God, come out, come out wherever you are!

[Christi]

You gotta know I'm gonna getcha every time.

So, if you say God is infinite and has an infinite number of images, that would have to include all images and not just images of man. Infinite implies that there is no limitations, which wouldn't be true if God were in the image of man. Plus, that would need to include primitive man, which The Bible states does not exist, because it denies evolution.

BTW, if you really love God, you wouldn't tell others that you think they are dumb. God created him, and loves him, and you have no right to insult one of God's creations.

[Reforged]

But they existed, because God created them. By definition, God loves all of his creations.

Other than that, no, not intelligent enough to understand what you meant.

Yes, He does, but all His creation doesn't love Him. Go figure.

---

@ RaphielDrake, I did think it through and have again, I still think you are quite dumb.

I'm dumb and you're worshipping an imaginary deity who by your own admission apparantly suffers from severe mental illness?
Ok then, well I guess that explains why you're so sure *you* were made in Gods image.

[NoMoreFaith]

God is infinite, so wouldn't that mean an infinite number of images.
That answer is as dumb as your request.

What an awesome answer and backdoor get-out clause.

We are made in God's image!

How do you know?

Cos God looks like EVERYTHING!

I just relieved myself in the bathroom, by the same argument, my turd was made in the same image as God.

[simplexity]

I think I just saw God, oh wait that was just the bright light guiding me to the kitchen during the night, never-mind.

[Ryft]

(The first part is not directly relevant to our present discussion so you can skip passed it to the next section if you actually do not care what "biblical" Christianity is or means. On the principle of intellectual charity I have assumed that since you raised the question you are genuinely interested in an explanation, so I took the time to provide one. We do not need to explore this issue now, but I thought it important to be clear with my terms.)

1. What biblical Christianity means.

You said that you are not exactly sure what "biblical" Christianity is, pointing to the fact that various people claim to adhere to biblical Christianity (yourself once included) and that these views manage to nevertheless conflict with one another, which should not happen. If you esteem reason (and you do) then it should already be obvious to you that: first, just because a person claims that his view represents biblical Christianity it does not mean that it actually does (see the ipse dixit fallacy), so before we even begin there already exists reason to be skeptical of the claim; second, the word "biblical" by itself provides the criterion by which to judge the claim, so if a person claims that his view is biblical but cannot defend it biblically then we are provided reason to reject the claim; third, the textual hermeneutic of exegesis is the means by which we engage the criterion "biblical," so if a person is found to be engaging in eisegesis then we know he is not defending the view biblically (by definition, since the conclusion is being read into the text, not being drawn from it); fourth, some Christians will appeal to an extra-biblical authority (for example, the Magisterium or teaching authority of Rome) but, by so doing, they are simply conceding that their view does not represent biblical Christianity (but rather, say, Roman Christianity). I do not claim that my view represents any Christianity other than biblical Christianity. (For more information see "sola scriptura").

So for example David and Anthony both claim that their view represents biblical Christianity; yet their views conflict with one another, which should not happen if their claims are true. On the one hand David offers 18 exegetical scripture references supporting his view and five which undercut or defeat Anthony's view. On the other hand Anthony offers only two eisegetical scripture references supporting his view and none that challenge David's view. In this scenario David has provided us reason to believe not only that his view represents biblical Christianity but also that Anthony's does not, while Anthony did not provide us any reason to believe that his view represents biblical Christianity nor that David's does not. So what David and Anthony each claim is nowhere near as important as whether and how they can support it or not. As should be evident, it is not terribly difficult to understand what "biblical" Christianity means or to adjudicate competing claims.

And whether or not biblical Christianity is "true" Christianity depends upon the presuppositional commitments one brings to the question (for example, one's definition and criteria of truth), so it is a separate question underscoring the fact that the terms are interchangeable only if one presupposes the truth of God and his word as authoritative—which I certainly do.

Now this is not exactly relevant in our discussion because you do not claim to represent a biblical view. You do not have a dog in that fight, whereas I do. So the fact that I support my view biblically, consistently appealing to scriptures attesting the view I am defending, should suffice that it represents "biblical Christianity." Any other Christian in this forum who has an opposing view which they claim is biblical is encouraged to engage me on any point and I will gladly provide ample reason to believe that when I claim some view represents biblical Christianity it really does. But, again, you have no dog in that fight so we can carry on.

2. Not sharing the gospel is wrong.

You suggested that there was no apparent wrongdoing in the Christian not sharing the gospel, and I showed you that it is indeed wrong and exactly how (namely, because it is disobedience to God). You did not contest this point in your response, other than to say that it "doesn't solve the contradiction," which I shall take as a concession. It is wrong for the Christian to not share the gospel.

3. Sharing the gospel is either pointless or there is a contradiction.

The drumbeat you persistently hit is that Larry's sharing of the gospel must be pointless if it is Bob's own fault that he is condemned to hell, that to suggest otherwise involves a logical contradiction. In my response I argued that you have failed to demonstrate any contradiction at all, to which you essentially replied, "That does not solve the contradiction." I was apparently not clear enough so let me state the point in a very matter-of-fact way: "There is no contradiction to solve."

As you seem to recognize, a contradiction arises from asserting that a proposition and its denial are both true at the same time and in the same respect. So where have you demonstrated such a contradiction in my view (given how I answered your two questions)? What is the proposition, and what is its denial? Did I say that it is Bob's own fault that he is condemned to hell and, at the same time and in the same respect, not Bob's own fault? No, I did not. Did I say that Larry's witnessing is pointless and simultaneously not pointless? No, I did not. So where is the contradiction that somehow requires solving?

You seem to be arguing that if sharing the gospel is not pointless then a contradiction is produced, and Bob's moral culpability seems to be the hub around which all of this turns. So the proposition must be, "It is Bob's own fault he is condemned to hell," which I do claim. That means my other claim, that sharing the gospel is not pointless, must somehow be a denial of that proposition. In other words, somehow the fact that witnessing is not pointless flatly denies Bob's moral culpability—but I have no idea how that works out.

4. Sharing the gospel is not pointless.

There are two definitions of the term pointless relevant to our case: (a) purposeless and (b) ineffective. Since sharing the gospel is efficacious and has a purpose, that is, it is the God-ordained instrument through which he reaches those for whom Christ died, it is therefore not pointless. Sharing the gospel does not by itself save anyone—Bob included. God in Christ alone does that through faith alone. But it is the means by which he reaches those who are being saved (Rom. 10:17). The message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, Tegh, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God at work within and among them (Acts 13:48; 1 Cor. 1:18; Rom. 1:16; 1 Thess. 1:5-6; 2:13). If it is a God-ordained means of grace (and it is) then it is not pointless; it has a purpose and is efficacious with respect to those whom the Son gives eternal life. Jesus said that everyone the Father gives him will come to him—will come, not might come—and it is through "the preached word of Christ" that they do so. (See the "ordo salutis.") Yes, God commands Christians to share the gospel. This is why.

In order to call this pointless you would have to redefine the word.

5. Decreasing the number of souls in hell.

The gospel does not save. The triune God of the Bible does, and through the gospel. As Benjamin Warfield once said, "It is not faith in Christ that saves but Christ that saves through faith." What contributes to the number of souls in either hell and heaven? It is not anything that Larry or anyone else does, but rather the saving grace of God alone in Christ only. Apart from his merciful grace every single human who has ever lived would find themselves justly in hell; it is God who decreased that number by choosing to have mercy on some by redeeming them in Christ alone through the gospel of salvation. This is why no one can boast, because it is not anything that Larry or anyone else does that contributes anything. Although God involves us in his saving work (and in a variety of ways), it is fully and entirely his doing.

6. Given the chance to hear the gospel.

Absolutely everyone God intends to save will hear the gospel and will respond in faith, Tegh. It is not as if God intended to save Bob, for example, but somehow forgot to make sure that he was able to hear the gospel. If God does not intend to save a person, then it does not matter whether or not they hear the gospel; they would willingly reject it anyway. But if God intends to save a person, then that person will hear the gospel—no matter where they live—and will respond in faith and will be kept in Christ and raised by him at the last day.

7. This is just appealing to scriptures.

Of course it is. I said it is "biblical Christianity" I am defending. What did you expect me to appeal to?

[Faith No More]

If God does not intend to save a person, then it does not matter whether or not they hear the gospel; they would willingly reject it anyway. But if God intends to save a person, then that person will hear the gospel—no matter where they live—and will respond in faith and will be kept in Christ and raised by him at the last day.

How does this not negate the idea that through our own free will we are responsible for our destination in the afterlife?

[Black Chakram]

1) I hardly see it as unjust. Let's use an analogy (even though all analogies break down at some point). Imagine there's a guy you know. He's perfect in every way. One day, he invites you to a party. You have to decide: Are you happy going to the party, knowing that He'll be the center of attention and you'll just be in His shadow. (Although you'll probably still enjoy yourself since He's such a great guy). OR, do you say to yourself, "Eh. That guy's annoying. He may be perfect, but I'd rather hang out with someone else."

It would be hard to call this "perfect guy" unjust. After all, you're being given the choice to attend or not. He's not forcing you into anything.

2) Honestly, there's not a ton of scripture to support this, which is why this particular view is a little shaky. It's usually argued that the Bible doesn't specifically say that this life is the ONLY chance we get, but that's somewhat of a hollow answer.

The whole "having to choose despite a lack of evidence" is always a rather uncomfortable point. Put simply, God is asking if we trust Him despite having all the answers. It's easy to trust someone when you know for SURE what the outcome is. It's a lot harder when you don't. I'm sure there's some point I could argue here about how the second variety of trust is somehow inherently better, or leads to a deeper relationship, but it's rather late where I live and I had a long day of work. I'd be glad to try and revisit that point later, though, and see if I can add some meat to that bone.

As for whether or not that stance is just, that's also tricky. As far as I understand it, the Biblical logic here is that, "Those who've heard about God/Jesus/The Bible directly, have less of an excuse than those who haven't." But this can also be discussed to a greater extent later.

I don't like single posts that snowball into novels. I'd rather keep things to one or two main questions, then revisit some of the other points later if desired.

1.This is a completely false analogy. in the analogy, you'll be having a good time either way. In your description, the difference is between heaven and eternal suffering (or separation from God as you put it, which you still described as horrible; hence, I use the term suffering)
2. I appreciate your honesty on this.

You might be correct about the trust thing, except that God has given us no real reason to believe in him in the first place. And can it really be considered that deep trust you describe if it comes down to "believe or face eternal suffering and separation from me"?

I hope you'll find time to respond in the future, have a good evening.

*shrug*. Like I said, all analogies break down at some point. There are a few ways to address this:
1) Some views in Christianity posit that without God's influence, we're nothing but selfish bastards and would act only out of greedy motives. If that's true, hell would be pretty unpleasant. However, we won't focus on this point as it's rather non-empirical. Even if true, there's no way I could prove it here.

2) Hell exists more for the sake of Satan and the demons. They rebelled against God so He's giving them a place apart from Him. The reason this is so bad is that Satan and the demons hate God. They despise everything He is. So being defeated and confined to a place where they can never reach out and act against Him is torture. Now, if a person ends up in that same place, it's plausible that demons might take some of that hatred out on the people as well. That would also be pretty unpleasant.

3) This option makes a lot of Christians squirm, but I think anyone who doesn't at least consider it is blinding themself: Logically, it goes like this:
- Some people don't want to spend eternity with God.
- God will honor your choice in the end, thus letting that person to go a place without God, called "hell"
- The person has gotten what they wanted and is happy
- To non-believers, hell is therefore not a bad place

I think the reason Christians view the last one as "bad" is "why wouldn't you want to spend eternity with someone who loves you?". But you have to be a part of the religion to find that last one bad. Still, given an objective decision, if true, I'd rather spend eternity with someone who cares.

---

If man is made in God's image, then how are there so many images of man? Which man was lucky enough to actually be made in God's image?

It's pretty perverse if you think about it. Just think about all of the people killed in the name of God. The murderers are believers yet they kill and, by definition, will gain entrance into Heaven.

This one's actually not that hard. "God's image" simply means that we were created as intelligent, sentient beings with a desire to create and be loved. Nothing more.

---

The other question is easier. God allows all the pain and suffering because He's given us this world to make and choose as we will. As a whole, though, we don't do the best job at being "good". At least not all the time. If God were to step in and put a stop to all the bad stuff, it would invalidate and cheapen the entire point of giving us free will. If He's given us the freedom to make our own choices, He's going to respect that, even if the choices we make sadden and pain Him.

I've heard it said that the core of Christianity is that the Bible is love story between God and mankind. It's not that God NEEDS our worship or approval, it's that He created us to be in relationship with Him. He made each and every person out there with the hope that they'll look at Him and say, "Cool! I like what you've done! Also, I'm dealing with X, Y, and Z. Can you please help?" And God will be more than happy to.

You say that if we asked him, God would be more than happy to help. But you also say that he allows suffering. Well, wouldn't all the religious people who are suffering be praying and begging for his help? I guess he's NOT happy to help then.

Also, if God did exist, you don't know his desires or how he works. It's all bullshit that fits with what you are trying to argue.

1) How do you define "help"? Is having a cushy, comfortable life a good thing? If this world is all that exists, then yes, and you're totally right. God is a selfish asshole who just likes to see us squirm. But IF there's something that comes after, then "help" would be the course of action that results in personal growth, understanding who you are, and a growing sense of compassion and mercy. In most cases, the smoother someone's life is going, the less likely they are to examine themselves and try to become better people. Just look at CEOs of corrupt companies for examples of that.

If you want a simpler example, look at a parent. If a child has done something wrong and a parent punishes them, most of the time, the parent isn't happy to do so. The kid wants something and the parent denies it. Sure, the parent would like to grant the request, but they know it would do more harm than good. If God truly is omniscient, it's pretty obvious He'd know what I need better than I would.

2) Assuming God is the one described in the Bible, that particular book lays out pretty clearly enough of God's character to figure out what His desires are.

3) I sense frustration. Let's back this up a bit. Please state the point at which you started feeling my arguments got circular. If you like, let's back this up to a higher level philosophical axiom.

[Ryft]

How does this not negate the idea that through our own free will we are responsible for our destination in the afterlife?

(1) "Free will" is a highly equivocal term. If you are not defining it biblically, then you are either begging the question or not addressing the biblical world view with it. (2) The only destination in the afterlife we are responsible for is hell. God is responsible for anyone ending up in heaven.

[Christi]

Funny thing is that at least 80% of people that consider themselves Christian are going to Hell according to The Bible, because they do not follow all the rules.

God is responsible for Hell as well as anyone said to be in Hell. He created all, which means he created Hell as well. Such a loving but vengeful God he is. You have freewill, but if you don't see the light of God, you will be punished by being directed to Hell.

If you consider yourself a Christian and believe in everything contained in The Bible, then you must spread the word of God in order to gain entrance into Heaven. It's not enough to just believe in God. If you don't spread God's love, you are doing a disservice to him and his word. If you do not teach it to others, then you are not a true servant of God.

Here's the funny part, the Christians here in this forum are actually not serving their God. Here's why: The people in this forum know the word of God and are familiar with The Bible. Those of us that chose not to believe have already been condemned unless we convert and ask God for forgiveness. To convert the condemned is actually not in favor in The Bible. As Bible believing Christians, you are supposed to be educating and spreading the word of God to those that are ignorant and can be saved. Atheists cannot be saved as they have already been condemned according to The Bible. Therefore, trying to suede the condemned is not your work. Only when we wish to be saved and come to you for guidance can you hear us and welcome us in. Until then, we are the condemned.

If you truly believe in The Bible, then you would be out in the world spreading God's love to those that have not learned of him yet. You would not be here, arguing with those of us that are already condemned in the eyes of God.

[Godscreated]

Funny thing is that at least 80% of people that consider themselves Christian are going to Hell according to The Bible, because they do not follow all the rules.

God is responsible for Hell as well as anyone said to be in Hell. He created all, which means he created Hell as well. Such a loving but vengeful God he is. You have freewill, but if you don't see the light of God, you will be punished by being directed to Hell.

If you consider yourself a Christian and believe in everything contained in The Bible, then you must spread the word of God in order to gain entrance into Heaven. It's not enough to just believe in God. If you don't spread God's love, you are doing a disservice to him and his word. If you do not teach it to others, then you are not a true servant of God.

Here's the funny part, the Christians here in this forum are actually not serving their God. Here's why: The people in this forum know the word of God and are familiar with The Bible. Those of us that chose not to believe have already been condemned unless we convert and ask God for forgiveness. To convert the condemned is actually not in favor in The Bible. As Bible believing Christians, you are supposed to be educating and spreading the word of God to those that are ignorant and can be saved. Atheists cannot be saved as they have already been condemned according to The Bible. Therefore, trying to suede the condemned is not your work. Only when we wish to be saved and come to you for guidance can you hear us and welcome us in. Until then, we are the condemned.

If you truly believe in The Bible, then you would be out in the world spreading God's love to those that have not learned of him yet. You would not be here, arguing with those of us that are already condemned in the eyes of God.

What in all that says the Christians on this forum are not out spreading the word of God. Seems to me, you the atheist is trying to tell us what we must do to receive salvation. Your idea of works is not Biblical, as Ryft said above we can not save ourselves, that is a work that God and only God does, as I said earlier God chooses those He desires to work through. Christians who understand this are honored to be chosen to have God working through us for others.