The Results are in...There is a God! - What now?

God doesn't demand that you love and trust him. He demands that you be righteous. And you're not. Nor can you be under own steam. You sin because you are a sinner according to him.His perogative, you would no doubt agree, to demand that you be righteous; not, you probably wouldn't agree, his fault that you can't comply.He loves you even though you haven't earned it and has earned your love and trust in doing what he did so as to give you a way out of your prediciment.Your just not willing to pay up. It should be said that it is not that lack of reciprocation for which you would be damned (in the unfortunate event that that is the road you travel). It will simply be that you remain unrighteous. And it is Gods perogative to damn the unrighteous

To be as sure as you sound you would have to presumably hold that an omnipotent God couldn't create man capable of independant choice and give him dominion over his creation (with all the positive/negative consequences that God could 'write into that job description')On what reasoned basis would you hold to such a view - should you do so. As opposed to simply believing it (which is your free choice of course)

Which is a succinct way of saying that any love we might have for him subsequent to his being made manifest would have trouble in being freey given.Which perhaps explains to those who demand evidence before they will believe why God doesn't provide such outright evidence as to his existance

Love God with all your heart soul and mind. Love you neighbour as yourself. This is the summation of the law of God .But the intention of the law is not that in abiding by it that we will somehow be okay with God. We can't afterall, under own power, follow it. Surely it would be unreasonable for God to set up a requirement that we cannot hope to follow under own steam.But the purpose of the law wasn't what it seems at first flush - the mistake of Religion is to think so. The purpose of the law was to make us realise that we cannot keep the law It means that we never break even the merest letter of Gods law: never selfish, never covetous, never unrighteously angry, never lie, never cheat etc etc. Impossible on our own to achieve. Do you enjoy the smell of coffee? God gave you senses with which to enjoy that smells, touchs, tastes, music, art, excitement. Have you ever had an orgasm? God didn't need to make it any more pleasureble that hunger for food. But he wants that you enjoy pleasure. Do you like being in love? God gave you that ability.If life is bad at times or much of the time, you are pointing the finger at the wrong person. Consider for a moment where most of the misery in the world originates from. From our own sin. Our sin. If your heart truly wanted more indication then more indication you would recieve. Up to an including a personal meeting and coming into relationship with him that would last from whenever that happened until all eternityAnd if your heart doesn't want him (on his terms not yours) you wont's have him.As friend Jar says: its a simple as that

From which stone did you lick this notion Agreed. He is aware you don't love him. Fully aware. And it he doesn't demand that you love him without reason. That would be unreasonable. The only way you can love God is to know him. It follows that the initial step is to get to know God, not to jump to thinking that you have to love him without knowing him If God exists then his standards are what counts. He can beat any arguement we have hands down because he is in possession of all the facts. We are in possession of only some.

Righteous just means righteous. Jesus was righteous but he wasn't a Christian (any more that Marx was a Marxist). God the Father and Spirit is/are righteous but he isn't a Christian. Moving into our realm: Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness but he wasn't a Christian.The word Christian is a label which applies to people who have believed God and what he says and have had God credit (or exchange) that belief as righteousness. It doesn't matter whether one applies the label Christian to the package, what matters is the contents of the package. Righteous or not.(as an aside: It follows that someone who says they are a Christian may or may not be. The package might have a Christian label but be completely devoid of contents)This message has been edited by iano, 13-Apr-2006 11:56 AMThis message has been edited by iano, 13-Apr-2006 11:57 AM

God knows us and loves us whilst we hate him. If we come to know him it is because he is the one who instigated us coming to know him. Needless to say however that we cannot love him without knowing him so the emphasis should be less on"how can I love a God I do not know?"and more on"How do I get to know God"I think the "began a good work" passage is inappropriate in the context of the current discussion because if God begins a good work he will also complete it. Thats a promise. And not all will get to know God thus it follows that for many, that good work is never started

I haven't followed it to be honest. Faith stirring it up again is she? He is not trying to illicit dependency. We are dependant on him for every single aspect of our being already. He is just trying to get us to recognise and accept (free willingly) that fact. If it weren't so sad one would have to smile at the idea of folk hanging on a thread over an abyss questioning the purpose of the thread from which they are suspended. Imagine a Jar-like STOP: STEP OUT OF THE VEHICLE sign posted right now. You are drifting off topic. So far the discussion has been about God on the presumption (for the sake of arguement) that he exists. We are discusssing the rights and wrongs of the attributes and actions of said God. But if you want to exit the Matrix through that escape hatch then be my guest. Not at all. A prime goal of God is that we come to repentance. He works day and night that none should perish. He will use bad things as well as good things in attempting to accomplish that objective. He doesn't have to instigate bad things himself per se, but knowing everything he is in a position to utilise bad things that we do or fallen nature does. One would have to be sure that the seat of your consciousness (I am as opposed to I am happy/sad) resides in your brain and not your spirit (heart). But seeing as this is untestable you never will be. Your choice to believe it though.Your compulsion to deny is understandable but take heart. God prime route of entry is not through the intellect. He enters elsewher and from the inside works on your intellect. Your intellect he can satisfy in a heartbeat. One doesn't intellectualise their way to God.

The gospel is the power of God unto salvation not ianos arguments. I will stick as closely as I can to expounding on the gospel. I cannot cause anybody to be lost for it is not in my power to save themStrife follows accurate preaching of the gospel (assuming one is not deliberately sowing strife for strifes sake). Read the reaction to the gospel wherever it was preached in Acts again. Riots!I speak of Gods love, his justice and his wrath in equal measure. I see no reason to change tack.

Ah I see what you mean. A reasonable conclusion to draw from what I said. I was referring to a situation where God made himself patently manifest to the world. In that scenario there would be no choice but to believe, and thus freely given love would be terminally compromisedBut what God asks initially is not that we love him but that we believe him -without incontrovertable manifestation of himself. When we believe him then he can and will reveal himself. And when he does we see him as he is and can't but help fall in love with him. He is eminently love-ableThis of course just shovess the discussion into the area of "I cannot believe in what I have no evidence for anymore than I can love what I have no evidence for"Which is a different story.

Being a Christian is an umbrella term for that which God does to a person. Before they are Christians He calls them, he convinces them of their sin. He makes it possible for them to believe him without them having intellectually definitive proof. And when they do believe he justifies them, makes them sons, heirs, gives them eternal life, imputes the righteousness of Christ to their account etc. The umbrella term is irrelevant in other than that was the bibles word of choice. The term Christian is just a label on the box. The contents of the box are what matters.A person can be a Christian but not know that the label Christian applies to them for example. Thats about the size of it. There is only one way for a person to be considered righteous before God. And that is for God to give them Christs righteousness. Salvation must be from God.Edit to clarify being christian and not knowing the label has been stuck on the box.
This message has been edited by iano, 13-Apr-2006 02:45 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 13-Apr-2006 03:02 PM

Thread careful brother Phat. There is just one gospel however gently one would like to present it. There is no such thing as a Christian (irrespective of what denominational hue they adhere to (or whether indeed they adhere to any)) who hasn't been born again.This message has been edited by iano, 13-Apr-2006 02:49 PM

'Asks' was a figure of speech from one who knows God and something of his ways. It would not be seen as such by one who didn't know him.A limit of the intellect is to want to neatly compartimentalise Faith/Belief into either...Blind Faith: a leap in the dark - irrationalNot blind Faith: evidence has been presented, belief must follow, no free will....when it comes to dealing with the point of conversion.The paradox is "how do I believe without evidence" vs "if I have evidence then I cannot BUT believe". And paradox is will remain in our limited ability to know the ways in which God works. He has of course dimensions open to him which mean such mystery* would be perfectly coherent had we access to those dimensions.The term used at the very point of conversion is "an act of faith". We must believe without proof, yet God is the one who brings us to the point of being able to say "I believe" without proof. When one is brought to that point then one will also have been brought to a place where intellectual difficulties inherent in trying to resolve the paradox fall away in terms of importance and relevancy. There is something going on which is far more important to the person at the point of conversion than intellectual resolution of paradoxes. The person is crying out for life.In that condition God hauls the person over the wall from death to life. Once landed on the other side, we awaken a little dazed blinking against the new light. We are now full in the knowledge of his existance and off we can trot again trying to resolve it all intellectually. But from a position of belief, not disbelief.This message has been edited by iano, 13-Apr-2006 03:29 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 13-Apr-2006 03:35 PM

True. But I was following on from an intercourse between Robin and Chiro which derived from a definition Chiro was using, which was the "Christian fundimentalist God" or rather Chiros notion of it.This message has been edited by iano, 13-Apr-2006 04:07 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 13-Apr-2006 04:09 PM