Salvation for Fallen Humans & Fallen Angels (A Practical Guide)

[Dan56]

On 3/23/2019 at 9:09 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

If is such a sad word.

 

Of course I don't personally believe there's any "IF's" about it, but I used the word in the context of something to consider for those who don't believe anything.

 

On 3/23/2019 at 9:38 AM, Key said:

Actually, one might question even the OT, as it, too, was written by men.

Also, how reliable are people's memories 1 to 3 decades after an event?

 

It all comes down to belief, not evidence. While the bible is its own best witness, there's nothing to prove it could not have been a collection of old wives tales. It all boils down to what a person chooses to believe. All the evidence in the world would not convince a person who's chosen not to accept it. An atheist like cuchulain wouldn't believe any of it, even if he witnessed Christ walk on water. He'd likely be renting some scuba equipment and diving down to see what was holding Jesus up and supporting him under the water. If a person is looking for reasons not to believe it, they'll find it, and no evidence would suffice. And for the person looking for evidence to believe, they'll find plenty.

 

"All Scripture is inspired by God" (2 Timothy 3:16). If God inspired it, the memories of those who witnessed the events aren't something I question. "The Word was with God, and the Word was God...The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1). If true, then what God inspired and brought to fruition, would not be allowed to be polluted, corrupted, or altered. The Dead Sea scrolls were written over 2200 years ago and the OT we have today pretty much replicates them word for word. So where's the evidence of corruption? I've obviously chosen to believe God is capable of preserving His word because if He hasn't, then no one can be rightly judged.   

[cuchulain]

pretty much replicates...but not quite.  By that particular piece of logic, you should fully admit that the bible is NOT inspired of God, because it has clearly been altered over the centuries.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Christians often say god only gives you what you can bear.  Clearly wrong of course.  Millions of new borns born with fatal disease, millions with cancer, multitudes killed by 'acts of god'...definitely not immortal.

 

 

This only demonstrates that God is not good.  At least, not a force for goodness.  In fairness, God could still exist.  While there is no good reason, to suppose that God exists, it is still possible.  Not that it actually matters.

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Of course I don't personally believe there's any "IF's" about it, but I used the word in the context of something to consider for those who don't believe anything.

 

 

1.  It all comes down to belief, not evidence.

 

2.  While the bible is its own best witness, there's nothing to prove it could not have been

 

3.  a collection of old wives tales. It all boils down to what a person chooses to believe.

 

4.  All the evidence in the world would not convince a person who's chosen not to accept it.

 

5.  An atheist like cuchulain wouldn't believe any of it, even if he witnessed Christ walk on water. He'd likely be renting some scuba equipment and diving down to see what was holding Jesus up and supporting him under the water.

 

6.  If a person is looking for reasons not to believe it, they'll find it,

 

7.  and no evidence would suffice. And for the person looking for evidence to believe, they'll find plenty.

 

8.  "All Scripture is inspired by God" (2 Timothy 3:16).

 

9.  If God inspired it, the memories of those who witnessed the events aren't something I question. "The Word was with God, and the Word was God...The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1). If true, then what God inspired and brought to fruition, would not be allowed to be polluted, corrupted, or altered. The Dead Sea scrolls were written over 2200 years ago and the OT we have today pretty much replicates them word for word. So where's the evidence of corruption?

 

10.  I've obviously chosen to believe God is capable of preserving His word because if He hasn't, then no one can be rightly judged.   

 

 

1.  This is true.  It's belief unsupported by evidence.

 

2.  The Bible is it's own best evidence?  If you say so.          

 

3.  Please.  Not "old wives tales".  Propaganda and pious fraud.

 

4.  What a silly thing to say.  You just got through stating that there is no evidence at all.  All the evidence in the world?  I'm waiting.  Cuchulain is also waiting.  Show us something.  Something that is not a faith statement.

 

5.  I can not speak for Cuchulain.  I would not rent scuba gear.  I would check for rocks.  The rocks would have to be near the surface.  No scuba gear needed.

 

6.  You have that all backward.  I'm not looking for a reason to doubt.  I have yet to find anything, to make me take any of this, seriously.  

 

7.  There is no evidence.  You keep saying so.  Trust me.  "No evidence" does not suffice.

 

8.  "All Scripture is inspired by God."  If you say so.  God huffed and he puffed and he blew.......          Never mind.

 

9.  "If"  Such a sad word.     

 

10.  Yes.  You have chosen to believe.  Without evidence, as you keep telling me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Yes.  You have chosen to believe.  Without evidence, as you keep telling me.

 

I also wrote; "And for the person looking for evidence to believe, they'll find plenty".  As I've previously stated, there's archeological evidence, prophetic evidence, etc. While these factors aren't direct confirmation, they surely instill some credibility that a written document isn't a fabricated lie. But granted, its accepted by faith, and not objective evidence.

 

Besides the fact that there are hundreds of fulfilled prophecies about Jesus as the Messiah, along with the historical accuracy of the bible, its easy to understand how God revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. For believers, there's internal, external, and biblical evidence that conclusively proves God does exist. Not everyone needs to be hit between the eyes with a 2X4 to see the light.. Creation itself makes it evident.    

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

I also wrote; "And for the person looking for evidence to believe, they'll find plenty".  As I've previously stated, there's archeological evidence, prophetic evidence, etc. While these factors aren't direct confirmation, they surely instill some credibility that a written document isn't a fabricated lie. But granted, its accepted by faith, and not objective evidence.

 

Besides the fact that there are hundreds of fulfilled prophecies about Jesus as the Messiah, along with the historical accuracy of the bible, its easy to understand how God revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. For believers, there's internal, external, and biblical evidence that conclusively proves God does exist. Not everyone needs to be hit between the eyes with a 2X4 to see the light.. Creation itself makes it evident.    

 

 

True.  No objective evidence at all.  None.  Faith is not evidence.  Faith is not facts.  Faith is opinion.

 

Not Creation.  Existence.  Existence itself, does not in any way, support your bias.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

6 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

True.  No objective evidence at all.  None.  Faith is not evidence.  Faith is not facts.  Faith is opinion.

 

Not Creation.  Existence.  Existence itself, does not in any way, support your bias.

 

God does not want people to react by evidence alone, people in the past had solid evidence, but it didn't matter or change anything. Objective evidence invalidates the necessity of faith and trust, and "Without faith, its impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6). Evidence removes choice, so with concrete evidence, we could not choose or reject God. The alternative is to rely on ones own understanding, but that's what Eve did when she rationalized how God was mistaken and obedience wasn't necessary. What is you origin and purpose? Science has no real answers, and in the absence of facts, at least the bible provides a plausible answer.

[RevBogovac]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

[...] What is you origin and purpose? [...]

 

Oh! So that's what this is all about? 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

1.  God does not want people to react by evidence alone, people in the past had solid evidence, but it didn't matter or change anything.

2.  Objective evidence invalidates the necessity of faith and trust, and "Without faith, its impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6).

3.  Evidence removes choice, so with concrete evidence, we could not choose or reject God. The alternative is to rely on ones own understanding, but that's what Eve did when she rationalized how God was mistaken and obedience wasn't necessary.

4.  What is you origin and purpose?

5.  Science has no real answers, and

6.  in the absence of facts,

7.  at least the bible provides a plausible answer.

 

1.  Do your ears hear what your mouth is saying?  We have no evidence, because that's how God wants it?

2.  Yes.  Objective evidence means that we get to make an intelligent judgement -- instead of working with nothing but opinion.

3.  What a strange thing to say.  It is evidence that makes choice possible.  With "concrete evidence" we could make a good choice.

4.  My origin and purpose?  A different topic and a deflection.  Please.  Focus.

5.  Science is a process for finding real answers -- so that we have facts instead of opinion.  The process is cumulative.

6.  "In the absence of facts".  Then you agree with me?  We have no facts about God.  None at all.  

7.  You just got through telling me, that we have no facts about God, because that is how God wants it.  That negates the Bible.  The Bible -- by your insistence -- must also be fact free.  Because that's how God wants it.  You keep telling me that this is the case.

 

Without any facts about God to work with --it becomes a waste of time, even to speculate about God's existence.  We are reduced to opinion versus opinion.  The real question becomes -- "Who cares?"  What possible difference does it make, whether or not God exists; in a compete absence of facts?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

28 minutes ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Oh! So that's what this is all about? 

 

 

When Dan can't answer something, he deflects.  He changes the subject under discussion.  

 

           

 

At that, such a silly question.  What is my origin?  My parents had sex.  How does anybody get here?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

All Dan's questions are irrelevant to reality.  He demands answers as if my lack of them proves his position.  It obviously doesn't.  My lack of ability to explain the origin of everything doesn't mean his mythology is correct.  If he wants anyone to believe it is up to him to convince us, not us to convince him why we don't.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

57 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

All Dan's questions are irrelevant to reality.  He demands answers as if my lack of them proves his position.  It obviously doesn't.  My lack of ability to explain the origin of everything doesn't mean his mythology is correct.  If he wants anyone to believe it is up to him to convince us, not us to convince him why we don't.

 

 

Of course.  It's the usual Fundamentalist fog.  I did say Fundamentalist.  Not Christian.

 

There is no point in asking questions about physics or Cosmology; because this is not a science board.

 

There is no point in asking questions about evolution; because this is not a science board.

 

Since Atheism is about non-belief in God -- and nothing else -- questions about science have no place here.  Except of course, in general conversation.

 

Dan does enjoy making simple things complicated.  It's what he does.  That and getting you angry.  Don't worry.  I get it.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

22 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

This only demonstrates that God is not good.  At least, not a force for goodness.  In fairness, God could still exist.  While there is no good reason, to suppose that God exists, it is still possible.  Not that it actually matters.

 

 

 

 

Also that the Christian concept is flawed at best.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

15 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Also that the Christian concept is flawed at best.

 

For the most part, yes.  Still, there are many varieties of Christian -- and individual understanding varies.  I'm not comfortable with the Christian concept.  I would not wish to insult RevBogovac or Rev Cali, for instance, by lumping them in with Dan.

 

For that matter, there was a time when you self described as a "Liberal Christian".  It's a tricky thing.  We do wish to be fair to the sane Christians.  I have the same problem.  It's so easy for me to make sweeping statements, because I don't want to talk like a legal document.  Sometimes, it is unfair.

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

7 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Oh! So that's what this is all about? 

 

Partly... Because people who believe nothing don't have a clue where they came from or why they're here. Believe it or not, the bible answers both of those questions.

 

7 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

1.  Do your ears hear what your mouth is saying?  We have no evidence, because that's how God wants it?

2.  Yes.  Objective evidence means that we get to make an intelligent judgement -- instead of working with nothing but opinion.

3.  What a strange thing to say.  It is evidence that makes choice possible.  With "concrete evidence" we could make a good choice.

4.  My origin and purpose?  A different topic and a deflection.  Please.  Focus.

5.  Science is a process for finding real answers -- so that we have facts instead of opinion.  The process is cumulative.

6.  "In the absence of facts".  Then you agree with me?  We have no facts about God.  None at all.  

7.  You just got through telling me, that we have no facts about God, because that is how God wants it.  That negates the Bible.  The Bible -- by your insistence -- must also be fact free.  Because that's how God wants it.  You keep telling me that this is the case.

 

Without any facts about God to work with --it becomes a waste of time, even to speculate about God's existence.  We are reduced to opinion versus opinion.  The real question becomes -- "Who cares?"  What possible difference does it make, whether or not God exists; in a compete absence of facts?

 

1. That's right, we are called by faith.. If God wanted to prove himself beyond what He's already done and made evident, He would.

2. If you have the evidence to determine a fact, you eliminate the necessity of judgement. i.e; If I say the sun is bright, that's not something that requires judgement, decision, or choice.

3. If evidence is all conclusive, you don't have the option of a choice. If God appeared and proved Himself beyond any and all doubt, you have no choice but to acknowledge God exist.

4. Without a creator, you have no cause, purpose, or meaning. That's not a deflection, its philosophically relevant.

5. So what has the cumulative process of science determined about your origin & purpose? Absolutely nothing except very speculative hypothesis. At least the bible defines a purpose.

6. There are no facts that satisfy you, but fulfilled prophesies are factual, all the cities in the NT have been proven to exist, Pontius Pilate and other characters were real, etc.

7. We don't have the objective facts that you require, but the bible is full of subjective evidence that lends credibility to its authenticity and reliability. But yes, faith is required, but its not blind faith.

 

In a materialistic world there is no design, no purpose, no evil, no good... That's why people care, those things are only recognized when one develops a spiritual perspective. You won't find the answers by discerning facts derived from your physical surroundings. 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Dan56

[cuchulain]

Some believe wrong answers to be better than none.  I'll take truth instead.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Some believe wrong answers to be better than none.  I'll take truth instead.

 

 

I'm going to bow out of this one.  Life is too short.     

 

 

[Dan56]

6 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Some believe wrong answers to be better than none.  I'll take truth instead.

 

There are no wrong answers when your dealing with faith, some have it and others don't.

 

3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I'm going to bow out of this one.  Life is too short.     

 

I sense your frustration, so its probably best to bow out. We just think differently and therefore perceive things differently, and there's no resolution to that. So its better to just disagree than to get mad again. I believe you guys are extremely liberal and its been my experience that the far left mindset is........ Well never-mind, lets just say that I'm sure your all still convinced that Trump conspired with the Russians to undermine the election, because there's no objective evidence to prove otherwise.  

Edited March 27, 2019 by Dan56

[RevBogovac]

12 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Partly... Because people who believe nothing don't have a clue where they came from or why they're here. Believe it or not, the bible answers both of those questions.

 

What a load of bull$#!?. Why do you assume that? Actually we know where we came from with a far greater and provable certainty that any fairy tales told in mythology.

 

And "we" know why we're here intrinsically, without the need for some "external" source for that.

 

- I love being a parent and beeing there for my kids;

- I love my work, helping organizations become better and seeing people grow;

- I love to study more about the world around me...

 

I don't need mythology to provide me with false notions of belonging.

 

12 hours ago, Dan56 said:

4. Without a creator, you have no cause, purpose, or meaning. That's not a deflection, its philosophically relevant.

 

You philosophy is flawed (because it's based on mythology).

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

There are no wrong answers when your dealing with faith, some have it and others don't.

 

 

I sense your frustration, so its probably best to bow out. We just think differently and therefore perceive things differently, and there's no resolution to that. So its better to just disagree than to get mad again. I believe you guys are extremely liberal and its been my experience that the far left mindset is........ Well never-mind, lets just say that I'm sure your all still convinced that Trump conspired with the Russians to undermine the election, because there's no objective evidence to prove otherwise.  

 

 

I find that arguing with you, is like walking in mud.  Tiresome and pointless.  

 

Even now, you're sticking with the line, about Atheists believe nothing.  This alone tells me that you're not prepared to be reasonable.  Even cats find value in their lives.  Values like loving and being loved; that have nothing to do with God.  You're so bound up in doctrine -- so determined to be right about everything -- you can't even concede that Atheists find life meaningful.

 

Your basic arguments shift.  In this one thread, you have gone from -- there is no objective evidence to God doesn't want objective evidence.

 

"Far left mindset"?  This is something that you keep doing.  You keep defining me and my positions -- in ways that have nothing to do with me -- and you refuse to see me.  Only your distorted image of me.  It's tiresome and irritating.

 

In like manner, you do the same things with my vocabulary.  You take basic words, like Agnostic and Atheist -- distort them from a Fundamentalist perspective -- and refuse to understand why I'm offended.  Letting people define themselves is basic to mutual respect.  Clearly, you have none.

 

My basic position is simple enough.  I need a reason to believe.  A reason based on evidence and not opinion.  You prattle on about faith, and insist on questions that have nothing to do with anything.

 

I'm not mad.  I'm tired.  And bored.  We're going around in circles.  Talking with you is like arguing with a wall.  It's tedious and I don't want to do this.    It's not fun and I'm tired.   

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl