn" either does nothing (i.e. it is ignored or taken wrongly) or it does something (i.e. it actually saves someone).  There is no negative to consider, right?

Quote

Responding to your reply, though, I must point out that you only know you're going to burn if you know that Jesus is real.  After all, how can you be saved unless there's something to be saved from?  

It starts in genesis 3. We are saved from death. Not death of the body we occupy, but the second death - the death of the person that occupies the body.

Quote

My view is that the "turn or burn" message in general causes people to take Christianity seriously, even if it makes them uncomfortable. 

My experience is that it does the exact opposite. When I debate Christianity with "anti-Christian" people that have significant exposure to the teaching of Christianity, it is imperative to them that the ECT "burn in hell" message is part of it. In fact, if I make the argument that it isn't, they will often vehemently argue that the bible teaches ECT. The reason? It is the foundation on which stands their argument that Christianity is stupid. Take that away and they suddenly have little to discuss. It's almost comical.

Quote

True, people sometimes try to follow God only because they're afraid of hell, but in truth, if you're really following God, it will be because you love Him; thus, if the turn or burn message does truly turn even one person to God, it is worth it to the utmost.

So essentially, "turn or burn" either does nothing (i.e. it is ignored or taken wrongly) or it does something (i.e. it actually saves someone).  There is no negative to consider, right?

I actually compare the Turn or Burn message to the Global Warming scam arguments I've heard. The idea is, "What if it's real?! If we do nothing it could destroy us, so we should do something just in case."

The problem is that doing something is extremely costly. It is not a zero sum game. 

Same with the Turn or Burn message. I believe it does terrible harm to the Christian message. Maybe that's why it is not discussed in Acts (or anywhere else in the bible, really). Jesus never mentions it. The only scripture in the entire bible that can be used to support it is in The Revelation of Jesus Christ, and there it is referring to 1 Enoch. And if one's proof text for a major doctrinal belief is in Revelation, I don't think their position is a strong one, to say the least. Frankly, I'd believe Universalism before I'd accept ECT at this point. There are lots of proof texts all over the bible to support it, though also some strong ones that nix it, IMO. 

Here's the weird part. If I could simply choose which one was the real one, I'd make it Universalism. But I believe the bible supports Annihilationism more. But I hope I'm wrong.

[theInquirer]

On 5/20/2019 at 7:13 AM, Still Alive said:

It starts in genesis 3. We are saved from death. Not death of the body we occupy, but the second death - the death of the person that occupies the body.

My experience is that it does the exact opposite. When I debate Christianity with "anti-Christian" people that have significant exposure to the teaching of Christianity, it is imperative to them that the ECT "burn in hell" message is part of it. In fact, if I make the argument that it isn't, they will often vehemently argue that the bible teaches ECT. The reason? It is the foundation on which stands their argument that Christianity is stupid. Take that away and they suddenly have little to discuss. It's almost comical.

I actually compare the Turn or Burn message to the Global Warming scam arguments I've heard. The idea is, "What if it's real?! If we do nothing it could destroy us, so we should do something just in case."

The problem is that doing something is extremely costly. It is not a zero sum game. 

Same with the Turn or Burn message. I believe it does terrible harm to the Christian message. Maybe that's why it is not discussed in Acts (or anywhere else in the bible, really). Jesus never mentions it. The only scripture in the entire bible that can be used to support it is in The Revelation of Jesus Christ, and there it is referring to 1 Enoch. And if one's proof text for a major doctrinal belief is in Revelation, I don't think their position is a strong one, to say the least. Frankly, I'd believe Universalism before I'd accept ECT at this point. There are lots of proof texts all over the bible to support it, though also some strong ones that nix it, IMO. 

Here's the weird part. If I could simply choose which one was the real one, I'd make it Universalism. But I believe the bible supports Annihilationism more. But I hope I'm wrong.

So I guess I was previously arguing on a purely (more or less) pragmatic/utilitarian basis of, "what's the best way to reach people?"  However, since we are now discussing the moral accuracy of turn or burn, I will point out that since there is nothing inaccurate about it, we are technically not being at all wrong when we state that it is true.

Beyond that, I suppose it does come down to how we use it and/or what we do with it.  I suppose you are right that it ought not to be the reason, or underlying motive for being saved; that should be out of love of God.  

But I do still hold that it is a way to make people stop and think instead of just shrugging off Christianity.  You say that in your experience, people get upset, etc.  I can (at least at this point) only conclude that that is due to either them misunderstanding the implications of this message (e.g. that they might think God is cruel, mean, etc.), or that the message has been used incorrectly upon/for them. 

And look at the occasions when this message has been used correctly, particularly on that fateful day when Jonathan Edwards delivered, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God."  Why, the Second Great Awakening was sparked thus!  There are other instances of this message being used to great effect, but I believe it would be unnecessary for me to give more, at least at this point.

On a lighter note, I want to say that I agree with you wholeheartedly on the topic of the global warming hoax.  

[thomas t]

Hi Inquirer,

I honestly admire the depth and extent of your efforts to find the truth. Bible says- Mt 7:7:

7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

So you're on a good way!

Just a little aside:

On 5/23/2019 at 1:12 AM, theInquirer said:

I agree with you [Still Alive] wholeheartedly on the topic of the global warming hoax.  

what makes you think that it is a hoax?

Btw, I've opened up a thread on it recently and discussed it with folks here. Please read, if you have time! It's an important issue for me.

Thank you for your openness that you've shown already in the threads. I find this bold.

Regards,

Thomas

edit: if anyone wants to accuse scientists again - conspiracies, altering data, wanting to hurt people or what ever - please back up what you say by using facts and providing the links to the data shown to illustrate the situation. "google this and that" won't make it. Please back up what you say, please avoid unsupported allegations, thanks.

Edited May 24, 2019 by thomas t
see edit line

[theInquirer]

On 5/24/2019 at 10:54 AM, thomas t said:

Hi Inquirer,

I honestly admire the depth and extent of your efforts to find the truth. Bible says- Mt 7:7:

7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

So you're on a good way!

Just a little aside:

what makes you think that it is a hoax?

Btw, I've opened up a thread on it recently and discussed it with folks here. Please read, if you have time! It's an important issue for me.

Thank you for your openness that you've shown already in the threads. I find this bold.

Regards,

Thomas

edit: if anyone wants to accuse scientists again - conspiracies, altering data, wanting to hurt people or what ever - please back up what you say by using facts and providing the links to the data shown to illustrate the situation. "google this and that" won't make it. Please back up what you say, please avoid unsupported allegations, thanks.

I haven't read about the topic of climate change for a bit, so I am probably a bit rusty.  However, my main reasons for disbelieving in it are satellite measurements taken of changes in temperature that clearly show that there has been no significant increase or decrease in global temperature over the past one hundred (I believe) years, although the thirties, I believe, did show a slight increase.  I understand, as well, that the earth's total global warming in the atmosphere is overwhelmingly controlled by natural process, the magnitude of which we have not come even close to matching, so that we are seriously incapable of affecting global temperature at all.  

Also, I have become leery of the credibility of arguments in favor of global warming (or cooling, for that matter) because of the politicizing that has gone into this view and the thus biased reasons for promoting this argument in many people.  Also, I note fallacies employed in promoting this argument, such as vastly magnified graphs that make it look like temperature has been changing when, if you look at the y-axis, you see that the change is really quite insignificant; fallacies have made me even more suspicious.  Another one is how changes in temperature and climate in certain areas are cited, when these examples do not look at the big picture.  We are measuring global temperature, not local temperature.

I'm afraid I cannot send a link to a site that has this information since I learned about most of the above arguments in my science course a couple years ago.  My science course was done by Apologia, if that helps.

Anyway, the above reasons are my main reasons for regarding global climate change as being a hoax.  

As a side, I see you are from Germany?  That's cool, my family isn't from Germany, but we pretty much all speak German (or at least understand it), so it was interesting to see someone from German!  

[theInquirer]

On 5/21/2019 at 6:29 PM, Abdicate said:

Faith isn't just believing a fact or even proving a fact. It's about coming to a conclusion. The world says faith is blind, but the word of God said it's the substance and the evidence of what is not visible. Everything observable is temporary and a shadow according to the word of God. Only light casts shadows. If everything visible is a shadow and the word of God says that He is light, then this isn't real and the spirit realm is real. Hence the "Let there be light" isn't visible light (that happened on day four), and God separated the Dark from the Light, makes the physical (Dark) which was separated from the Spiritual (Light). We know that prayer changes things and things change prayers. In other words, by the word of God, hearing it increases faith, and faith manifests in the physical. Therefore, faith is the substance and the evidence for what we hope to obtain. Yet, there is a cause and effect, Due 28. Keep your search, apples to apples and not apples to oranges.

Right, faith is coming to a conclusion, but I want to come to a correct conclusion, and the only way I can do that is by postulating the Bible (which I am perfectly prepared to do, and have done to an extent) but also by proving it through rational means.  If the Bible is true, then one of the above two options will be possible; that is what I have been doing and trying to do.  

However, the latter part of your statement is based off of the Bible, which is only correct if the Bible is true. . . which is the very thing I was testing/debating (and which, of course, I have established in my mind as true).  Your argument is technically circular, unless I am misunderstanding you, in which case please correct me.

[Ranger Jim]

On 5/25/2019 at 9:52 PM, theInquirer said:

Right, faith is coming to a conclusion, but I want to come to a correct conclusion, and the only way I can do that is by postulating the Bible (which I am perfectly prepared to do, and have done to an extent) but also by proving it through rational means.  If the Bible is true, then one of the above two options will be possible; that is what I have been doing and trying to do.  

However, the latter part of your statement is based off of the Bible, which is only correct if the Bible is true. . . which is the very thing I was testing/debating (and which, of course, I have established in my mind as true).  Your argument is technically circular, unless I am misunderstanding you, in which case please correct me.

Faith carries humans to expectations above verified facts of the present. Even if we experience faith fulfilled in our own mind for a moment, it's still faith if there is no finite boundary to it, like the laws of thermodynamics are bounded to man's perception of the laws of physics.  "The truth", then, resides somewhat in what always works for every person having "the truth", while others not having "the truth" must rely upon what is naturally comprehended, perhaps plus whatever understanding is comprehended a little outside the box of "the truth".

So it is that a creature like man can share observations of some animal in view, noting it has hold of some truths common to a man, but not the whole of "the truth".  He can also compare other humans to humans in an effort to define "normal", or the positive/negative extremes in his or her mind. That's where "religion" enters in, an effort to normalize a perception of "the truth" among people.

God, not religion, so loved man that He made the way to His truth easily perceptible in one one verse of scripture embedded in this passage:

Romans 10:8-13 (KJV)
⁸  But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
⁹  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

¹⁰  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

¹¹  For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
¹²  For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
¹³  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

"The Truth" is near you. How near?  In your mouth. He only requires belief in what was told of Jesus in His word, then say it with all your "heart" and mind, in His "hearing".  Then God will lead you to the particulars.