Unbeliever Struggles with a Biblical Truth.

[Nam]

It only seems pointless to those who already find it pointless. Living here doesn't seem pointless. Living on a planet that rains glass all the time would seem pointless unless we're glass ourselves.

-Nam

[Andy S.]

Yes to me God is fact, but to you he's not cus I can't prove he exist.

It seems inconsistent for you to say out of one side of your mouth, "To me God is fact"......

And out of the other side, "God has always been possible and I hope that he is."

If God is "fact" to you then you should also say, "God indisputably exists and I am sure of this".  It seems inconsistent to use the words "possible" and "hope" if something is a "fact" to you.

Maybe I take you too "literal" though.  Maybe I should read one of your statements as a metaphor.  I just don't know which one.

No problem with the typos.  Actually, maybe I don't have to read one of your statements as a metaphor.  Maybe it was a typo.  Maybe you meant to say, "To me God is an act" instead of "God is a fact".    

[80sChild]

Yes to me God is fact, but to you he's not cus I can't prove he exist.

It seems inconsistent for you to say out of one side of your mouth, "To me God is fact"......

And out of the other side, "God has always been possible and I hope that he is."

If God is "fact" to you then you should also say, "God indisputably exists and I am sure of this".  It seems inconsistent to use the words "possible" and "hope" if something is a "fact" to you.

Maybe I take you too "literal" though.  Maybe I should read one of your statements as a metaphor.  I just don't know which one.

No problem with the typos.  Actually, maybe I don't have to read one of your statements as a metaphor.  Maybe it was a typo.  Maybe you meant to say, "To me God is an act" instead of "God is a fact".    

No its not, I guess cus I don't  try and force my belief on you and Im not angry and pushy you are uncomfortable with me being open to listening to others opinions. I do not remember the comment you keep trying to tell me about, maybe I made a mistake in my writing or maybe I just can't be perfect enough with my words and can't explain myself well enough for you. Do not worry about my beliefs, they have been the same for a long time, maybe you should ask yourself why you have such a problem with me listening to you and trying to see your views as I wish others would see mine. There is nothing wrong with being respectful of others. You are mean and if you think God is an act that is your right to think that, you do not see me making fun of your logic.

[Andy S.]

I do not remember the comment you keep trying to tell me about

Wow, what a short memory.  It was just over 12 hours ago.  In the thread "The best evidence of the Christian God that can be produced is..." you state, "God has always been possible and I hope that he is." (post #29)

I repeat, this is inconsistent with you saying "To me God is fact".

maybe I made a mistake in my writing

Did you?

Do not worry about my beliefs, they have been the same for a long time

Soooo.....your beliefs have been inconsistent for a long time?

maybe you should ask yourself why you have such a problem with me listening to you and trying to see your views as I wish others would see mine.

What???  I don't have a problem with you listening to me.  I'm trying to understand your views but from what I have gathered so far from this 12+ hour period is that some of your views are inconsistent.   

There is nothing wrong with being respectful of others.

I agree.

You are mean

Whoa.....what happened to being respectful to others?

if you think God is an act that is your right to think that

80sChild, that was a joke.  Hence the cheesy smiley face.  You said, "sorry for all my typos" and I tried to make a cheesy joke.  Sorry you missed the cheesy humor.  I never said, "I think God is an act".  I mentioned it as a possible typo to play off your unnecessary apology for your typos.   

you do not see me making fun of your logic.

I was only pointing out the obvious inconsistencies in your views.  I'm all ears if you want to clear anything up for me.

There is a big difference between you and me.  When someone points out an inconsistency in my logic....I say thank you. 

[Boots]

I think the fall in the green had to happen, its the only way we were ever going to acquire free will .

what the what????

that was suppose to say garden not green lol. my bad.

I knew what you meant.  My "what the what??" stands, because I find that a ridiculous non-sequitur.

Adam & Eve had to disobey God in order for me to have free will??  I say again, "what the what???"

[80sChild]

I think the fall in the green had to happen, its the only way we were ever going to acquire free will .

what the what????

that was suppose to say garden not green lol. my bad.

I knew what you meant.  My "what the what??" stands, because I find that a ridiculous non-sequitur.

Adam & Eve had to disobey God in order for me to have free will??  I say again, "what the what???"

lol yeah I know!

[80sChild]

I do not remember the comment you keep trying to tell me about

Wow, what a short memory.  It was just over 12 hours ago.  In the thread "The best evidence of the Christian God that can be produced is..." you state, "God has always been possible and I hope that he is." (post #29)

I repeat, this is inconsistent with you saying "To me God is fact".

maybe I made a mistake in my writing

Did you?

Do not worry about my beliefs, they have been the same for a long time

Soooo.....your beliefs have been inconsistent for a long time?

maybe you should ask yourself why you have such a problem with me listening to you and trying to see your views as I wish others would see mine.

What???  I don't have a problem with you listening to me.  I'm trying to understand your views but from what I have gathered so far from this 12+ hour period is that some of your views are inconsistent.   

There is nothing wrong with being respectful of others.

I agree.

You are mean

Whoa.....what happened to being respectful to others?

if you think God is an act that is your right to think that

80sChild, that was a joke.  Hence the cheesy smiley face.  You said, "sorry for all my typos" and I tried to make a cheesy joke.  Sorry you missed the cheesy humor.  I never said, "I think God is an act".  I mentioned it as a possible typo to play off your unnecessary apology for your typos.   

you do not see me making fun of your logic.

I was only pointing out the obvious inconsistencies in your views.  I'm all ears if you want to clear anything up for me.

There is a big difference between you and me.  When someone points out an inconsistency in my logic....I say thank you. 

Thank you...

[Andy S.]

Thank you...

Wow, a "thank you" for pointing out the inconsistency in your logic!  Maybe we aren't so different after all. 

I hope the "..." means you might want to further engage in dialogue.

Sorry we kind of got off to a rough start.  I'll take the blame as I can sometimes be harsh. 

Since you acknowledged your logic was inconsistent can I ask: 

1.  Do you still believe God is always "possible" and do you still "hope" that he is?

or

2.  Is God still a "fact" to you?

or

3.  Do you still hold to your inconsistent belief that God is "fact" and at the same time believe his existence is always "possible" and you "hope" that he is?   

[80sChild]

Thank you...

Wow, a "thank you" for pointing out the inconsistency in your logic!  Maybe we aren't so different after all. 

I hope the "..." means you might want to further engage in dialogue.

Sorry we kind of got off to a rough start.  I'll take the blame as I can sometimes be harsh. 

Since you acknowledged your logic was inconsistent can I ask: 

1.  Do you still believe God is always "possible" and do you still "hope" that he is?

or

2.  Is God still a "fact" to you?

or

3.  Do you still hold to your inconsistent belief that God is "fact" and at the same time believe his existence is always "possible" and you "hope" that he is?   

I have no problem admitting I made a mistake.

1. I believe in God yes always will. He is always possible because I know He does exist, and I have hope because of Him.

better?

[composer]

Thank you...

Wow, a "thank you" for pointing out the inconsistency in your logic!  Maybe we aren't so different after all. 

I hope the "..." means you might want to further engage in dialogue.

Sorry we kind of got off to a rough start.  I'll take the blame as I can sometimes be harsh. 

Since you acknowledged your logic was inconsistent can I ask: 

1.  Do you still believe God is always "possible" and do you still "hope" that he is?

or

2.  Is God still a "fact" to you?

or

3.  Do you still hold to your inconsistent belief that God is "fact" and at the same time believe his existence is always "possible" and you "hope" that he is?   

I have no problem admitting I made a mistake.

1. I believe in God yes always will. He is always possible because I know He does exist, and I have hope because of Him.

better?

Now show us the unambiguous proofs you refer to?

[80sChild]

   @composer

The things that prove God to me will only sound silly to you and you will pick them apart! I know you!

[Andy S.]

Thank you...

Wow, a "thank you" for pointing out the inconsistency in your logic!  Maybe we aren't so different after all. 

I hope the "..." means you might want to further engage in dialogue.

Sorry we kind of got off to a rough start.  I'll take the blame as I can sometimes be harsh. 

Since you acknowledged your logic was inconsistent can I ask: 

1.  Do you still believe God is always "possible" and do you still "hope" that he is?

or

2.  Is God still a "fact" to you?

or

3.  Do you still hold to your inconsistent belief that God is "fact" and at the same time believe his existence is always "possible" and you "hope" that he is?   

I have no problem admitting I made a mistake.

1. I believe in God yes always will. He is always possible because I know He does exist, and I have hope because of Him.

better?

Better?  No not really.  This sentence is still inconsistent.

Like I said before, it is important to know definitions.  The word "know" has the words "fact", "truth" and "certainty" tied to it. 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/know

So you are basically saying the same inconsistent thing as before.  I think it's inconsistent to use the words "possible" and "know" in the same sentence speaking of God's existence.

I would say a better word to use is "believe".  This word does not have the word "fact" or "certainty" tied to it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/believe

To make your sentence consistent I would change the word "know" to "believe".

 

[80sChild]

Thank you...

Wow, a "thank you" for pointing out the inconsistency in your logic!  Maybe we aren't so different after all. 

I hope the "..." means you might want to further engage in dialogue.

Sorry we kind of got off to a rough start.  I'll take the blame as I can sometimes be harsh. 

Since you acknowledged your logic was inconsistent can I ask: 

1.  Do you still believe God is always "possible" and do you still "hope" that he is?

or

2.  Is God still a "fact" to you?

or

3.  Do you still hold to your inconsistent belief that God is "fact" and at the same time believe his existence is always "possible" and you "hope" that he is?   

I have no problem admitting I made a mistake.

1. I believe in God yes always will. He is always possible because I know He does exist, and I have hope because of Him.

better?

Better?  No not really.  This sentence is still inconsistent.

Like I said before, it is important to know definitions.  The word "know" has the words "fact", "truth" and "certainty" tied to it. 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/know

So you are basically saying the same inconsistent thing as before.  I think it's inconsistent to use the words "possible" and "know" in the same sentence speaking of God's existence.

I would say a better word to use is "believe".  This word does not have the word "fact" or "certainty" tied to it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/believe

To make your sentence consistent I would change the word "know" to "believe".

 

lol Ok!

I believe in God yes always will. He is always possible because I BELIEVE He does exist, and I have hope because of Him.

[Goombah]

My opinion is that the basic requirement means just that....the threshold we cross from non-believer to Christian.

It's sad that you can only have an "opinion" on this topic.  It really is sad.  When I was a Christian, I was saddened when I found out different Christians had different views on the requirements needed for salvation.  All I really had when it came down to nailing down the requirements needed for salvation was what you have......an "opinion".

I had an experience after having met the "basic requirements' listed previously.You introduced the basic requirements from wiki, I think.
your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching in John3:5-6?

  5) Jesus answered, ?I assure you and most solemnly say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot [ever] enter the kingdom of God. 6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh [the physical is merely physical], and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

  I honestly couldn't say I had the "truth" concerning salvation.  There are too many differing views.  I would have been arrogant to say I had the "truth" on what one must do or believe in order to be a true Christian. 

I appreciate your humbleness in saying you only have an "opinion".

Thank you.Your Christianity comes across to me as an intellectual exercise only , not a spiritual one.Would you have claimed to have been 'born-again'?

In addition, the terms "basic requirement" and "Christian" can have multiple meanings depending on the Christian you are talking to. 

That is why I used the ones you provided...nothing too complicated;believe in the life ,death and resurrection of Jesus as comprising the necessary requirements( basic) for the atonement.I've personally read hundreds of testimonies from around the world that peoples salvation was brought about by those requirements alone.

If there were other things necessary then that would expand the basic requirement.

Correct.  But like I said, "basic requirement" can mean different things to different Christians.  Like I pointed out earlier, my former Pastor would say repenting from your sins is a "basic requirement" for salvation.  Would you agree? 

That is met in our basic requirements when one is seeking "atonement".The individual wants something atoned for...call it what you will, Jesus provides it according to belief in  those requirements.

I usually reflect on the 'thief on the cross' to determine necessary requirements.

Luke could have made this whole story up of the "thief on the cross" being kind to Jesus since the author of Matthew and Mark say both robbers that were crucified with Jesus were "insulting" him.

For the sake of argument, I'll lay that aside.

It doesn't have much weight really in my opinion , after all the Roman soldier who proclaimed Him the son of god was in the process of crucifying Him and had a  revelation.

I remember my former pastor preaching a "thief on the cross" message.  Luke 23:40 says, "But the other answered, and rebuking him (the other thief) said, 'Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?'"  My pastor said something like, "even the thief on the cross knew that Jesus was "God"....in verse 40 the thief on the cross called Jesus "God". 

Now, granted, this was his own interpretation.  My former pastor would say one has to understand that Jesus is the one true God if they wanted to be saved.  If you "usually reflect on the 'thief on the cross' to determine necessary requirements" do you think one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved?

The unrepentant thief referred to Jesus as "the Christ".The repentant one rebuked him.He may have meant that Jesus was God at that time or that they were about to answer to God.Not sure."The Christ" would certainly carry a great deal of significance.

If you say yes, then Jst. and Wilson are not saved.  If you say no, I will show you that some Christians believe this despite your "opinion".

I'm not qualified on the basis of my knowledge of these two to be able to disqualify them.

  If a person starts with the belief in the atonement as accepting " the life, death and resurrection of Jesus" ,they are a Christian.

Goombah, Christians have different views on the exact requirements needed for salvation.  My former pastor would disagree with your above statement because of his additional requirements needed for salvation.  He would say many people can accept the "life, death and resurrection of Jesus" and are still not true Christians.

What requirements?

I laid them out in post #16.  You know....the requirement of having to believe that Jesus is the one true God and the requirement of having to repent from your sins. 

Did he think you must be baptised?

I bet Jstwebbrowsing, as a JW, accepts the "life, death and resurrection of Jesus" but my former pastor would say he is not a true Christian because Jst. does not believe that Jesus is the one true God of the old testament.  This is according to my former pastor's interpretation of John 8:24.

My former pastor would also say one can accept the "life, death and resurrection of Jesus" but without repenting from the sins that separates one from God then they cannot be saved or be considered a true Christian.  I believe this was based on his interpretation of Luke 24:47.

what would one seek to have atonement for, then?Isn't that what one accepts the basic teaching to attain?

Goombah, you will have to forgive me.  It's late and I don't know if I quit understand these questions. 

I'll try to answer but sorry if I miss the mark.  Luke 24:47 says that, "...repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed...".  My former pastor interpreted that to mean one must "repent" in order to be forgiven (or saved).

This is the statement from wiki:
"According to Christian belief, salvation is made possible by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, which in the context of salvation is referred to as the "atonement"."

I don't know people who would link salvation with the beliefs laid out there then refer to it as the 'atonement' without it encompassing "sin'' as we call it or'bad behavior' or 'going down the wrong path' or whatever.It tells me an individual is seeking for something in their life to be atoned for and Jesus is the means.
Remember I'm only referring to necessary 'basic requirements" to originate ones life as a christian.

[Andy S.]

My opinion is that the basic requirement means just that....the threshold we cross from non-believer to Christian.

It's sad that you can only have an "opinion" on this topic.  It really is sad.  When I was a Christian, I was saddened when I found out different Christians had different views on the requirements needed for salvation.  All I really had when it came down to nailing down the requirements needed for salvation was what you have......an "opinion".

I had an experience after having met the "basic requirements' listed previously.You introduced the basic requirements from wiki, I think.

I'm going to interpret this as you "think" the basic requirements are revealed by wiki.

If so, then I thank you for using the words "I think" instead of "I know".  I commend you for your honesty.  However, from here on out I can't be certain you know what you are talking about because when you use the words "I think" it means you are not completely certain.  And not being completely certain what the basic requirements are for salvation should be a major concern.

Please let me know if my interpretation is wrong.

your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching in John3:5-6?

  5) Jesus answered, ?I assure you and most solemnly say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot [ever] enter the kingdom of God. 6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh [the physical is merely physical], and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

I have to be honest, I don't even know what Jesus is exactly teaching here.  These verses are really ambiguous to me. 

I don't know what "born of water" means.

I don't know what a "spirit" is exactly.

I'm not even too sure what the "kingdom of God" is exactly.  Is it present or future?

Quick side note: I asked my wife what these verses meant to her because I value her opinion and what she said amazed me.  I never thought of being "born of water" meant baptism but she said she heard verse 5 all the time in her pentecostal church as evidence that one must be baptized in order to be saved.  Her pastor said "born of water" was an idiom for being baptized.  I had no idea some pentecostal pastors made baptism a requirement.  I do remember going to her church quit a bit as a youth though and every time I went, there was someone getting baptized in the tub on stage.

I never thought it was a requirement for salvation within her church but I guess it was.  I'd like to hear your interpretation of what "born of water" means but I have a feeling you might be starting your sentence with "I think..." instead of "I know....".   

Your Christianity comes across to me as an intellectual exercise only , not a spiritual one.Would you have claimed to have been 'born-again'?

Yes, I claimed I was "born-again".  The day was June 8th, 2009.  I repented from the things I thought God was displeased with in my life.  In short, no more partying and I spent most of my "extra time" bible thumpin' and listening to Christian radio/podcasts.  My focus in life changed that day and I tried to be the best witness for Jesus as possible.  I wanted to not only talk the talk but also walk the walk.   

From childhood, I always believed in the "life, death and resurrection" of Jesus but on that day (June 8th) I would say I started my personal relationship with Jesus Christ as a "true Christian".   

That is why I used the ones you provided...nothing too complicated;believe in the life ,death and resurrection of Jesus as comprising the necessary requirements( basic) for the atonement.

You mean the ones that wiki used.  Sorry if you thought I said that these were the basic requirements.  Looking back, I can see why this would have been confusing.  I will clear the record now....I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE EXACT (BASIC) REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR SALVATION ARE WITHIN CHRISTIANITY!

I have heard too many different "basic requirements" from too many Christians.  There is no way I could ever say, "The bible clearly says the basic requirements for salvation are....".  I would have to be honest like you and say, "In my opinion, the basic requirements are....".

By the way, you say believing in the "life ,death and resurrection of Jesus is comprising the necessary requirements( basic) for the atonement".  I'm not too sure I could have even agreed with this when I was a Christian.  One argument off the top of my head would have been the story of Zaccheus (Luke 19:1-10).  I don't think Zaccheus had to believe in Jesus' resurrection in order to be saved.  Jesus said, "Today salvation has come to this house" after seeing that Zaccheus was a repentant man.  The text doesn't say Zaccheus had to first believe that Jesus was going to die and be resurrected in order to be saved.   

   

I've personally read hundreds of testimonies from around the world that peoples salvation was brought about by those requirements alone.

You can't be certain of this.  Remember, you only have an opinion.  You can't be certain that these people are saved. 

If there were other things necessary then that would expand the basic requirement.

Correct.  But like I said, "basic requirement" can mean different things to different Christians.  Like I pointed out earlier, my former Pastor would say repenting from your sins is a "basic requirement" for salvation.  Would you agree? 

That is met in our basic requirements when one is seeking "atonement".The individual wants something atoned for...call it what you will, Jesus provides it according to belief in  those requirements.

I'm not too sure you answered my question.  If you did can you be more clear.  My former Pastor (Calvary Chapel) would say repenting from all your sins that separate you from God is a "basic requirement" for salvation.  I repeat my question:  Would you agree?

In other words, can someone accept the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and not repent of all their sins that separate them from God and still be saved?  A yes or no will do.

I usually reflect on the 'thief on the cross' to determine necessary requirements.

Luke could have made this whole story up of the "thief on the cross" being kind to Jesus since the author of Matthew and Mark say both robbers that were crucified with Jesus were "insulting" him.

For the sake of argument, I'll lay that aside.

It doesn't have much weight really in my opinion , after all the Roman soldier who proclaimed Him the son of god was in the process of crucifying Him and had a  revelation.

I remember my former pastor preaching a "thief on the cross" message.  Luke 23:40 says, "But the other answered, and rebuking him (the other thief) said, 'Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?'"  My pastor said something like, "even the thief on the cross knew that Jesus was "God"....in verse 40 the thief on the cross called Jesus "God". 

Now, granted, this was his own interpretation.  My former pastor would say one has to understand that Jesus is the one true God if they wanted to be saved.  If you "usually reflect on the 'thief on the cross' to determine necessary requirements" do you think one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved?

The unrepentant thief referred to Jesus as "the Christ".The repentant one rebuked him.He may have meant that Jesus was God at that time or that they were about to answer to God.Not sure."The Christ" would certainly carry a great deal of significance.

If you say yes, then Jst. and Wilson are not saved.  If you say no, I will show you that some Christians believe this despite your "opinion".

I'm not qualified on the basis of my knowledge of these two to be able to disqualify them.

Let me help you.  Jstwebbrowsing and Wilson don't believe that Jesus is the One True God.  Now you have this knowledge.  Are you at least qualified to have an interpretation of a verse?  If you are then what is your interpretation of John 8:24?

Now, I repeat my question that went unanswered:  Do you think one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved? 

  If a person starts with the belief in the atonement as accepting " the life, death and resurrection of Jesus" ,they are a Christian.

Goombah, Christians have different views on the exact requirements needed for salvation.  My former pastor would disagree with your above statement because of his additional requirements needed for salvation.  He would say many people can accept the "life, death and resurrection of Jesus" and are still not true Christians.

What requirements?

I laid them out in post #16.  You know....the requirement of having to believe that Jesus is the one true God and the requirement of having to repent from your sins. 

Did he think you must be baptised?

No.  He was a Calvary Chapel pastor.  My Baptist youth pastor did but not this pastor.  However, he did say that if you gave your life to Christ but did not want to be baptized then you were being disobedient.  You were still saved though.  He believed in once saved always saved.   

This is the statement from wiki:
"According to Christian belief, salvation is made possible by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, which in the context of salvation is referred to as the "atonement"."

So how were people saved before Christ?  What were the exact requirements needed for salvation before Christ?

Remember I'm only referring to necessary 'basic requirements" to originate ones life as a christian.

The word "originate" seems ambiguous to me.  Goombah, do you believe in once saved always saved or can someone lose their salvation?

[Goombah]

My opinion is that the basic requirement means just that....the threshold we cross from non-believer to Christian.

It's sad that you can only have an "opinion" on this topic.  It really is sad.  When I was a Christian, I was saddened when I found out different Christians had different views on the requirements needed for salvation.  All I really had when it came down to nailing down the requirements needed for salvation was what you have......an "opinion".

I had an experience after having met the "basic requirements' listed previously.You introduced the basic requirements from wiki, I think.

I'm going to interpret this as you "think" the basic requirements are revealed by wiki.

If so, then I thank you for using the words "I think" instead of "I know".  I commend you for your honesty.  However, from here on out I can't be certain you know what you are talking about because when you use the words "I think" it means you are not completely certain.  And not being completely certain what the basic requirements are for salvation should be a major concern.

Please let me know if my interpretation is wrong.

That just meant that at the time I wasn't certain ' wiki' was the source.

your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching in John3:5-6?

  5) Jesus answered, ?I assure you and most solemnly say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot [ever] enter the kingdom of God. 6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh [the physical is merely physical], and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

I have to be honest, I don't even know what Jesus is exactly teaching here.  These verses are really ambiguous to me. 

I don't know what "born of water" means.

one or more of these.
The water refers to the natural birth.
The water refers to the Word of God.
The water refers to the Holy Spirit.
The water refers to the ministry of John the Baptist.
The water refers to the water of baptism as a requirement for salvation.

I don't know what a "spirit" is exactly.

The Holy Spirit.For us, the deeper experience beyond the physical, mental or emotional.

I'm not even too sure what the "kingdom of God" is exactly. Is it present or future?

Yes

Quick side note: I asked my wife what these verses meant to her because I value her opinion and what she said amazed me.  I never thought of being "born of water" meant baptism but she said she heard verse 5 all the time in her pentecostal church as evidence that one must be baptized in order to be saved.  Her pastor said "born of water" was an idiom for being baptized.  I had no idea some pentecostal pastors made baptism a requirement.  I do remember going to her church quit a bit as a youth though and every time I went, there was someone getting baptized in the tub on stage.

I never thought it was a requirement for salvation within her church but I guess it was.  I'd like to hear your interpretation of what "born of water" means but I have a feeling you might be starting your sentence with "I think..." instead of "I know....".   

See above.....that's why I say "I think".That list is from men way more learned than I.

Your Christianity comes across to me as an intellectual exercise only , not a spiritual one.Would you have claimed to have been 'born-again'?

Yes, I claimed I was "born-again".  The day was June 8th, 2009.  I repented from the things I thought God was displeased with in my life.  In short, no more partying and I spent most of my "extra time" bible thumpin' and listening to Christian radio/podcasts.  My focus in life changed that day and I tried to be the best witness for Jesus as possible.  I wanted to not only talk the talk but also walk the walk.   

From childhood, I always believed in the "life, death and resurrection" of Jesus but on that day (June 8th) I would say I started my personal relationship with Jesus Christ as a "true Christian".   

Those basic beliefs then became your atonement.Were you immediately baptized or speak in tongues?Were you a Christian before you walked the walk as well as talking the talk?

I would like to continue this discussion but am pressed for time right now.
Thanks....iron sharpens iron.

[Andy S.]

I have to be honest, I don't even know what Jesus is exactly teaching here.  These verses are really ambiguous to me. 

I don't know what "born of water" means.

one or more of these.
The water refers to the natural birth.
The water refers to the Word of God.
The water refers to the Holy Spirit.
The water refers to the ministry of John the Baptist.
The water refers to the water of baptism as a requirement for salvation.

It seems like you are just spitballing here.  Soooo.....I see here that you don't really know what "born of water" means.  You say, that my "Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching in John3:5-6" but then you are not completely sure what John 3:5 really means.  In all due respect, next time you say, "your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching" you might want to give me a verse that YOU, YOURSELF, fully understand.   

I don't know what a "spirit" is exactly.

The Holy Spirit.For us, the deeper experience beyond the physical, mental or emotional.

Can you prove to me that the Holy Spirit is beyond the "mental or emotional"?

In addition,  John3:5 says, "unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot [ever] enter the kingdom of God".  So what you are saying is I have to be "born" with a "deeper experience beyond the physical, mental or emotional". 

How do I get this "deeper experience"?  Can you please define "deeper experience" for me?

Yes, I claimed I was "born-again".  The day was June 8th, 2009.  I repented from the things I thought God was displeased with in my life.  In short, no more partying and I spent most of my "extra time" bible thumpin' and listening to Christian radio/podcasts.  My focus in life changed that day and I tried to be the best witness for Jesus as possible.  I wanted to not only talk the talk but also walk the walk.   

From childhood, I always believed in the "life, death and resurrection" of Jesus but on that day (June 8th) I would say I started my personal relationship with Jesus Christ as a "true Christian".   

Those basic beliefs then became your atonement.

You can't be certain can you?

Were you immediately baptized or speak in tongues?

No.

Were you a Christian before you walked the walk as well as talking the talk?

Now that's a great question!  I have no idea if I was a "true Christian" before June 8th, 2009.  I did accept the "life, death and resurrection" of Jesus before June 8th, 2009 but I didn't feel like I had a personal relationship with Jesus until I repented of all my sins that I thought displeased the Christian God.

However, I will say that I definitely "talked the talk" before June 8th, 2009 but I don't feel like I "walked the walk".

What do you think?  I think I can find verses in the bible that say I was (and wasn't) a Christian before June 8th, 2009.  I'd like to hear your input on this conundrum even though I know you can only give me an opinion.       

I would like to continue this discussion but am pressed for time right now.

I completely understand.  I enjoy this conversation and hope it continues as well. 

I just wish more of my questions could be answered though.  Please take your time but when you get a chance can you answer the questions that went unanswered (below) as well as the ones I asked in this post?  Sorry I have a lot of questions but I am patient.  I will wait.

1.  Can someone accept the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and not repent of all their sins that separate them from God and still be saved?

2.  What is your interpretation of John 8:24?  Is the "I am" a title or is the "am" just a verb? (compare John 8:58) also (Ex. 3:14)

3.  Do you think one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved?

4.  What were the exact requirements needed for salvation before Christ?

5.  Do you believe in once saved always saved or can someone lose their salvation? 

[80sChild]

John 3:5 teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, and the gift of the holy ghost.




1.  someone accept the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and not repent of all their sins that separate them from God and still be saved? No

2.  Can What is your interpretation of John 8:24?  Is the "I am" a title or is the "am" just a verb? (compare John 8:58) also (Ex. 3:14) We must believe in Jesus to have our sins removed or we will die in sin. verb
3.  Do you think one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved? You must believe in Jesus, John 3:16 says it all.
4.  What were the exact requirements needed for salvation before Christ? Since the fall of man the basis of salvation's always been the death of Christ, faith has always been part of salvation, Abraham had faith that God had a plan for sin.

5.  Do you believe in once saved always saved or can someone lose their salvation? You can lose it if you lose your faith.

[Andy S.]

John 3:5 teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, and the gift of the holy ghost.




1.  someone accept the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and not repent of all their sins that separate them from God and still be saved? No

2.  Can What is your interpretation of John 8:24?  Is the "I am" a title or is the "am" just a verb? (compare John 8:58) also (Ex. 3:14) We must believe in Jesus to have our sins removed or we will die in sin. verb
3.  Do you think one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved? You must believe in Jesus, John 3:16 says it all.
4.  What were the exact requirements needed for salvation before Christ? Since the fall of man the basis of salvation's always been the death of Christ, faith has always been part of salvation, Abraham had faith that God had a plan for sin.

5.  Do you believe in once saved always saved or can someone lose their salvation? You can lose it if you lose your faith.

Thanks for chiming in 80s Child. 

I have a few follow-up questions for you.  But first, can you answer my question from post #24?  Cut and paste - Do you think your view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) is based on "truth" or "opinion"?

I'm also curious if Goombah (a Christian) agrees with all of this.  At the very least, I don't think he would agree with your first statement.  I don't think he would say baptism is necessary for salvation.

The majority of the time I bring up the topic of salvation on a forum I always find Christians disagreeing with one another.  Why do you think this is?

If I was your God and was the one who inspired people to write a book that laid out the exact requirements needed for salvation and the readers disagreed on what these requirements were.....I would be so ashamed of myself.   

[Goombah]

I have to be honest, I don't even know what Jesus is exactly teaching here.  These verses are really ambiguous to me. 

I don't know what "born of water" means.

one or more of these.
The water refers to the natural birth.
The water refers to the Word of God.
The water refers to the Holy Spirit.
The water refers to the ministry of John the Baptist.
The water refers to the water of baptism as a requirement for salvation.

It seems like you are just spitballing here.  Soooo.....I see here that you don't really know what "born of water" means.  You say, that my "Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching in John3:5-6" but then you are not completely sure what John 3:5 really means.

It seems that there are differing views on the meaning 'born of water"Andy.My personal take on it would be one or all of the first three.1) because Nicodemis refers to re-entering the womb and Jesus' response is both water and "the Spirit" are necessary.He goes on to say that which is born of  flesh (physical)is flesh and contrasts it to Spiritual birth.The next two could occur at the same time as well.I don't know that the thief was baptized by John or his disciples and it doesn't seem possible that he participated in the last one...water baptism.

  In all due respect, next time you say, "your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching" you might want to give me a verse that YOU, YOURSELF, fully understand.   

You claim that you were born again; as was I.To me we both therefore met those requirements, whether knowingly or not, at least according to Jesus' definition of born-again in John 3.I'm certain now that I experienced the first three, Johns baptism I say no and the last one also no, at the time.I knew I was already saved when I finally was able to get baptized..which I think is a  thing  any believer ought to do.

I don't know what a "spirit" is exactly.

The Holy Spirit.For us, the deeper experience beyond the physical, mental or emotional.

Can you prove to me that the Holy Spirit is beyond the "mental or emotional"?

I can't say what would prove it to you, Andy, but multitudes of testimonies  like this one helped establish it for me:

! No longer available

[80sChild]

John 3:5 teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, and the gift of the holy ghost.




1.  someone accept the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and not repent of all their sins that separate them from God and still be saved? No

2.  Can What is your interpretation of John 8:24?  Is the "I am" a title or is the "am" just a verb? (compare John 8:58) also (Ex. 3:14) We must believe in Jesus to have our sins removed or we will die in sin. verb
3.  Do you think one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved? You must believe in Jesus, John 3:16 says it all.
4.  What were the exact requirements needed for salvation before Christ? Since the fall of man the basis of salvation's always been the death of Christ, faith has always been part of salvation, Abraham had faith that God had a plan for sin.

5.  Do you believe in once saved always saved or can someone lose their salvation? You can lose it if you lose your faith.

Thanks for chiming in 80s Child. 

I have a few follow-up questions for you.  But first, can you answer my question from post #24?  Cut and paste - Do you think your view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) is based on "truth" or "opinion"?

I'm also curious if Goombah (a Christian) agrees with all of this.  At the very least, I don't think he would agree with your first statement.  I don't think he would say baptism is necessary for salvation.

The majority of the time I bring up the topic of salvation on a forum I always find Christians disagreeing with one another.  Why do you think this is?

If I was your God and was the one who inspired people to write a book that laid out the exact requirements needed for salvation and the readers disagreed on what these requirements were.....I would be so ashamed of myself.   

John 3:5 teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, and the gift of the holy ghost.




1.  someone accept the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and not repent of all their sins that separate them from God and still be saved? No

2.  Can What is your interpretation of John 8:24?  Is the "I am" a title or is the "am" just a verb? (compare John 8:58) also (Ex. 3:14) We must believe in Jesus to have our sins removed or we will die in sin. verb
3.  Do you think one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved? You must believe in Jesus, John 3:16 says it all.
4.  What were the exact requirements needed for salvation before Christ? Since the fall of man the basis of salvation's always been the death of Christ, faith has always been part of salvation, Abraham had faith that God had a plan for sin.

5.  Do you believe in once saved always saved or can someone lose their salvation? You can lose it if you lose your faith.

Thanks for chiming in 80s Child. 

I have a few follow-up questions for you.  But first, can you answer my question from post #24?  Cut and paste - Do you think your view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) is based on "truth" or "opinion"?

I'm also curious if Goombah (a Christian) agrees with all of this.  At the very least, I don't think he would agree with your first statement.  I don't think he would say baptism is necessary for salvation.

The majority of the time I bring up the topic of salvation on a forum I always find Christians disagreeing with one another.  Why do you think this is?

If I was your God and was the one who inspired people to write a book that laid out the exact requirements needed for salvation and the readers disagreed on what these requirements were.....I would be so ashamed of myself.   

Post #24? About  Deuteronomy 24:16?

I believe it is based on truth.
Christians disagree because they all interpret the bible differently and all think there right.

[Andy S.]

I believe it is based on truth.

Your view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) is based on "truth"???
 
Goombah would say baptism is NOT necessary for salvation.  Is his view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) based on his "opinion" only and not "truth"? 

Christians disagree because they all interpret the bible differently and all think there right.

Why do you think Christians "all interpret the bible differently"?

[Andy S.]

It seems that there are differing views on the meaning 'born of water"Andy.My personal take on it would be one or all of the first three.1) because Nicodemis refers to re-entering the womb and Jesus' response is both water and "the Spirit" are necessary.He goes on to say that which is born of  flesh (physical)is flesh and contrasts it to Spiritual birth.The next two could occur at the same time as well.I don't know that the thief was baptized by John or his disciples and it doesn't seem possible that he participated in the last one...water baptism.

Here are YOUR options to what "born of water" could mean:

The water refers to the natural birth.
The water refers to the Word of God.
The water refers to the Holy Spirit.
The water refers to the ministry of John the Baptist.
The water refers to the water of baptism as a requirement for salvation.

Soooo......you think "born of water" could refer to the "Holy Spirit"?

John 3:5 would then read "....unless one is born of the Holy Spirit and Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Talk about some redundant teaching!

Listen, it's clear you haven't really thought this through.  So I'm going to repeat what I said before:
 
Next time you say to me, "your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching" you might want to give me a verse that YOU, YOURSELF, fully understand.    

You claim that you were born again; as was I.To me we both therefore met those requirements, whether knowingly or not, at least according to Jesus' definition of born-again in John 3.I'm certain now that I experienced the first three, Johns baptism I say no and the last one also no, at the time.

Yes, I claimed I was "born again" but that doesn't mean I had the "Holy Spirit" or was born of "the Word of God" (whatever that means).  The only thing I can say is that, yes, I came from a natural birth.   

Wait, are you saying you know what Jesus' definition of "born-again" is but you are not certain what "born of water" means?

I knew I was already saved when I finally was able to get baptized..which I think is a  thing  any believer ought to do.

I think you mean to say, "IT IS MY OPINION that I was already saved when I finally was able to get baptized".

I can't say what would prove it to you, Andy, but multitudes of testimonies  like this one helped establish it for me:

! No longer available

You say "multitudes of testimonies" helped establish that the Holy Spirit is beyond the "mental or emotional" and then you give me a video entitled "Duncan Campbell's own account".

Ooooooookay.

At what point in this video do you think the Holy Spirit went beyond the "mental or emotional"?

Whatever your answer is to this question do you think, through the means of logic, your answer can be disputed?


Hey Goombah, would you be kind enough to answer my questions that went unanswered again:

1.  Can someone accept the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and not repent of all their sins that separate them from God and still be saved?

2.  What is your interpretation of John 8:24?  Is the "I am" a title or is the "am" just a verb? (compare John 8:58) also (Ex. 3:14)

3.  Do you think one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved?

4.  What were the exact requirements needed for salvation before Christ?

5.  Do you believe in once saved always saved or can someone lose their salvation? 

And one more if you don't mind.  80s Child says baptism is necessary for salvation.  Is her view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) based on "opinion" or "truth"?

[Goombah]

It seems that there are differing views on the meaning 'born of water"Andy.My personal take on it would be one or all of the first three.1) because Nicodemis refers to re-entering the womb and Jesus' response is both water and "the Spirit" are necessary.He goes on to say that which is born of  flesh (physical)is flesh and contrasts it to Spiritual birth.The next two could occur at the same time as well.I don't know that the thief was baptized by John or his disciples and it doesn't seem possible that he participated in the last one...water baptism.

Here are YOUR options to what "born of water" could mean:

The water refers to the natural birth.
The water refers to the Word of God.
The water refers to the Holy Spirit.
The water refers to the ministry of John the Baptist.
The water refers to the water of baptism as a requirement for salvation.

Soooo......you think "born of water" could refer to the "Holy Spirit"?

John 3:5 would then read "....unless one is born of the Holy Spirit and Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Talk about some redundant teaching!

It is and I accept that rebuke.I was thinking of the water as "typical" of the Holy Spirit in different contexts.

I will get to your main questions as soon as time allows.

[80sChild]

I believe it is based on truth.

Your view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) is based on "truth"???
 
Goombah would say baptism is NOT necessary for salvation.  Is his view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) based on his "opinion" only and not "truth"? 

Christians disagree because they all interpret the bible differently and all think there right.

Why do you think Christians "all interpret the bible differently"?

Yes truth as far as what the Bible says.
Goombahs is opinion, he must not read his scriptures before answering.
Christians interpret things differently I guess depending how they were taught, there state if mind at the time of reading the scriptures, and some just want the scriptures to mean whatever they want them to, to make whatever they are doing seem ok or right.   

[Andy S.]

Yes truth as far as what the Bible says.
Goombahs is opinion, he must not read his scriptures before answering.
Christians interpret things differently I guess depending how they were taught, there state if mind at the time of reading the scriptures, and some just want the scriptures to mean whatever they want them to, to make whatever they are doing seem ok or right.   

How do you determine if your interpretation is correct if it depends on what you were taught and the state of mind you are in at the time of reading?

[80sChild]

Yes truth as far as what the Bible says.
Goombahs is opinion, he must not read his scriptures before answering.
Christians interpret things differently I guess depending how they were taught, there state if mind at the time of reading the scriptures, and some just want the scriptures to mean whatever they want them to, to make whatever they are doing seem ok or right.   

How do you determine if your interpretation is correct if it depends on what you were taught and the state of mind you are in at the time of reading?

Its kinda hard to misinterpret what is said about salvation, this is pretty cut and dry. I was talking about other parts of the bible that can be taken so many different ways.

(John 14:6), Jesus said to him, ?I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

(Mark 16:16), "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned".

(1Peter 3:21), "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

(Acts 22:16), "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name."

[none]

Yes truth as far as what the Bible says.
Goombahs is opinion, he must not read his scriptures before answering.
Christians interpret things differently I guess depending how they were taught, there state if mind at the time of reading the scriptures, and some just want the scriptures to mean whatever they want them to, to make whatever they are doing seem ok or right.   

How do you determine if your interpretation is correct if it depends on what you were taught and the state of mind you are in at the time of reading?

Its kinda hard to misinterpret what is said about salvation, this is pretty cut and dry. I was talking about other parts of the bible that can be taken so many different ways.

(John 14:6), Jesus said to him, ?I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

(Mark 16:16), "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned".

(1Peter 3:21), "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

(Acts 22:16), "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name."

so far jesus is a character in a story

[Goombah]

Listen, it's clear you haven't really thought this through.  So I'm going to repeat what I said before:
 
Next time you say to me, "your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching" you might want to give me a verse that YOU, YOURSELF, fully understand.    

You mention that as if I accused you when in reality it was put to you as a question.

You claim that you were born again; as was I.To me we both therefore met those requirements, whether knowingly or not, at least according to Jesus' definition of born-again in John 3.I'm certain now that I experienced the first three, Johns baptism I say no and the last one also no, at the time.

Yes, I claimed I was "born again" but that doesn't mean I had the "Holy Spirit" or was born of "the Word of God" (whatever that means).  The only thing I can say is that, yes, I came from a natural birth. 

If you thought at the time you were born-again I would think you would have learned of the concept through scripture; either by reading it or hearing it.I'm not familiar with the Biblical concept of' 'born-again' that doesn't involve the supernatural.

Wait, are you saying you know what Jesus' definition of "born-again" is but you are not certain what "born of water" means?

Only that of those options I've experienced coupled with being regenerated by the Holy spirit I'm born-again.

I knew I was already saved when I finally was able to get baptized..which I think is a  thing  any believer ought to do.

I think you mean to say, "IT IS MY OPINION that I was already saved when I finally was able to get baptized".

That would be incorrect.I said exactly what I meant to say.

I can't say what would prove it to you, Andy, but multitudes of testimonies  like this one helped establish it for me:

! No longer available

You say "multitudes of testimonies" helped establish that the Holy Spirit is beyond the "mental or emotional" and then you give me a video entitled "Duncan Campbell's own account".

Ooooooookay.

If first hand accounts of events pertinent to my point aren't acceptable , what is?


Thanks.I'll continue to your direct questions as well.

[none]

something empirical
give that a try, lay off the emotion ha