According to Trevor the reason I am unable to know his God is because I am cut off from him by my sin.

The only reason you do not know or experience or communicate with God is that you are cut off from Him by your sin…..

I am then informed that if I become a Christian and am cleansed of my sin problem that I will come to know God.

If you became a Christian and had your sin problem removed that would change.

I would be interested in knowing this God. What is the sin that I am committing that is not allowing me to experience this God. Can some Christian please tell me how to remove it? What do I need to do to? What can you show me to make me believe what you are telling me is true?

Views: 1544

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Your question was based on if there is a God, then...

Based on that, I will answer the question. God created everything to work a specific way. But he also created humans with a choice to live the way God intended, or to choose their own way to live. Humans chose not to live the way God designed everything to work, which was sin. Sin is now something that is a part of everyone's life which has caused a separation between us and God. God wanted to make a way for us to be reunited with him again, so he sent Jesus to pay the price of our sins. But he hasn't forced forgiveness on us like some "Christians" seem to think. He gave us a choice. Becoming a Christian is when you repent to God and ask for forgiveness. There is no way to be rid of sin without God cleansing us of it because it is God that we sin against.

I hope that answers your question.

"Becoming a Christian is when you repent to God and ask for forgiveness."

- I can see parallels with my moral system, or at least, there's a moment when you understand it and it blows your mind and you have to lie down and it changes your life. 

@Jeff

Your question was based on if there is a God, then...

Not sure if that is aimed at my question. That is not what I asked. I asked “Who or what is this God you claim to believe is real, that actually exists. Even if I had asked the question “If there is a God” you are still taking it a given that he does exist in your answer.

I mean you start your reply with “God created everything….” Can’t you see that you have assumed or presupposed the existence of this God and then gone on to talk about Him? You need to explain how you know that this particular god exists in the first place before you start explaining about “Sin”.

If I go back to my vampire analogy. If I was telling you that vampires are afraid of garlic you would most likely say to me:

“This is only your claim. It might say so in Bram Stoker’s book that they are but you need to show me that vampires exist in the first place before you can start telling me what they can and can’t do or what they think of mortal humans”. Everything I claimed about vampires would be meaningless if I could not show you that vampires actually existed. The very minimum I would need to do is define what a vampire is and explain why I believed they existed. I would need to persuade you that I was not just talking about something I had taken on faith alone.

Insisting they do exist because they are mentioned in a book would not be good enough for you. If I offered you something to consider you would be better able to see if what I was claiming had any merit and was worthy of further discussion. Does my claim about vampires have any credibility? Is my belief in vampires a justifiable position to hold?

Or from another angle - If I reword your answer above like this:

Your question was based on if there is a Vampire, then...

Based on that, I will answer the question. Vampires created everything to work a specific way.

Is it not obvious that I have assumed the existence of vampires? I have not attempted to answer the “if” part of your question. I have just continued with the claim that there are vampires.

It is the same for me when you say “God created everything…” I know I am repeating myself but I am trying to get you to see it from my point of view. I am not denying what you say is true, I just want to know on what grounds (apart from the Bible) that you think it is true.

From another angle;

Your question was based on if there is a God, then...

Based on that, I will answer the question. God created everything to work a specific way.

The first line relates to “a God” as opposed to just “God”. These are completely different ideas.

I can hold a concept of “a god” in my mind. To me that could be a creator god that brought everything into existence. I can get that and I can even accept that there may some merit to arguments for claiming “a god” is the powerhouse behind everything. Anyone that holds this position is a “deist”.

However you answered the question by saying “God”.  Within the space between your two sentences you have moved to a position of theism. That is you are not arguing for “a god” but for a very specific and particular God. A God that you say you know. A God you claim created humans and sent us His son because of the faults of Adam and Eve. I cannot hold that concept in my mind. It is meaningless to me.

Can you see the distinction I am making? So once again my question is “Will you please tell me how you know this? How do you know that if there is a god that it is your particular God? How do you know it is not some other God that millions of people claim with the same conviction as you do?

If you want me to give your claim that “God exists” any consideration you need to answer these questions. Telling me what you believe is only telling me your subjective opinion. You need to explain what you mean by “God”. If you cannot define any of His attributes then the conversation is over. If you say that “God is beyond our comprehension” then you cannot tell me He is real. You cannot come to know and love something you cannot comprehend. If you can comprehend your God then you should be in a position to explain the concept to me so that I can understand it too.

Jeff - please understand – I am not asking you for proof. I am asking for you to tell me something that will persuade me that what you are claiming is worthy of further discussion. Is that not a reasonable request?

Larry is also looking to understand about “God” and he know most things already.

I was responding to Onyango when he said,

"My question is why would the condition for their good removing sin be pegged to being a christian? If sin offends god, would it matter to the god whether one were a christian or not as long as the sin was removed?"

His question was based on the assumption that God is real. That's why I started with that assumption also. 

As for your question, I thought I already gave an answer when I talked about looking at the life of Jesus.

So Jesus created the Universe? I still don't understand you. What do we know of the life of Jesus apart from that written in the Bible. Where can I find info on the life of Jesus? The Muslims say the same thing to me about the prophet Muhammad's life but they don't see Jesus as a God. How do you know He is. Have you any evidence to offer me that what you are claiming is true?

Apart from the Bible, we know that Jesus is the founder of Christianity, although it was the Romans who labeled them Christians. We know that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. We know that Pontius Pilate had Jesus crucified. We know that very soon after Jesus' death, Christianity became very popular very fast. 

As for resources besides the Bible that talk about Jesus, I already gave a link for an ancient document written by Cornelius Tacitus. There are other non-Christian documents that talk about Jesus, but I don't think any of them go into a lot of detail.

Why are you so quick to assume that the Bible is not historically reliable (specifically about Jesus)? It is true that there is a lot of debate about just how accurate the gospels are, but I think very few scholars, if any, completely reject the account of Jesus according to the gospels.

The gospel of Luke I think is one that is considered to be very accurate by many historians. In the gospel of Luke, the writer provides a significant amount of historical background information. He included information such as, 

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. - Luke 2:2

Here's another one. 

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. - Luke 3:1-2 

These are just two of many examples. From my understanding, the historical background information presented in the gospel of Luke has been carefully reviewed by scholars and found to be extremely accurate. Here is a link that provides more information.

http://www.ichthus.info/Luke/intro.html 

I know that this by itself is not enough to declare the whole thing reliable. But it is a start and does show the good possibility that at other parts (if not the whole thing) of the gospel are accurate. 

Why are you so quick to assume that the Bible is not historically reliable (specifically about Jesus)? It is true that there is a lot of debate about just how accurate the gospels are, but I think very few scholars, if any, completely reject the account of Jesus according to the gospels.

The gospel of Luke I think is one that is considered to be very accurate by many historians. In the gospel of Luke, the writer provides a significant amount of historical background information. He included information such as,

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. - Luke 2:2

Here's another one.

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2 during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. - Luke 3:1-2

These are just two of many examples. From my understanding, the historical background information presented in the gospel of Luke has been carefully reviewed by scholars and found to be extremely accurate. Here is a link that provides more information.

Here you are using the Bible to prove the Bible. I can do the same with my Dracula book to claim vampires are real.

If you want I can introduce you to plenty of scholarly articles – not written by Christian apologist on a confirmation bias hunt to show that the historical Jesus is just as unlikely to have existed.

However even if I grant you that the person of Jesus did indeed exist, how do you get to claiming he created the Universe or know what you are thinking. How do you know He is “divine” unless you are just believing what the Bible says? If that is the case then you are just taking it all on Faith. That is ok with me if you will just admit that. If you insist it is more than just faith then ONCE AGAIN I must ask you to explain how you moved from faith to certainty. What can you share with me so I come to know your God? Why can someone give me a straight answer?

Here is something to start with on Biblical reliability with a link to a good video.

You asked me where you could learn about Jesus. I told you what can be learned from sources other than the Bible. Then I gave evidence supporting the accuracy of just one book of the Bible. I was not trying to prove what the Bible says based on the Bible. I was giving evidence that the life of Jesus as recorded in the book of Luke is at least partially accurate.

Then you show me something that claims there are many contradictions throughout the whole Bible instead of addressing what I claimed about the book of Luke.

You don't believe Jesus ever existed? Again, I'm no historian and I don't know all the reasons to believe he was real, but I do know that the vast majority of historians claim Jesus was a real person. 

I will admit, it does require some faith to believe Jesus is God. Faith, however, does not mean there is an absence of evidence. 

I will admit, it does require some faith to believe Jesus is God. Faith, however, does not mean there is an absence of evidence.

Finally we are making progress. I have been asking what this evidence is that is not faith based that you have. I can find no evidence for your God. Will you tell me what it is so I will understand it is not absent? Do you have any without citing the Bible? I am not talking about Jesus. I am asking about God, the Creator.

BTW I never mentioned Jesus. Please read my original question.

You still disregarded my comment about at least parts of the gospel of Luke being historically reliable. 

I wasn't trying to prove the Bible based on the Bible. I was trying to show that we can trust at least some of Luke. I wanted to do this because most of the information we have on Jesus comes from the 5 gospels.

Your original question was, "“Who or what is this God you claim to believe is real, that actually exists?" I brought up Jesus because I believe Jesus is the son of God and, therefore, points toward God.

@ Jeff

Yes I am disregarding your comments. You are claiming that part of the Bible is trustworthy because you believe it is. That is just your claim. Even if Jesus did exist you are still “making a leap of faith” that he is the son of God. You are making the case that God exists because of what the Bible says. I admitted you made some progress and opened up a new thread to discuss it further. If you have nothing else apart from the Bible then please be honest about it and admit that your belief is based on your faith alone. If not please tell me what else you have but in the new thread if you don’t mind.

Ok Reg. I will make a comment on that other thread when I get a chance.

RSS

© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service