What do believers say when you ask or tell them..

[tavarish]

[quote='Arcanus' pid='59989' dateline='1268609465']
You are getting this wrong. Let me construct a chain we can follow.

(1) Salvation is through Christ alone, by who he is (sinless substitute) and what he did (atoning sacrifice). (2) His death paid for the sins of all who repent and believe. (3) So in order to be saved, you need to be one of those who repent and believe, because that's whose sins his death paid for. (4) If you do not repent and believe, your sins are not covered by his sacrifice, leaving you to pay for your sins on your own. (Note: It is not your repentance and belief that saves you. It is Christ's life and death that saves you, a salvation you enter into through repentance and belief.)

If there are any lingering questions, go ahead and ask. I hope I've made it clear, but only you can tell me.

So I need to believe in what Christ did to achieve salvation. More clearly, it's the Christ's death has saved me, rather than me simply believing it. Correct?

It's a bit confusing. You say it's not your belief that saves you, but you would not be able to be saved without that particular belief.

I do understand though.

Onward.

Okay, time for my own clarifications. Your claim is, "No objectively verifiable evidence is available that points to the existence of [God]."

Is that claim true? (Follow-up question depends on how you answer.)

Here's a tough nut I'll attempt to crack:

Here's a definition of objective:

"Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective

A belief in a Christian God, or any God at all is anything but unbiased, as faith has a strictly personal nature. It varies from person to person via experiences, visions, and perceived divine presence. It cannot (at this point in time at least) be observed independently without already assuming existence in a sense. As faith is wholly dependent on personal feelings, referencing your own ineffable trust concept, it is not objective. It is also completely open to interpretation - i'll cite the many denominations of Christianity as an example. If the existence of God was objective, it would, for all purposes, be very self evident. This isn't the case.

My gripe is that Christians make the claim that God exists objectively and necessarily, and has the power to intervene in the physical world, when the claim doesn't hold water when pressed for adequate and objectively verifiable evidence.

I'm not making the claim that it can never be known if there is a God or not. I'm saying that there is no objective evidence to support the claim at this point in time, therefore I do not believe in a God.

Yes, I would say my claim is correct.

The Bible, primarily. (I don't have the time to get into the other supports, nor does this forum grant that much space. So I'll just stick with the Bible in this conversation.)

I'm going to assume you don't believe in biblical literalism and don't cite the inerrancy or historicity of such a book. I'll wait for a follow up to see if I'm right on those claims.

My question for you would be:

Why would you use a book that is self-validating as a standard of evidence?