Knowing vs. discovering

Originally posted by FMF
Urging non-believers to "choose" to believe the thing they don't believe often seems like the only string on Grampy Bobby's proselytizing fiddle.

That's an assumption on your part. If you think Bob expects someone that can't believe to choose to believe in spite of his unbelief, you are underestimating Bob's intelligence.

Really, it's just insulting to everyone's intelligence to ask the question in the first place. It's a stupid question altogether.

I just can't see how anyone can be that stupid. How does one choose to believe what they don't believe? Just nonsense.

Originally posted by josephw
That's an assumption on your part.

No it's not an assumption on my part. Don't you read his posts? Grampy Bobby urges non-believers to "choose" to believe what he believes, over and over and over again, thread after thread after thread, week in week out, and has been doing it for years.

Originally posted by josephw
Really, it's just insulting to everyone's intelligence to ask the question in the first place. It's a stupid question altogether.

I just can't see how anyone can be that stupid. How does one choose to believe what they don't believe? Just nonsense.

Why have you never taken the issue up with Grampy Bobby directly?

Originally posted by josephw
That's an assumption on your part. If you think Bob expects someone that can't believe to choose to believe in spite of his unbelief, you are underestimating Bob's intelligence.

Really, it's just insulting to everyone's intelligence to ask the question in the first place. It's a stupid question altogether.

I just can't see how anyone can be that stupid. How does one choose to believe what they don't believe? Just nonsense.

Joe, thanks for your compassionate and relevant insights on both the unbeliever's predicament and applicable biblical truth.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Joe, thanks for your compassionate and relevant insights on both the unbeliever's predicament and applicable biblical truth.

An answer to the question would be more interesting although it's no mystery why you are dodging it. Even josephw has suggested that this notion of there being a "choice" for non-believers (which you go on and on and on about) is "nonsense".

Originally posted by FMF
No it's not an assumption on my part. Don't you read his posts? Grampy Bobby urges non-believers to "choose" to believe what he believes, over and over and over again, thread after thread after thread, week in week out, and has been doing it for years.

I didn't say Bob didn't "urge" folks to believe the truth and be saved. I'm merely replying to your accusation that he expects someone to believe in something they don't believe in. No one does that.

Besides, you should try to understand what it is you're missing. One needs to believe what they hear first, then they need to trust in what they believe. Until one believes they can't trust in what they believe.

The sequence is thus: hear, believe, trust and be saved.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Joe, thanks for your compassionate and relevant insights on both the unbeliever's predicament and applicable biblical truth.

And thank you Bob. Happy to be on the same wavelength, which is in the same spirit.

Originally posted by josephw
I didn't say Bob didn't "urge" folks to believe the truth and be saved. I'm merely replying to your accusation that he expects someone to believe in something they don't believe in. No one does that.

Besides, you should try to understand what it is you're missing. One needs to believe what they hear first, then they need to trust in what they believe. Unt ...[text shortened]... ey can't trust in what they believe.

The sequence is thus: hear, believe, trust and be saved.

So when he says people must "choose" for or against Christ, he's only talking to people who already believe in Christ? Does that make sense to you? Surely not. Seriously, have you not read any of Grampy Bobby's posts where he says to unbelievers that it's their "choice" whether to believe or not? Have you not seen any of the posts addressed to non-believers urging them to accept "salavation" by "choosing" the "eternal address" with Jesus? Have the umpteen times that this has been the one and only point in his posts somehow escaped your notice?

Originally posted by josephw
I didn't say Bob didn't "urge" folks to believe the truth and be saved. I'm merely replying to your accusation that he expects someone to believe in something they don't believe in. No one does that.

How are people who don't believe "saved" then?

Originally posted by josephw
I didn't say Bob didn't "urge" folks to believe the truth and be saved. I'm merely replying to your accusation that he expects someone to believe in something they don't believe in. No one does that.

Besides, you should try to understand what it is you're missing. One needs to believe what they hear first, then they need to trust in what they believe. Unt ...[text shortened]... ey can't trust in what they believe.

The sequence is thus: hear, believe, trust and be saved.

"The sequence is thus: hear, believe, trust and be saved."

I like that sequence. From this, we might conclude that "believe" need not require 'trust". Is this the case? It allows for a healthy skepticism.

How does one get from not hearing to "hear" and how does one get from "hear" to "believe"?

And what is the motivation to do so?

These are sincere questions and are not directed solely at you.

Originally posted by josephw
And thank you Bob. Happy to be on the same wavelength, which is in the same spirit.

How about saving an unrated game or two at a corner table in the Celestial Chess Club in heaven for us?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
This spirituality forum thread's original post presumes to compare an atheist's opinion on the process of discovering secular knowledge with truths revealed by God.

The OP presumes that it is better to seek to discover than to presume to know.

Originally posted by JS357
"The sequence is thus: hear, believe, trust and be saved."

I like that sequence. From this, we might conclude that "believe" need not require 'trust". Is this the case? It allows for a healthy skepticism.

How does one get from not hearing to "hear" and how does one get from "hear" to "believe"?

And what is the motivation to do so?

These are sincere questions and are not directed solely at you.

"How does one get from not hearing to "hear" and how does one get from "hear" to "believe"?"

You're walking down the street minding your own business thinking about the nature of reality trying to peg meaning on your existence when all of a sudden you hear the Word of God being preached by a street preacher who says something that triggers a thought that rings a bell and you have an epiphany. You suddenly realize you heard the truth and you believe. Then you turn and face God and ask Him "what do I have to do to be saved" and He says trust in what my son did for you at the cross, dying for you, paying your sin debt, then rising up from the dead, and do it because you heard me say it was so, because you believe and know I cannot lie.

"And what is the motivation to do so?"

Eternal life.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
How about saving an unrated game or two at a corner table in the Celestial Chess Club in heaven for us?

lol done!

Originally posted by divegeester
The OP presumes that it is better to seek to discover than to presume to know.

The OP interests me and produced the following reflection, which is always in process with me and ever subject to the fluidity of perceptions:

From the beginning, the "lie" in the Genesis story is that Adam and Eve, in partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil would become as the gods...the half truth of it is that they would not surely die...but neither would it save them

..the seeking, however, would...

...in that, seeking...the act of exploration...discovery requires faith...which is the saving principle, as spoken by the Christ, himself...e.g. The woman with an issue of blood to whom Jesus said, "...thy faith hath made the whole...", among others...in fact, I will go so far to say that correct knowledge of things...even things of the Spirit...is not a saving principle...in fact, the Pharasees...learned men with correct knowledge as Jesus shared in that day...could utilize said knowledge for evil intent, a force of destruction...particularly self destruction....I surmise that faith...that which is required by those who seek with pure intent...can never be used for evil purposes...but rather, opens the way for conceiving unforeseen possibilities...the stuff of miracles, if you will...

Simply a few thoughts here...thank you for opening the discussion.