The John 3:16 & 4:16 flaw?

Originally posted by queeq
In other words: a christian dog?

No, I wasn't calling him a dog.

You insinuated that he barked... 😉

Originally posted by queeq
You insinuated that he barked... 😉

And?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bark

"a:to make the characteristic short loud cry of a dog b: to make a noise resembling a bark" - 😉

Love your ava BTW.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
not a cosmic evangelism crusade [Hebrews 9:27].

Yeah, that's what life is for!

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I respectfully decline to debate with my brothers and sisters who espouse free will, I also respectfully decline to defend it in answer to your challenge.

Originally posted by Devil King
Religious people rarely engage others who think as they do in any seriouse biblical discussion.

Dk scores.

However, in Trouts defense... posting postcards like that is not really a 'serious biblical discussion'.... then again, Trout is mostly discussing on his own. 😉

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is fine and all, but the answer I was looking for was faith. There comes a point were you believe what you believe because you have faith that it is true. That is the place were we all meet, and share the same belief. You cannot prove the bible to be true, and if you did, it would be irrelevant. Faith is all we really have.

Well...I'm terribly sorry I didn't catch that. (Note to self: Only tell Shaky what he wants to hear.) Thanks for clearing that up. 😛

While I do not dispute the necessity of faith, since as a Christian I believe it is essential to a person's life and destiny, I would want to examine an important question: "Faith in what?"

To provide a logical response to your earlier challenge, I must have some factual, logical, substantive basis for the discussion. That basis remains the Bible. Different Christians believe the Bible for different reasons. God doesn't really care WHY someone believes His Word, as long as they do. In my case, I find the literary and historical evidence in support of the Bible convincing, and the evidence against the Bible weak (at best).

If my faith comes in to play on the issue of biblical authority, it is the same sort of self-extending certitude one might use when serving on a jury. The law does not require that a prosecutor prove guilt beyond ALL doubt, but only beyond all reasonable doubt. Can I prove the Bible true beyond all doubt? No, I cannot. But I believe the evidence supporting the Bible is sufficiently cogent to justify my belief in the Bible.

Originally posted by queeq
"a:to make the characteristic short loud cry of a dog b: to make a noise resembling a bark" - 😉

Love your ava BTW.

"to advertise by persistent outcry <barking their wares>" Hence the reason I said "no", when you first asked.

Thanks.

Did I tell you I wasn't entirely serious about the dog comment? 😉

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Well...I'm terribly sorry I didn't catch that. (Note to self: Only tell Shaky what he wants to hear.) Thanks for clearing that up. 😛

While I do not dispute the necessity of faith, since as a Christian I believe it is essential to a person's life and destiny, I would want to examine an important question: "Faith in what?"

To provide a logical response to your earlier challenge, I must have some factual, logical, substantive basis for the discussion. That basis remains the Bible. Different Christians believe the Bible for different reasons. God doesn't really care WHY someone believes His Word, as long as they do. In my case, I find the literary and historical evidence in support of the Bible convincing, and the evidence against the Bible weak (at best).

If my faith comes in to play on the issue of biblical authority, it is the same sort of self-extending certitude one might use when serving on a jury. The law does not require that a prosecutor prove guilt beyond ALL doubt, but only beyond all reasonable doubt. Can I prove the Bible true beyond all doubt? No, I cannot. But I believe the evidence supporting the Bible is sufficiently cogent to justify my belief in the Bible.

So, you have faith that the bible is true. A Muslim has faith that the Koran is true, and I have faith that the Lotus Sutra is true. Why is your faith better then the rest?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you have faith that the bible is true. A Muslim has faith that the Koran is true, and I have faith that the Lotus Sutra is true. Why is your faith better then the rest?

While faith plays a role in my recognition of the Bible, my faith is based on the evidence -- just as a juror's verdict must be based on the evidence. I believe my holy book is superior to all others, because I believe my evidence is superior to all others. In the end, all our human subjectivities won't amount to a hill of beans. If the Muslims are right, for example, then we are both doomed infidels. But I believe that the anecdotal, historical and literary evidence points to the Bible, not the Koran, so I'm betting on the evidence.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
While faith plays a role in my recognition of the Bible, my faith is based on the evidence -- just as a juror's verdict must be based on the evidence. I believe my holy book is superior to all others, because I believe my evidence is superior to all others.

If the evidence seemed more in favor of the Koran, would you change your mind?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
In the end, all our human subjectivities won't amount to a hill of beans. If the Muslims are right, for example, then we are both doomed infidels.

I don't seem to be aware of that particular bit of theology.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Well, let's here it from the Bible.

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously, and godly in this present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of OUR GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR, CHRIST JESUS; who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." [Titus 2:11-14/NASB]

😂

lets see, which verse should I pick for this response? I think I'll pick 1 John 5:7-8 😄

There is a huge list of references on both sides of the argument. Who cares? All it does is prove that some of them are literal and the rest are metaphorical.

Actually, there are three possibilities:
[list=a]
[*]The contradictions (as so many non-Christians have already pointed out) are proof that the Bible is untrue.
[*]The references to the Godhead as 1 being are metaphorical while the references to the Godhead as 3 are literal.
[*]The references to the Godhead as 3 beings are metaphorical while the references to the Godhead as 1 are literal.
[/list=a]

I don't see how any of the references prove either view...including Titus 2:11-14.

Originally posted by Quark_666
If the evidence seemed more in favor of the Koran, would you change your mind?

I don't seem to be aware of that particular bit of theology.

I think only a fool would espouse a religion he knows to be false. If the evidence supported Islam or some other faith, then by all means I would pursue it.

But remember...I don't simply subscribe to a theology. I began with the literary/historical evidence, learned to trust the Bible, then ultimately entered into a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ by faith. It is Jesus who makes Christianity superior to all other religions. Thus my faith isn't so much in a book, but in a Person. As directed by Scripture, I have trusted Jesus as my Savior and acknowledged Him as my Lord. The tangible evidence of my own life, as empowered by the Holy Spirit, is entirely unshakable.

Unfortunately, it is meaningless to put forth one's own experiences as evidence. That is why I avoid saying things like "Jesus has radically changed my life and He can do the same for yours." As true as that statement might be, it is not a valid basis for debate. Any religious person might claim to have had momentous spiritual experiences. Nevertheless, you will generally find most evangelicals cemented firmly in their convictions because those convictions are based on a personal knowledge of God the Son, and not just the theoretical propositions of a religion.

As for the doom of infidels, I understand from my limited comprehension of Islamic theology that Allah will judge those who reject his authority (like I do), reject his prophet Mohammad (like I do), and claim that God exists as three persons (like I do). I do not pretend to understand the Muslim conception of hell, but it seems to me Allah doesn't spank infidels gently.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
If I took responsibility for my own destiny, I would be placing myself on the same path you're walking -- the road to destruction. I've been there and I'm not going back. Only God has the power to rescue a person from sin and death. Only God has the wisdom to help a person live life to the fullest.

God's teachings are often hard to take. Jesus once said some things that made people so mad, crowds of them refused to follow Him anymore. He turned to the twelve disciples and asked them if they were leaving too. Simon Peter answered:

"Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." [John 6:68/NIV]

And likewise Tim Rout answers: Where else can I go? You, Jesus, are the only one who has the eternal life I need.

Self-righteousness is a stumbling block for many. But an honest person can see his own faults. An introspective person can even discern his utter moral poverty before God. And a wise person knows enough to repent and receive God's forgiveness before the clock runs out.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
You are correct in asserting that some Christians believe in free will. This includes most Eastern Orthodox theologians, most Roman Catholic theologians, and most Arminian Protestants.

That said, I belong to a slightly different subdivision of Protestantism known as the Reformed (or Calvinist) tradition. We believe free will is essentially an illusion. All my former arguments are based on a Calvinistic hermeneutic. You are therefore asking me to comment on a doctrine (free will) that I do not espouse.

However, you point out a serious dilemma theologians have been discussing for centuries. If free will is true, then God is a tyrant if He doesn't offer salvation to absolutely everyone. This has led some Arminians to postulate alternative theories.

Some Arminians have suggested that God gives the uninformed a chance to choose for or against Jesus the moment after death. However, this runs contrary to the Bible's assertion that death is followed by summary judgment, not a cosmic evangelism crusade [Hebrews 9:27].

Other Arminians have suggested that God simply pardons the uninformed out of hand. But again, this is inconsistent with the Bible's teaching on human conscience; specifically, that God will judge people based on their general knowledge of His holy nature reflected in the creation [Romans 1:18-20]. It is clear from the context that such general revelation is sufficient to condemn people for their sins, but insufficient to direct them to Christ.

Belief in free will is common among Christians. Unfortunately, it is not common in the pages of the Bible. While I respectfully decline to debate with my brothers and sisters who espouse free will, I also respectfully decline to defend it in answer to your challenge.

And finally, I would like to address your last remark about those of my "ilk" -- I take it you mean Bible believing Christians -- who attribute human qualities to God. While some Christians have doubtless done this, my arguments are free from such abstractions. The qualities I attribute to God, are the qualities He attributes to Himself in the pages of Scripture. It is simple to see where you went off course in your logic. Evangelical theology is no easy discipline.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
my faith is based on the evidence

😂

if there was much evidence, then there would be little need for faith.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well I guess this discussion is over then. I can't respect someone who won't be willing to take control of his life.

Originally posted by Quark_666
😂

lets see, which verse should I pick for this response? I think I'll pick 1 John 5:7-8 😄

There is a huge list of references on both sides of the argument. Who cares? All it does is prove that some of them are literal and the rest are metaphorical.

Actually, there are three possibilities:
[list=a]
[*]The contradictions (as so many non-Christians have already pointed out) are proof that the Bible is untrue.
[*]The references to the Godhead as 1 being are metaphorical while the references to the Godhead as 3 are literal.
[*]The references to the Godhead as 3 beings are metaphorical while the references to the Godhead as 1 are literal.
[/list=a]

I don't see how any of the references prove either view...including Titus 2:11-14.

Option (d): The references to the Godhead as 3, and the references to the Godhead as 1 are equally literal. Remember, Christian orthodoxy proposes only one God, existing eternally as three co-equal persons. You invent condradiction where none exists.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Option (d): The references to the Godhead as 3, and the references to the Godhead as 1 are equally literal. Remember, Christian orthodoxy proposes only one God, existing eternally as three co-equal persons. You invent condradiction where none exists.