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

[Ryft]

You said Christianity is based on belief and grace rather than actions in life.

No, I did not. I said nothing about what Christianity is based on. I said salvation is based on God's grace, not human works.

The only characteristic that God would consider is your belief in him. Would that be a fair assessment?

No, that would be a wildly inaccurate statement, one that completely ignores what I had actually said. Belief in God does not save anyone. I'm not saved because I believe, but because of what Christ did. It's not as if man exists in some state of spiritual neutrality from which either 'belief' or 'non-belief' finally determines his standing before God, whether justified or condemned. On the Christian view, all mankind exists in a state of condemnation already on account of sin. We all come from the same pool of death and darkness, of sin and moral ruin—and through unbelief, itself a sin, man remains there. We exist under judgment for death; only in Christ is there judgment for life. We exist under God's wrath; only in Christ is that wrath removed. We exist in condemnation; only in Christ are we justified. Salvation is through Christ, not belief, who died for the sins of all who repent and believe.

"The doctrines of grace are the biblical teachings that define the ends and means of God's perfect work of redemption. They tell us that God is the one who saves, for his own glory, and freely. And they tell us that he does so only through Christ, only on the basis of his grace, only with the perfection that marks everything the Father, Son, and Spirit do. The doctrines of grace separate the Christian faith from the works-based religions of men. They direct us away from ourselves and solely to God's grace and mercy. They destroy pride, instil humility, and exalt God." (James R. White)

[Re: Quranic proof-texting]

You are not a Muslim and neither am I, so I'm not interested in having a Quran study. I know from having studied Islam, through its texts and imams, how the pious Ahl al-Kitab will fare before Allah, why the Quran says what it does about the Trinity, what unbelievers and rejecters are considered to be, and pretty much zero confidence in the fidelity of your gunshot proof-texting. This is a thoroughly pointless exercise. Let's confront the beliefs you and I do have, not ones we don't.

Ultimately, no one's life matters.

On your view, sure. And if your view turns out to be right and Christianity wrong, that will not matter; in the grave I decompose none the wiser. Ergo, my answer holds.

It's also a good thing that there is no evidence to support the claim that God, much less Christian God, exists.

Will you now support that claim? Or are you content being guilty of the very thing you accuse theists of?

You were making the point that the universe somehow had a beginning by citing the BGV paper that's so frequently used by William Lane Craig. Perhaps I was reading too far into your posts, but what exactly were you trying to say with that statement?

Look again at what I said on that point, this time without reading a bunch of stuff into it. It states exactly what I was saying. (I tend to say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say.)

[tavarish]

No, I did not. I said nothing about what Christianity is based on. I said salvation is based on God's grace, not human works.

Fair enough.

No, that would be a wildly inaccurate statement, one that completely ignores what I had actually said. Belief in God does not save anyone. I'm not saved because I believe, but because of what Christ did. It's not as if man exists in some state of spiritual neutrality from which either 'belief' or 'non-belief' finally determines his standing before God, whether justified or condemned. On the Christian view, all mankind exists in a state of condemnation already on account of sin. We all come from the same pool of death and darkness, of sin and moral ruin—and through unbelief, itself a sin, man remains there. We exist under judgment for death; only in Christ is there judgment for life. We exist under God's wrath; only in Christ is that wrath removed. We exist in condemnation; only in Christ are we justified. Salvation is through Christ, not belief, who died for the sins of all who repent and believe.

You're not making any sense.

First you say "Belief in God does not save anyone."

Then you go on to say "Salvation is through Christ, not belief, who died for the sins of all who repent and believe."

So in order for me to be saved, I need to believe that Christ is my personal savior - an entity that is also considered God. Or am I getting this wrong?

"The doctrines of grace are the biblical teachings that define the ends and means of God's perfect work of redemption. They tell us that God is the one who saves, for his own glory, and freely. And they tell us that he does so only through Christ, only on the basis of his grace, only with the perfection that marks everything the Father, Son, and Spirit do. The doctrines of grace separate the Christian faith from the works-based religions of men. They direct us away from ourselves and solely to God's grace and mercy. They destroy pride, instil humility, and exalt God." (James R. White)

Niiiiice.

You are not a Muslim and neither am I, so I'm not interested in having a Quran study. I know from having studied Islam, through its texts and imams, how the pious Ahl al-Kitab will fare before Allah, why the Quran says what it does about the Trinity, what unbelievers and rejecters are considered to be, and pretty much zero confidence in the fidelity of your gunshot proof-texting. This is a thoroughly pointless exercise. Let's confront the beliefs you and I do have, not ones we don't.

I'm currently studying Islamic history, doctrine, and society. The issue of non-believers are taken in a variety of different contexts. I'm trying to make the point that it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

On your view, sure. And if your view turns out to be right and Christianity wrong, that will not matter; in the grave I decompose none the wiser. Ergo, my answer holds.

See you in dirt.

Will you now support that claim? Or are you content being guilty of the very thing you accuse theists of?

You're a smart guy. I'll take it as a given that you understand how burden of proof works. I'm making the claim that no objectively verifiable evidence is available that points to the existence of a God, much less a Christian God. The onus is on the person making the God claim to provide sufficient evidence.

Look again at what I said on that point, this time without reading a bunch of stuff into it. It states exactly what I was saying. (I tend to say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say.)

You made the point that the universe had a beginning, and that God having a creator is a loaded question.

Do you believe that God was the creator of the universe?

If yes, what evidence do you have to support this claim?

I'll ask you more specific questions without going off on tangents.

[Ryft]

So in order for me to be saved, I need to believe that Christ is my personal Savior (an entity that is also considered God)? Or am I getting this wrong?

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.

You're a smart guy. I'll take it as a given that you understand how burden of proof works. I'm making the claim that no objectively verifiable evidence is available that points to the existence of a God, much less a Christian God. The onus is on the person making the God claim to provide sufficient evidence.

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.)

You made the point that the universe had a beginning, and that God having a creator is a loaded question.

Correct.

Do you believe that God was the creator of the universe? If yes, what evidence do you have to support this claim?

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.)

[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?

[Ryft]

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

Not quite: "you would not be able to be saved without" Christ paying for your sins. Salvation is through having sins paid for. Belief does not pay for sins. (1) Christ paid for the sins of all those who repent and believe. (2) All those who repent and believe therefore have their sins paid for.

Yes, I would say my claim is correct.

TAVARISH: There is no objective evidence to support the claim that God exists.
ARCANUS: Is that claim true?
TAVARISH: Yes.
ARCANUS: On what basis is that claim true?
TAVARISH:

A belief in [God] ... is anything but unbiased, as faith has a strictly personal nature.

True. But then a belief in God is subjective—by definition, for 'belief' belongs to the thinking subject. However (you might not be consciously aware of this), you are conflating belief in God with the existence of God. You must pick one or the other, but not conflate them as being one and the same thing.

Also? "A lack of belief in God is anything but unbiased."

As faith is wholly dependent on personal feelings ...

According to who?

On the Christian view, faith is partly about personal feelings—that's fiducia—but certainly not wholly: notitia is objective, insofar as informational content exists independent of the thinking subject, and assensus is cognitive, which is distinguished from affective (feelings).

If the existence of God was objective, it would, for all purposes, be very self-evident. This isn't the case.

From the claim that God exists objectively (independent of the thinking subject), one cannot reasonably infer that God must be evident to every thinking subject. My coffee cup exists objectively—i.e., indepedent of you as a thinking subject—even though it is not evident to you in any way.

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.

If I fail to defend my claim that life exists on other planets, does that mean life on other planets doesn't exist? No, for that doesn't follow (non-sequitur). It does mean you have reason to not accept my claim, but that's quite a different thing, isn't it?

I'm going to assume you don't believe in biblical literalism and don't cite the inerrancy or historicity of such a book.

Probably not, if my hunch is correct about what you think those terms mean. I suspect that inane Christian fundies influenced your ideas about those things, and my views often have little in common with them.

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

It's not my standard of evidence. My standards of evidence are broad and varied, as there are many different types of claims that can be subject to evaluation. However, at bottom of my entire world view lies the fundamental presupposition that the Bible is the divinely revealed Word of God. It is the basic axiom upon which everything else is built. It is not the entire structure itself. And it is my basic axiom because it is the only presupposition which produces a world view that reflects and explains the world as it really is.

[tavarish]

Not quite: "you would not be able to be saved without" Christ paying for your sins. Salvation is through having sins paid for. Belief does not pay for sins. (1) Christ paid for the sins of all those who repent and believe. (2) All those who repent and believe therefore have their sins paid for.

Got it.

TAVARISH: There is no objective evidence to support the claim that God exists.
ARCANUS: Is that claim true?
TAVARISH: Yes.
ARCANUS: On what basis is that claim true?
TAVARISH:

For the very reasons I illustrated in my previous post. At the very face of it, it seems like there can be no objective evidence that God exists at our current point in time. I don't have empirical evidence to prove the non-existence of something, I can only provide counter examples that falsify the validity of any objective God concept.

True. But then a belief in God is subjective—by definition, for 'belief' belongs to the thinking subject. However (you might not be consciously aware of this), you are conflating belief in God with the existence of God. You must pick one or the other, but not conflate them as being one and the same thing.

I'm talking about the belief that God exists objectively. I'm not talking about any other attributes other than existence. I understand that every theist has their own personal, subjective relationship with God. What I'm trying to describe is that the concept's existence can only be verified through subjective and rather questionable means. This presents a problem for those who make the claim that he exists objectively.

I hope I made that clear.

Also? "A lack of belief in God is anything but unbiased."

I'd have to disagree with you. However, if you had worded it "A belief that there is no God is anything but unbiased", then I'd agree. A lack of belief would be the default position. A positive claim would be acknowledging bias and affiliation.

According to who?

On the Christian view, faith is partly about personal feelings—that's fiducia—but certainly not wholly: notitia is objective, insofar as informational content exists independent of the thinking subject, and assensus is cognitive, which is distinguished from affective (feelings).

As you have said before, faith would not work without all three concepts working together. Would not faith be dependent on personal feelings? And such being the case, would not faith be considered purely subjective by the very definition of the word?

I don't want to grasp at straws, I used the word "wholly" because without personal feelings and profound emotions of trust (fiducia), you would not have a necessary tenet of faith. You can replace it with "partly" if it suits your purposes a bit better.

From the claim that God exists objectively (independent of the thinking subject), one cannot reasonably infer that God must be evident to every thinking subject. My coffee cup exists objectively—i.e., indepedent of you as a thinking subject—even though it is not evident to you in any way.

What would be objective evidence of God's existence?

If I fail to defend my claim that life exists on other planets, does that mean life on other planets doesn't exist? No, for that doesn't follow (non-sequitur). It does mean you have reason to not accept my claim, but that's quite a different thing, isn't it?

Exactly my point. The fact that you fail to defend your claim gives me reason not to believe it.

I never made the claim that no God exists. I simply withhold judgement and take the default point of view, non-belief in such a claim.

Probably not, if my hunch is correct about what you think those terms mean. I suspect that inane Christian fundies influenced your ideas about those things, and my views often have little in common with them.

As long as you don't try to convince me that dinosaurs wore saddles, I think we'll be good.

It's not my standard of evidence. My standards of evidence are broad and varied, as there are many different types of claims that can be subject to evaluation. However, at bottom of my entire world view lies the fundamental presupposition that the Bible is the divinely revealed Word of God. It is the basic axiom upon which everything else is built. It is not the entire structure itself. And it is my basic axiom because it is the only presupposition which produces a world view that reflects and explains the world as it really is.

As the foundation of your worldview (The Bible), how would you verify its validity independently?

[Xyster]

Look Tavarish: Its verry simple...
the all powerfull all knowing god created man, then set him up for failure. By putting the forbidden tree right in thier back yard. Then we all know about the magic talking snake that tricked Nieve Eve into eating the fruit of knowledge. Then god punishes them for something he already knew was gonna happen. Then later on God finds he screwed up again and had to flood the world by putting all the creatures of the world into a magical bag of holding errr I mean arc. yadda yadda yadda.... God finally gets fed up with all the sacrifice, but instead of just forgiving everyone so they wouldent have to go to hell he comes up with this grand sceme to come to earth and sacrifice himself to himself (holy trin)to create a loophole for a rule he himself created.?!?

[tackattack]

I don't think any1 in this conversation is a literalist, that wasn't constructive at all.

[tavarish]

Look Tavarish: Its verry simple...
the all powerfull all knowing god created man, then set him up for failure. By putting the forbidden tree right in thier back yard. Then we all know about the magic talking snake that tricked Nieve Eve into eating the fruit of knowledge. Then god punishes them for something he already knew was gonna happen. Then later on God finds he screwed up again and had to flood the world by putting all the creatures of the world into a magical bag of holding errr I mean arc. yadda yadda yadda.... God finally gets fed up with all the sacrifice, but instead of just forgiving everyone so they wouldent have to go to hell he comes up with this grand sceme to come to earth and sacrifice himself to himself (holy trin)to create a loophole for a rule he himself created.?!?

What does this have to do with anything we're discussing? I already assumed Arcanus wasn't a biblical literalist, and I was correct on that count. A condensed and facetious account of Genesis isn't helping anyone. Try not to act condescending in a civil discussion.

It's much more engaging when someone gives an account of biblical interpretation in a metaphorical or allegorical sense than a literal sense. They tend to be much more intellectually honest and thought provoking most of the time.

I guarantee you it wouldn't be as cut and dry as calling them "sky daddy worshippers" or something to that extent.

Thanks.

[Frank]

I love asking theists how they can call god loving when he admitted to the mass murder of thousands of Egyptian infants and young children (according to the Exodus narrative)? What message does that send us exactly? To convince one guy to change his mind god killed a bunch of babies. Hmmm, why not just kill the one guy? Or, why not just manipulate his brain? Was god trying to send a message, and if so was it really supposed to be that he's full of warmth and love? Obey me or I'll kill your baby, then I'll burn you in hell forever. Wow, if that isn't enough to convince you how much god loves you, wait till you hear this one. God created the universe, then stood around for over 13 billion years waiting until humans were developed by evolution, because he wanted to jump into one of our bodies and kill himself (well not really kill himself, but kill his body, in a vicarious bloody ritualistic sacrifice for your sins).

Of course we all know why our sins need to be forgiven. We're a depraved race because our first mother was tricked by a talking snake into eating from a magical tree. Of course god knew this would happen, indeed even orchestrated it, because he wanted to create a race of perfectly obedient celestial slaves who do nothing but worship him all day long and cater to his every whim. I say who could ask for anything more?