Originally posted by Darfius I will make a new thread soon detailing an argument that skeptics cannot refute rationally.
But suppose they haven't read this thread yet, in view of its not yet existing.
Not having the benefit of being swayed by it inexorable logic, couldn't they still be basing their non-belief in Christianity on reasons they have arrived at honestly rather than simply stubbornly refusing to accept Christianity because they don't want to?
Originally posted by Darfius Not quite. It goes more like:
So, if this is a logical argument (it's not even close, btw), you would be unable to refute the inverse:
1) God does not exist
2) God's non-existence carries the implication that life ends at death
3) This idea scares a lot of people, and makes them uncomfortable
4) One way to ease the angst is to create a fairy tale about life everlasting
5) Belief in God is thus grounded in fear, superstition and emotion.
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole Several people of an evangelical persuasion have told me that I am morally culpable for not believing that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour.
They claim that, having witnessed to me, I now have the choice to believe them or not. And because I freely choose not to believe them, I am therefore morally culpable, and indeed running the risk of damnation.
W ...[text shortened]... s strikes me as a very odd belief to maintain. Maybe if I only tried harder to believe it...
Any God that condemns someone to eternal damnation (Hell for example) for not believing in Him is not a true forgiving God and is therefore not worthy of worship. If this is the case then 'Hell' has the fairer system as it will take anyone! Jesus taught of the good Samaritan as the one who will "truly enter the kingdom of Heaven". Samaritans were not Christians and did not believe in the Christian God so I think that if you are a good person (or try to be) any true all loving, all forgiving God will see this and welcome you.
Originally posted by Chufty Jones Any God that condemns someone to eternal damnation (Hell for example) for not believing in Him is not a true forgiving God and is therefore not worthy of worship. If this is the case then 'Hell' has the fairer system as it will take anyone! Jesus taught of the good Samaritan as the one who will "truly enter the kingdom of Heaven". Samaritans were not ...[text shortened]... person (or try to be) any true all loving, all forgiving God will see this and welcome you.
Plus, of course, we only get one side of the arguement too! I mean, ever heard of propoganda?
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole But suppose they haven't read this thread yet, in view of its not yet existing.
Not having the benefit of being swayed by it inexorable logic, couldn't they still be basing their non-belief in Christianity on reasons they have arrived at honestly rather than simply stubbornly refusing to accept Christianity because they don't want to?
Nope. Still waiting on your 'honest skeptic' example.
Originally posted by David C So, if this is a logical argument (it's not even close, btw), you would be unable to refute the inverse:
1) God does not exist
2) God's non-existence carries the implication that life ends at death
3) This idea scares a lot of people, and makes them uncomfortable
4) One way to ease the angst is to create a fairy tale about life everlasting
5) Belief in God is thus grounded in fear, superstition and emotion.
It wasn't meant to be a logical argument. It's just what I believe due to several variables, not the least of which is my experience with skeptics.
Originally posted by Darfius It wasn't meant to be a logical argument. It's just what I believe due to several variables, not the least of which is my experience with skeptics.
Originally posted by Chufty Jones Any God that condemns someone to eternal damnation (Hell for example) for not believing in Him is not a true forgiving God and is therefore not worthy of worship. If this is the case then 'Hell' has the fairer system as it will take anyone! Jesus taught of the good Samaritan as the one who will "truly enter the kingdom of Heaven". Samaritans were not ...[text shortened]... person (or try to be) any true all loving, all forgiving God will see this and welcome you.
Any God that condemns someone to eternal damnation (Hell for example) for not believing in Him is not a true forgiving God and is therefore not worthy of worship. If I may interject here, it may clear up some confusion. The belief to which you mistakenly refer is akin to a belief in Santa Claus, or some such mythical entity. People are [/i]not[/i] condemened to hell for that type of belief, nor are they granted heaven for holding to the same. As it says in one of the letters, even demons believe in God and shudder at the thought.
Saving belief is an acceptance of the work done on the cross by the Lord Jesus Christ on behalf of the individual. Instead of standing before God on the merits of their own work (physically, spiritually or mentally), the saved individual stands before God imputed with His righteousness via the acceptance of the work done by the Christ.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH [b]Any God that condemns someone to eternal damnation (Hell for example) for not believing in Him is not a true forgiving God and is therefore not worthy of worship. If I may interject here, it may clear up some confusion. The belief to which you mistakenly refer is akin to a belief in Santa Claus, or some such mythical entity. People are [/i]not[/i ...[text shortened]... nds before God imputed with His righteousness via the acceptance of the work done by the Christ.[/b]
Doesn't "acceptance of the work done on the cross by the Lord Jesus Christ on behalf of the individual" entail the belief that the Lord Jesus has done this work on behalf of the individual?
So, if one doesn't not hold that belief, then isn't one, according to your theology, in jeopardy of damnation?
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole Doesn't "acceptance of the work done on the cross by the Lord Jesus Christ on behalf of the individual" entail the belief that the Lord Jesus has done this work on behalf of the individual?
So, if one doesn't not hold that belief, then isn't one, according to your theology, in jeopardy of damnation?
If I am reading you aright, you are reducing the argument to whether or not the act is verifiable. If that is your stance, then the answer is no, that is not the issue. It is an assumed that what the Bible has stated as fact, is fact. The issue in salvation is not the veracity of the Bible. The issue is whether or not you trust in His work or yours. You will not be able to stand before God and say, 'I did not act upon the information, as I was unable to ascertain the accuracy of the information.' What we have in our possession is close enough.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH If I am reading you aright, you are reducing the argument to whether or not the act is verifiable. If that is your stance, then the answer is no, that is not the issue. It is an assumed that what the Bible has stated as fact, is fact. The issue in salvation is not the veracity of the Bible. The issue is whether or not you trust in His work or yours. Y ...[text shortened]... o ascertain the accuracy of the information.' What we have in our possession is close enough.
18 Aug '06 22:56
Belief and choice
Back to Top