What you want to know about Christ.

This places God in the driver's seat in the convincing of others that a particular set of beliefs is "The Way". So, if Jesus is God:1. Why isn't everyone convinced that Jesus is the savior?2. Why is it considered by most believers (Paul, the apostle, for one) that a lack of being convinced is the fault of the person who doesn't believe?Maybe we should look at it from a different perspective. There seem to be 3 different choices as nator pointed out.1. Your experience was real and it was Jesus providing you with real proof that he exists and is your salvation.2. Your experience was real and it was a demon that calls himself Jesus who is leading you away from the True God(s).3. Your experience was an emotional response to years of conditioning, some strain or stress in your life and an intense desire to find some meaning in this, apparantly, random existance.Admittedly, there is really no means to place quantifiable odds on the probability of any one of these possibilities. The first one seems more probable if God is seen as being able to provide each individual with convincing evidence of His existance. You have to agree that everyone does not appear to see this convincing evidence.
This lack of convincing evidence lends greater weight to the possibility of the other two of nator's options.So, giving each possibility the same probability, it appears that Jesus being the savior is less likely than the other 2 options. If option 2 is broken up into the multiplicity that it really represents (all the different Gods that Jesus could be pretending to usurp), then the probability of option 1 becomes vanishingly small.All the more reason that Jesus should provide convincing evidence of His being God to each individual. And, yet, He does not.Perhaps He lied when He said that He wanted all to come to Him?

And all you've done is assume the higher ground without telling anyone how you got there. You do it unconciously granted, but do it you do all the same. Granted. Gods gaze, in so far as it is utilitarian, is directed at the salvation of mankind viz-a-viz eternity. Whether people die due to Black Death or Atomic Bomb is in that regard, irrelevant. Your utilitarian focus is on the here/now/touch/smell/taste. That you find that "better" is your perogative. Like I said: higher ground assumed. Hmmm. You agree that what a person knows to be the case regarding the nature of 'reality' need not be the case. Which should resolve the question you asked initially. That I know God exists doesn't mean he does necessarily. That I know it is God and not some demon or delusion doesn't mean that that is the case either. My knowing something doesn't make it so - as I have often said.It's precisly the same with you. You know that there is computer screen in front of you but that need not be the case. You could be a brain in a jar. Empiricism doesn't come to the aid of brains in jars telling them they are not brains a jars.It's not that this doesn't mean anything. It's that it's a waste of time considering for longer than it takes to come to the following realisation. When it comes to the reality we perceive ourselves to occupy we both assume that what we perceive to be the case is the case. That my reality contains God and yours does not is (within the confines of the point) neither here nor there. What unifies us - what levels the playing field - is that we both employ precisely the same base assumption.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Sorry. I didn't notice that I had a reply to my last post in this thread. So? Why would that give any god any rights over our lives? It's a purely subjective notion what counts as sin anyways. What gives god the right to decide what's good and bad and to punish those he thinks are bad?(And we won't even go into that half-assed bizarre "death on the cross" way he came up with to get out of this.)

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Technically, it works a little differently. You could envisage it as before/at/post salvation- God attempting to draw a person to salvation. He is attempting to convince them of something. The person can resist this - unto damnation even. There is no need that the person be aware it is God attempting to convince them.- A person at the point of salvation and passing through it. From being a lost person to being a found person. Call it a change of state.- God takes up residence within the person. This includes demonstrating his existance to the person to their complete satisfaction. If not Schrafs As above. That God attempts to save a person doesn't mean a person must be saved. Permission to resist and finally refuse is a God-given right. We are people - not robots. Because the set up of things is such that a person is permitted to escape being convinced. Why does God do this? Well, he gave man will and permits it exercised. I know this to be the case* I know this not to be the case* No harm is most of this. Globally speaking, a man has to come to the end of himself before he will turn to God. God is found at the very bottom of the barrel thus. You can either let the ache draw you. Or you can refuse to be drawn and stuff the ache with all sorts. Each to his own. Not at all. The direct post-salvation evidence of Gods existance although convincing, is not empirical. It is detectable only by those who have been saved and have the necessary "sensory" equipment. Everyone who is saved see's, everyone who is not doesn't. You are not dealing with some homongenous population "Come to me all ye who are heavily laden and I will give you rest".All who are heavily laden. Gods work in bringing a person to the point of salvation is to attempt to place a load upon them that will bring them to halt in their wandering their own path. That's who Jesus was addressing there.Whilst God is Love wants that all men would be saved, God is Wrath will be satisfied that many are not.* that I know something to be the case doesn't mean it is the case anywhere but within the matrix of my reality.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

What gives, Gen? You told me this thread is 'intended to answer anyone's questions about Jesus.'I asked two perfectly valid questions about Jesus. Here they are again: Answers, please.____

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Just something for you to think about Ian. I don't see that being "Born Again" is strictly about being saved. Actually I think being saved for salvation as such is somewhat secondary.The main point I believe is that you become part of the "Kingdom of God" and charged with preparing the present creation for the ultimate "New Creaton". In other words we are saved for a particular vocation in this lifetime. Our task is to spread Jesus' message of love, mercy, justice and truth, and to implement these in the world to the degree that we can, with the help of the Holy Spirit.Jesus died for all, and although I'm not a universalist, I don't accept that new creation is just for those who took on the Christian vocation as a part of the "Kingdom of God" as established by Jesus through his life, death and resurrection.I believe that view is completely scriptural although I don't pretend to be a Biblical scholar, but that view is held by others who are Biblical scholars.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Having difficulty finding the verses to support your claims?Edited by Brian, : No reason given.

Is any spiritual experience that anyone, anywhere has ever that they felt was genuine, really was? According to you, the way that people are convinced is through God convincing them, right?Also, do you think it is impossible for someone to imagine that they have had a real spiritual experience?

I’ve taken the liberty of rewriting the above to reflect what I think you meant - although I suspect you haven’t taken in the point already made.Like, when you say “real” what do you mean? I have already made the point (with which you agreed) that even our knowing something (a grade up from ”felt was genuine’) doesn’t mean it is actually the case in absolute reality. “Real in our perception of reality” is about the best that can be said by anyone - whether the experience is spiritual or run-of-the-mill empirically demonstrable. According to me, the way people are convinced of anything at all is down to “the anything” presenting itself/being presented to the person in some way that permits conviction to occur. When we are talking conviction (as opposed to some weaker, more tentative level of knowledge) the thing itself needs to make an appearance. That is how God convinces. Christianity does not rely on a blind-faith kind of faith. Not in the least. I think people imagine “real” spiritual experiences all the time. I suspect that people dabbling in such things write-off real spiritual experiences as imagination too. In supposing all this to be the case I am using what I know to be real (w.r.t. my perception of reality) as a baseline against which to compare others spiritual experiences.

There is a lot that could be said about it. Salvation from sin is but a facet of the diamond. Me? I think this whole gig is all about God having kids. Like order kids. ...with a view to being the delivery mechanism by which others are made sons. Ultimately I would hold that the point of our being saved (and others not) is to glorify God. That he be vindicated in all he does. Our task is also to talk about the terrifying wrath of God. It belongs just as much as the other aspects you mention. I believe Jesus work was sufficient for all but not effective for all.Abraham didn't believe in Jesus Christ - he just believed what God said and was 'saved' I suppose there will be many in the kingdom who have never heard of Jesus Christ

I've only got a minute so I'll only respond to this statement. When Jesus talks about the "Kingdom of God" I believe that He was talking about the kingdom that he established with the Holy Spirit through His death and resurrection. The "Kingdom of God" is here and now, and is the new Israel.New Creation, with the coming together of our dimension, (for lack of a better term) and God's dimemsion in an act of re-creation, is something else again.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:18-20.Ok, verse 20 is basically saying that God's power and divine nature has been able to be seen, through what he has created on earth. This doesn't mean that a child in Africa who had never heard of God would know that he existed, but it does mean that the child might wonder if there was a greater power. I think that this verse is more meaning that God's creation proves that there is a God to those who have heard of him, if you can see my meaning? The first two verses (18 & 19) talk about men suppressing the truth, that God has made evident to them, right? To supress the truth, wouldn't you have to know the truth in the first place? So its basically saying that if you know the truth, but you suppress it, then God will be very angry with you. For Jesus tells us to '"Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation."' Mark 15:16. That doesn't sound like suppressing the truth to me.
Thanks for your input.You are most welcome. I think that the world would be better if people greeted others with blessings in the name of Jesus rather than using his holy name as a curse.May you be truly blessed by God. I pray you will come to know him as your Saviour.

None of us know matter of factly, but it is my preferred belief(which seems plausible to me) that Jesus did remain celibate all his life and that his form of release was sublimated from the physical to the spiritual. Perhaps the sublimated tension was the impetus for Him spontaneously healing or delivering another person through touch.

quote:

---

Not in the least. I think people imagine “real” spiritual experiences all the time. I suspect that people dabbling in such things write-off real spiritual experiences as imagination too. In supposing all this to be the case I am using what I know to be real (w.r.t. my perception of reality) as a baseline against which to compare others spiritual experiences.

---

So, is there any way to tell the difference between a genuine spiritual experience with God, a real one that you are led to believe is from god but is from the Devil or a demon, and an imagined one?The difference between "real" and "imagined" is like the difference between dreaming you are flying and actually flying when you are awake such that you can demonstrate this ability to others in some manner.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Why is that your preferred belief?Do you have a problem with Jesus humping a few Jewish princesses?If Jesus was a man, then he had male urges. If I was God in a human suit there's hardly a woman on the planet that would be safe!