5 Basic Proofs of Christianity

[InTruth]

1) Universe can't cause itself since everything in nature has a cause, and the universe can't always have been existing due to the exponential progression of conscience for we would not still be sinning to the extent we still do.

2) The complexity, intricacy and fine tuning of the universe proves there is a Designer.

3) Without God there is no moral objectivity.

4) The multiple eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus in various group settings under different circumstances and different classes of people.

5) Personally experiencing God in your life.

[Spencer]

5 Basic Proofs of Christianity
1) Universe can't cause itself since everything in nature has a cause, and the universe can't always have been existing due to the exponential progression of conscience for we would not still be sinning to the extent we still do.

You cant come up with a cause for god either, it works both ways.
Sin (if such thing exists) would be around either way since mankind hasnt existed infinitely. The arguement presented is a false dilemma, its possible that the universe has existed forever or 14 billion years and man has only existed for a short time. Mans existence being finite and the eath being 4 billion years old arent mutually exclusive.


2) The complexity, intricacy and fine tuning of the universe proves there is a Designer.
Thats a vague statement and a jump to conclusions. Evolution explains this just as well. And if god did create the univers, theres no evidence that it was god from the bible.


3) Without God there is no moral objectivity.
So?


4) The multiple eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus in various group settings under different circumstances and different classes of people.
Accounts of the ressurection of a man born of a virgin who was crucified date back to 1200 BC......... wait.... BC means before christ.....
Seeing as there are dozens of stories identical to Jesus, i have to think its fake seeing as the story was aldredy around during the supposed time of Jesus. If anything, im more likely to beleive in Horus or Krishna.


5) Personally experiencing God in your life.
But I HAVENT.

[InTruth]

You cant come up with a cause for god either, it works both ways.
Sin (if such thing exists) would be around either way since mankind hasnt existed infinitely. The arguement presented is a false dilemma, its possible that the universe has existed forever or 14 billion years and man has only existed for a short time. Mans existence being finite and the eath being 4 billion years old arent mutually exclusive.
God never claims to have a cause, but always existed. He is uncreated. I am not sure what you mean by works both ways. Proving the universe can't cause itself agrees with God always existing.

How could you think sin doesn't exist, for we put people in jails for obvious sins against society. I think this shows how darkened your mind has become that you could think sin doesn't exist.

Man has existed for only a short time, but if the universe had always existed man would have approximated from that eternity of the past and he would not still be sinning to the extent he still does due to the exponential progression of conscience. The same principle applies to heat death. The universe would experience far greater heat death than it does if it always existed.

I don't think I said anything about the universe's existence and man being mutually exclusive.


Thats a vague statement and a jump to conclusions. Evolution explains this just as well. And if god did create the univers, theres no evidence that it was god from the bible.
It's very precise, for take anything, say an old typewriter. Take it all apart and you could shake it about for a trillion years and it would still never come together. Evolution does not explain this as well. There is required an Intelligent Designer to put it together like the first single celled organism that can begin replicating itself. Evolution can't explain how evolution came into being, so it lacks in explanatory scope.

How do we know the Creator is God of the Bible? Jesus proves He is God by His resurrection, for which no naturalistic theory can account for the eyewitnesses in various group settings. You even testify to this fact.


Wthout God there is no moral objectivity. So?
Since moral objectivity exists, there must be a God.



Accounts of the ressurection of a man born of a virgin who was crucified date back to 1200 BC......... wait.... BC means before christ.....
Seeing as there are dozens of stories identical to Jesus, i have to think its fake seeing as the story was aldredy around during the supposed time of Jesus. If anything, im more likely to beleive in Horus or Krishna.

Do you have any primary sources to make your claim? For example, the response to the Zeitgeist video (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5800#post5800) shows the Horus, Krishna and Mithra claims fail when examining earliest sources. Be careful what you assume. Your bias is showing.

The resurrection of Jesus is one of kind.



Personally experiencing God in your life. But I HAVENT.

The reason you haven't is because you haven't come to God with an honest heart the Bible says. You still keep yourself separated from God out of your self-centeredness.

God doesn't cater to your flesh. You exist because of Him out of His glory. You don't place demands on Him as though that can somehow work. How foolish!

[Spencer]

1) With both the existance of god and the lack of god, there still must exist something without a cause. Sorry if I worded it badly before. Either way, there is somethign that simply exists beyond our understanding of why. That fact that the universe exists doesn't sway my beleif one way or the other, either somethign has always been or something came from nothing.

We put people in jails because they have commited crimes, not sins. We as humans have our own laws. But these laws came from people, not a god. I'd consider sin the breaking of a moral code. (Correct me if thats wrong). I don't see any proof that the law represents a moral code. People are imprisoned for doing drugs, yet I see nothing wrong with that. I still view the imcarceration of a muderer as justified, but because it's simply benificial to society as a whole and not to please a god. I understand that many laws are influenced by beleif in sin, but doing something based on a beleif in it doesnt make it real. A child may lose sleep due to a fear of monsters under his bed, but it doesnt make the monsters real.

Interesting that you refer to my mind as blackened. Again, you are starting with the assumption that there is in fact sin. I personally don't beleive in good or evil, at least not on a divine level. I'm not saying they don't exist, just that if they do, I dont know what they are (same goes for God). From your good and evil point of view, yes, this school of thought may be evil, but if the concept does't exist, my beleif is simply another neutral action, as is your's condemning it.

I don't think were on the same page with the exponential progression of concience thing. Could you explain this in more detail?

2) I don't beleive in evolution over creation or vice versa. I'm saying they're both possible.
A typewriter isn't a living thing, nor does it occur naturally. Im sure youve heard the meatphor involving the monkies though. How if you give a thousand monkies typewriters, they eventually will rpoduce the works of Shakespeare? It's very possible that we are the product of infinite possibilities, and were bound to come about sooner or later. If you randomly arranged particles forever, you could quite easily have a typewriter, or in the case of this argument, a single celled organism. Expeiments have managed to create cell like structures by replicating the conditions of early earth. I'm saying i'ts POSSIBLE that we came about by chance. Its also possible that we were created by a god (or gods) entirely different from the one you beleive in.

And Mohammed proves the existance of the muslim god. I fail to see why i should acept one over the other.

3) Prove moral objectivity exists without using God (that would be circular reasoning).

4) Very well, that was somewhat biased. But my point still stands, aincent religions still had the same beleifs in a savior. I dont undertand why I should beilve in Jesus or any other messiah, regardless of any parallels.

5)
OK, heres the problem. I see no reason to adopt a specific set of belifs as theres a pretty good chance they have it all wrong. If i did experice God in a convincing way (like him talking to me or sending me some sign) I'd beleive in him. But I havent. If he wants me to beleive, he should give me call and say hi, Im sure he has my number. The fact that people are so divided among religions makes me think that if there is a god, he probly doesn't want everyone to belive. Otherwise he'd show up get everyones story straight.

I look forward to your reply. The beauty of debate is no matter which argument prevails, both sides reach a better understanding.

[InTruth]

1) With both the existance of god and the lack of god, there still must exist something without a cause. Sorry if I worded it badly before. Either way, there is somethign that simply exists beyond our understanding of why. That fact that the universe exists doesn't sway my beleif one way or the other, either somethign has always been or something came from nothing.
How can there be a lack of God if there must exist the uncaused, for that would be like saying there is a lack of the uncaused after admitting the uncaused must exist? That's a nonsensical statement.

We know why God exists, because we know the uncreated must exist. What matters is you have no evidence to think the universe happened all by itself, but you do have a preponderance of evidence of things in nature requiring a cause, so you ought to go with the evidence if you were being honest with yourself. Right now, your position is to go against the evidence which is illogical.

You know the universe couldn't have always existed because the 2nd law of thermodynamics teaches heat death in a finite amount of time. If the universe always existed it would be experiencing far greater heat death than it does.


We put people in jails because they have commited crimes, not sins. We as humans have our own laws. But these laws came from people, not a god. I'd consider sin the breaking of a moral code. (Correct me if thats wrong). I don't see any proof that the law represents a moral code. People are imprisoned for doing drugs, yet I see nothing wrong with that. I still view the imcarceration of a muderer as justified, but because it's simply benificial to society as a whole and not to please a god. I understand that many laws are influenced by beleif in sin, but doing something based on a beleif in it doesnt make it real. A child may lose sleep due to a fear of monsters under his bed, but it doesnt make the monsters real.
We put people in jails because of their crimes. But crimes just don't happen all by themselves. They are the result of sin. Human laws would not exist without God, because humans would not exist without God. Since God's laws are imprinted on all our hearts, that's where we fashion our laws from, sometimes properly and sometimes askew misreading God's intent.

Yes, sin is breaking a moral code and acquiescence to temptation. One law would be the moral code not to murder; another moral code unwritten would be to not covet thy neighbor's wife.

Taking PCP an Acid or whatever drugs there are that are against the law is wrong, because you do harm to yourself and others. Your immorality thinks it is acceptable, but the child cries in your presence when you are intoxicated in your stupor.

God is not pleased to see anyone in jail. But God is righteous. Certainly His standards are not less than man's, putting someone in jail.

Sin is proven to be wrong thoughts and wrong actions, because you can show the effects that are unhealthy for you and others, like that child you hurt in your presence seeing you in this decrepit state under drugs. Your conscience is so dead, you don't realize how wrong this is. So you should believe this is a problem, because it is proven to be a problem. It is not merely some unfounded belief or assumption. Smoking really does kill people.

A child experiencing nightmares and monsters is not something God wants for that child, so there is an evil spirit at work trying to frighten the child; or the household environment he is in is hurting his soul and disturbing his heart with nightmares.


Interesting that you refer to my mind as blackened. Again, you are starting with the assumption that there is in fact sin. I personally don't beleive in good or evil, at least not on a divine level. I'm not saying they don't exist, just that if they do, I dont know what they are (same goes for God). From your good and evil point of view, yes, this school of thought may be evil, but if the concept does't exist, my beleif is simply another neutral action, as is your's condemning it.
Sin is not assumed as was said, but it is proven to exist: acquiescence to temptation and breaking agreed upon moral codes. You should believe in good and evil and on a divine level, since the uncreated is proven to exist and He is personal, and His wrath is against evil. A birdhouse can't create a bird. Just like the inanimate uncreated can't produce life. A personal God creates personal beings. If there is evil to us, there is evil to God. The reason you deny the existence of evil is because of your very own sin and evil that you fester in and don't think there will be consequences. You will spend an eternity in Hell, for calling Jesus and the Apostles a liar.

You do know what evil is!? Evil and sin is when someone murders someone else or jealous rage or hurtful to others. To say you don't is evil and sin, for you are not being honest with yourself. You know God exists, for even the Devil knows God exists, and you can't disprove the proof of God.

If Evil doesn't exist, then you should have no problem slitting our throat right now or killing hundreds of people and raping women and children. For this is not evil to you. You're just a bad guy on his way to Hell. Let us be thankful that Hell exists for you because how terrible that would be for those who love God if He were to impose upon us for eternity your presence in our midst. God is love. He would never allow that.


I don't think were on the same page with the exponential progression of concience thing. Could you explain this in more detail?
It is the same principle as Heat Death as described above. We observe the exponential progression of conscience through various things like today, human sacrifices are no longer prevalent among the nations like they once were, and women can now vote just this past century. Slavery is now outlawed and the crime rate per capita keeps going down through the centuries. Even the murder rate per capita keeps dropping and deaths due to war are also dropping exponentially through the millennia. If you take that progression outward, you come to the realization if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does, because it had more than enough time in the backdrop of trillions and trillions of years. It doesn't take nearly that long along the progression we are observing. Man would be derived from that infinity of the past irregardless of when it actually commences in that past, because it approximates to near infinity. That is the teaching of the law of limits in Calculus.


2) I don't beleive in evolution over creation or vice versa. I'm saying they're both possible.
Christians believe evolution can't explain itself, for it doesn't answer the big questions such as where did evolution come from? Something happened before evolution commenced. God divinely brought together the elements, formed a DNA and created the simplest life form that could begin to replicate over billions of years on our planet, then forming man from dust from this process (Gen. 2.7), and making man in His image about six thousand years through pre-Adamic men by breathing His Spirit into man which directly created man's spirit. When the spirit made contact with the body, man's soul life was formed. So man became a soulical being with spirit and a body fashioned in God's image. Through man's spirit, man has God-consciousness with the functions of intuition, communion and conscience. Man's soul comprises His mind, emotion and will and engage his self-consciousness. The body is his world-consciousness which he makes contact with the world through his five senses. Man is a tripartite being: spirit, soul and body (Heb. 4.12; 1 Thess. 5.23).



A typewriter isn't a living thing, nor does it occur naturally. Im sure youve heard the meatphor involving the monkies though. How if you give a thousand monkies typewriters, they eventually will rpoduce the works of Shakespeare? It's very possible that we are the product of infinite possibilities, and were bound to come about sooner or later. If you randomly arranged particles forever, you could quite easily have a typewriter, or in the case of this argument, a single celled organism. Expeiments have managed to create cell like structures by replicating the conditions of early earth. I'm saying i'ts POSSIBLE that we came about by chance. Its also possible that we were created by a god (or gods) entirely different from the one you beleive in.

Infinite possibilities is just another way of saying there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects which still suffers two problems: 1) we would experience more heat death than we do now; 2) man would not still be sinning to the extent it still does due the exponential progression of conscience.

If monkies can never produce a Shakespeare play then they are never bound to, neither sooner or later. And no matter how long you shake a typewriter with all its parts separated (incidentally, created by intelligence), it will never turn into a typewriter. It requires intelligent design, just like paper and ink can never turn into a newspaper. The problem you face is in assuming mindlessness produces mindfulness or the impersonal can somehow create the personal or the non-living can by itself produce the living. There is no evidence for this.

Even if man could bring elements together to produce a bacteria or the simplest life form that still would not disprove God, for it was intelligence that brought that life into existence, just like a human would bring it into existence with our intelligence. We didn't create ourselves, nor were we around when the first single celled organism came into being; so the ultimate cause is the uncreated. Nothing in nature can happen all by itself. A cause is always needed.

There is actually no such thing as chance. Everything happens by cause and effect, not by chance. Chance is just a word to describe that which we don't know the processes involved.

You are free to compare any challengers to God of the Bible, but only in Scripture do we find a God who enters His creation and proves it with evidence, by His life, death on the cross and resurrection appearances. Nobody compares to the love of God.

You can't have multiple gods, because then you need to ask the question, where did these other deities come from? We know the uncreated exists, but we only have evidence for one uncreated creator, no more than that.


And Mohammed proves the existance of the muslim god. I fail to see why i should acept one over the other.
How did he prove it? I can prove the Allah of the Koran to be false, because he said Jesus didn't die on the cross, without anything to support his claim which goes completely contrary to the very strong evidence. In fact nothing is more well attested in antiquity. If you throw out the death of Jesus on the cross, then you have to throw every established fact in the ancient world. I don't think you would last long in scholarly circles if you took that position.

You think one guy in a cave all by himself is trustworthy? compared to the multiple attestation of the Apostles in various group settings. The women were at his crucifixion, including John who wrote John, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. And students of John (early church fathers and second generation apostles) testify that John told them he wrote these books and had spent 3 years with Jesus, saw Him die on the cross and saw His resurrection.


3) Prove moral objectivity exists without using God (that would be circular reasoning).
I can't. Yes, that would be circular reasoning; hence, because moral objectivity exists, God must exist.


4) Very well, that was somewhat biased. But my point still stands, aincent religions still had the same beleifs in a savior. I dont undertand why I should beilve in Jesus or any other messiah, regardless of any parallels.
You don't know of any claims like Jesus who said He is God, walked among us in the flesh, died on the cross for sins and was resurrected to give eternal life. Don't just assume such a thing exists elsewhere. If you have no evidence, you have no evidence. Learn to let the evidence guide you where it may. It should guide you right into the arms of Jesus Christ and the Father who sent Him.


5)OK, heres the problem. I see no reason to adopt a specific set of belifs as theres a pretty good chance they have it all wrong. If i did experice God in a convincing way (like him talking to me or sending me some sign) I'd beleive in him. But I havent. If he wants me to beleive, he should give me call and say hi, Im sure he has my number. The fact that people are so divided among religions makes me think that if there is a god, he probly doesn't want everyone to belive. Otherwise he'd show up get everyones story straight.
Just assuming it could be wrong because it is one of many religions that are wrong is not a valid reason to reject Christianity, because Christianity is unlike any of those other religions. It is the One True Religion where God personally enters into His creation in Christ and proves He is God by His resurrection.

You would still not accept God if He graced you with more grace or gave you personal revelation, because you would just assume He is someone or something else. Therefore, what God is going to do to you is like the Pharaoh, harden your heart harder that through being so haughty, you may fall far, hard, and reconsider.

God does not lead you to salvation by your selfish demands, but you will have to be saved His way. He showed Himself to you already with proof. You can't find anything wrong with the proof of His resurrection which is the best proof of all, so why would you believe in Him with a lesser proof? He won't do you parlor tricks. Why would He give you a call, just you, and not anyone else? What makes you think you would recognize Him if He called? Sounds like fantasy anyway.

God wants everyone to believe to be saved by grace through faith, but the fact that there are so many religions just shows how sinful man is. He already came and gave everyone the straight story, but they rejected it and killed Him. He did what you wanted Him to do, and still you reject Him.


I look forward to your reply. The beauty of debate is no matter which argument prevails, both sides reach a better understanding.
The way I was helped by this discussion is I really appreciated this presentation the best,
http://www.johnankerberg.org/catalog/AP.html (http://www.johnankerberg.org/catalog/AP.html)

[Spencer]

Sorry for the lack of reply's lately but I've been rather busy with exams and such. Not to mention the task of replying to this in one sitting is becoming rather daunting. As we keep posting, each argument is going to grow bigger, not to mention we have 5 going at once, so im going to do this one by one if that's fine with you.

For starters there one thing I want to get out of the way.
With or without the existence of god. Something in the universe had to exist without a cause. I don't see how a universe coming into existence without a god is any more illogical than one coming into existence with one.
We have 2 scenarios:
a) Nothing exists, then thing A comes into existence and creates thing B.
b) Nothing exists, then thing B comes into existence.

Why is one more illogical than the other? the both use the same concept of something from nothing. Why does the something have to create a different something to have come from nothing?

Again, sorry for the late reply.

[Churchwork]

I don't see how a universe coming into existence without a god is any more illogical than one coming into existence with one.

Since the preponderance of evidence in nature is for causes then a reasonable person will go with that which leaves us with the only known possibility the uncreated must exist.

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” - Arthur Conan Doyle


We have 2 scenarios:
a) Nothing exists, then thing A comes into existence and creates thing B.
b) Nothing exists, then thing B comes into existence.

Both fail because A and B can't come into existence by themselves due to the preponderance of evidence for trillions of causes and no evidence for causelessness in nature.


Why is one more illogical than the other? the both use the same concept of something from nothing. Why does the something have to create a different something to have come from nothing?

God doesn't come from nothing, but always existed before time came into being. God the Father is spirit. You can't see Him. You don't have that ability; but you can see His Son.

This is the proof of the always existing uncreated who we discover to be personal, love, all-knowing, all-powerful and creates intelligently.


I can't change my mind after i die? Do I lose my free will? I don't get it. It seems like id probably start believing while I'm burning in hell unless some external force inhibits my own will.
Your free will in this life is a choice for forever so due to the construct of given a new spiritual body you won't have a change of mind. It's like people arguing on the train and keep arguing even when they get to the train station and go to their respective towns. They still argue then break off individually into the horizon. Eventually they each find a place, build a small shack and keep repeating the phrase "I told you so." This is what hell will be like for you. That's what you want.

You actually like the burning in hell when you get there as you have a foretaste of it now in your own life. Remember, this is no natural fire that burns out but a spiritual one for eternity.

It would be strange for God to given you an eternity to decide finally to receive His Son. It's like saying God is wrong to judge you unless you are God. Only God gets eternity to decide.

[Spencer]

Perhaps i should have added scenarios c and d.
c) B always exists and always has
d) A always exists then one day decides to make B

What I meant to point out is that both systems contain something without a cause.


As for the Free will in hell thing, I'd prefer we keep it in a different thread as there are already about 6 or 7 arguments being juggled here.

[Churchwork]

Perhaps i should have added scenarios c and d.
c) B always exists and always has
d) A always exists then one day decides to make B

What I meant to point out is that both systems contain something without a cause.
If you claim they exist in nature then what you point out is false since nature can't always have existed because of the exponential progression of conscience and the law of heat death.


If death freezes my will and renders me incapable of free choice anyways then the afterlife is even more meaningless than life.
Death doesn't freeze your free-will. You still maintain your view that you had in the flesh except nothing is available to you to convince otherwise now, since Jesus had already died on the cross in the likeness of flesh and you are no longer in the flesh to receive His atonement once you are resurrected. It's like we all know while in these bodies of flesh and blood our choice really is a choice for forever! Just like the angels once in the spirit their choice was to refuse God it was for forever without redemption available for them, nor will you have any after you are resurrected. Wow! Keep the questions coming.


And if Ill enjoy hell, why would I want to go to heaven? It seems the biggest incentive to follow god is not suffering for eternity. If I've already had a taste of hell, and enjoyed it, I don't see why anyone would bother following God.
Not everyone is like you. Some people love the love of God and the true joy that is in Him. You're suffering now and like it, so suffering for eternity doesn't seem to be a deterrent for you.

[Andy]

I don't think anyone actually wants to go to hell or would look forward to it. That would require a level of masochism unknown to humanity.

[Spencer]

Nono, he assured me I'll like it.
I'm also so wise that it cant be stated without an immensely confusing sentence that would outdo the likes of this one tenfold regarding my deception of others concerning my wisdom by my wisdom itself.

And whats this about nothing existing to change my mind? If I don't believe in hell then GO THERE I will change my mind.

I'd also like to know how I'm suffering right now, I'm very much enjoying life.

[Churchwork]

I don't think anyone actually wants to go to hell or would look forward to it. That would require a level of masochism unknown to humanity.
Don't think of it that way. Think of it this way. Hell is separation from God. You want to be eternally separated from God so God will give you exactly what you want.

You are a Quaker and you said all religious beliefs are equal, so does that mean you believe in universalism that everyone is going to be saved even though very few actually receive the atonement of Christ for our sins which grants eternal life? What about those such as yourself who want to be eternally separated from the true Christ?

To a Christian, these beliefs and attitude that you have seem masochistic, nonetheless.

[Churchwork]

Nono, he assured me I'll like it. I'm also so wise that it cant be stated without an immensely confusing sentence that would outdo the likes of this one tenfold regarding my deception of others concerning my wisdom by my wisdom itself.

And whats this about nothing existing to change my mind? If I don't believe in hell then GO THERE I will change my mind.

I'd also like to know how I'm suffering right now, I'm very much enjoying life.
If it was so confusing the verse I quoted you, why am I able to understand it and you are not? Surely you realize man can have pride in his heart for the sake of self, self-centeredness and self-worship.

If there is nothing God can do nor nothing existing to convince you to have a change of mind, then what other option does God have than to put you in Hell for eternity.

When you get to Hell you won't change your mind. You will be where you want to be. You have a foretaste of Hell even now, so that flavor you have is one you cling to for eternity. Even though God has described it vividly, you still reject Him.

As it turns out the reason you never repent and believe in Christ is because it would be more painful for you to do so than spend an eternity in Hell in your own selfish way of being.

You sent me this private message as one of your contentions against God of the Bible:

I'm not talking about self defense. I'm talking about going aorund killing people who have past records of killing.
If you are talking about the Spanish Inquisition and Crusades, what makes you think that is Christian? Where would Jesus do that?

The Bible speaks against these acts of religious Rome:

"She made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

"Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee [church of Thyatira), because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I will strike her children dead; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searches hearts and minds: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine [of the Roman Church], and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden" (Rev. 14.8; 17.5,7; 2.20,23-24).

If you ask a Catholic priest whether you can take the Bible and comment on it, you will often be told that the Bible is such a mystery that none but the Pope is able to understand it. To those who do not follow such teaching the Lord puts no burden upon them save to keep what they have already learned from Him. It is enough just to keep one's salvation till He comes.

[Spencer]

Silly Churchwork, you jump to conclusions way too fast. What i eman to paint out is the morals you seem to be judging God by are utilitarian. Ironically utilitarianism can be rather subjective which goes against all the arguments for moral objectivity.

[Andy]

You are a Quaker and you said all religious beliefs are equal, so does that mean you believe in universalism that everyone is going to be saved even though very few actually receive the atonement of Christ for our sins which grants eternal life? What about those such as yourself who want to be eternally separated from the true Christ?

To a Christian, these beliefs and attitude that you have seem masochistic, nonetheless.

I do generally believe in Universalism, but what's all of this other stuff about me wanting to be eternally separated from Christ and masochism. I never said anything like that.

[Churchwork]

Silly Churchwork, you jump to conclusions way too fast. What i eman to paint out is the morals you seem to be judging God by are utilitarian. Ironically utilitarianism can be rather subjective which goes against all the arguments for moral objectivity.
I can only respond to what you say. If you meant something else, then you should have said so to begin with.

God says in His word, He works all things for your good, so He is utilitarian. God discloses this in His word, so I am not judging Him, but agreeing with Him. Why create something for no meaningful purpose? It's pointless.

No matter what subjective experience you may have, just know God is objectively moral and objective morals could not exist without God, otherwise they are just subjective relativism which speaks of selfish desires.

You couldn't show utilitarianism goes against moral objectivity. On the contrary, they quite agree. Just because you don't know everything, doesn't mean God's Will will not be done objectively, personally and by His Holy Spirit working in believers intuitively and in their own subjective experiences.

[Churchwork]

I do generally believe in Universalism, but what's all of this other stuff about me wanting to be eternally separated from Christ and masochism. I never said anything like that.
You don't have to say it for something to be true. A person's delusions don't make reality not true. Just as man would be evil to let a rapist out of jail, so God would be evil if He let you out of Hell. Your flesh wanting universalism does nothing to challenge reality that you want to be eternally separated from God in Hell and that Christians find such behavior to be masochistic, since you are insensitive to how unhealthy your mentality is.

[Dare2beFaithful]

Churchwork is this what you wer talking about with atheists everywhere?

OK Andy, You think everyone should be out of hell?? But than there would be people in heaven who didn't embrace the love of GOD. How would that be heaven if it was full of atheists and people like you who want to be away from God forever?
This is why hell has to be real.

[Churchwork]

Yes. They just keep coming and coming wasting my time. After they have gone through their usual arguments they cycle through again and again repetitively. There is no repentance of their mistaken assumption.