God says this, and God says that

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Funk: I have debated John before but now I've seen his website. That is a serious factor here.

​

Plus, I expect reasoned replies, not trite one-liners to my comments like "Cute" or "Better than a book told me so" that add nothing to the debate but only serve to insult my intelligence.

​

That's called "Trolling" and it's quite similar to another atheist that was posting here recently, who was eventually banned for what John did in his last post: being inflammatory and not addressing the material.

---

different people feel differently about "debates" online, gene... a real debate isn't an easy thing and it usually takes away standard message board weapons such as trolling... i'd love to see a real debate once in awhile... even the 'great debate' forum doesn't really have any... but it's not easy getting two people to even agree to the question being debated, much less any other rules of conduct

hi pe...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
Its a cliche, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - thats why the empty box vs full box is not a fair analogy - neither scenario is extraordinary enough.

​

Whether that gives justification for goading, I leave to the philosophers.

​

PE

---

i think i've seen a recurring theme in some of gene's posts, and his analogy of the box tied in with it... i understand your objections to the analogy, but it was a good one (taken in context)... see, the group who believed something was in the box were so convinced because of past evidences left by the artist... christians believe the order of the universe (among other things) is an evidence of God's existence, which means the "box" of their faith isn't empty nor is it in the least unreasonable...now the theme i believe i sensed is one that asks how it is that atheists seem to borrow from the christian worldview when arguing against christianity... i've seen others belittle this stance with arguments like "one can't prove a negative," but that in no way invalidates the concept... it's based, it seems to me, in a contradicion, in a mindset that both affirms and denies metaphysical or transcendental entities... the atheist who uses reason and logic to argue with the theist is using something that has no materiality, something unexplainable in a naturalistic worldview yet *is* explainable in a christian worldview...is logic suspended in time and space? is reason? if not, they are immaterial by definition... the atheist (admittedly i'm speaking of the person who believes the material world is all that exists) who then uses these weapons is borrowing them from the very people who believe they know from whom they come

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

We're not talking about science. Unfortunatley you have made the deliberate decision, based upon no evidence, that only what you can detect empirically exists. Prove yourself correct. Or are you only as "deluded" as I am, running with no evidence?

---

well said... "only that which can be empirically verified exists" is a truth claim and requires, at the very least, elaborationedited to remove extra quote[This message has been edited by forgiven, 12-08-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
well said... "only that which can be empirically verified exists" is a truth claim and requires, at the very least, elaboration

---

​

How does one verify a particular claim without appeal to some form of sensory information? It is that simple. You and gene both insist on formulating the problem as above, but that is a misrepresentation. I'll gladly admit the possibility of non-empirically verifiable something-or-others but how does one verify the ACTUAL existence of such things? It can't be done, in my opinion. Perhaps you can tell me how it can be done?

---

the point i (and i believe gene) was making is that in a materialistic universe, one in which all things that exist do so because of accident, nothing can possibly exist but that which is natural, ie. material... atheists (for the most part, there may be exceptions) cannot explain the powers of reason they use to argue with christians, they can't explain where this logic/reason comes from... christians can explain these things.. so my statement above, and in other places, was meant to show that the atheist has to borrow from the christian worldview to even discuss these thingsnow then, either what i wrote is true or it isn't... is the above statement a knowledge claim? if so, more than merely asserting it as such should be attempted... that seems reasonable to me since others have pointed out that the christian needs to do more than make assertions... the same standards should apply to each

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

​

Originally posted by forgiven:
the point i (and i believe gene) was making is that in a materialistic universe, one in which all things that exist do so because of accident, nothing can possibly exist but that which is natural, ie. material...

---

quote:

---

J:
This is your claim, not mine. I haven't said anything about a materialistic universe, only about the verification of statements.

---

it isn't a "claim" john, it's the truth.. it's self-evident that in a universe where only materiality exists, transcendenence doesn't...

quote:

---

f: atheists (for the most part, there may be exceptions) cannot explain the powers of reason they use to argue with christians, they can't explain where this logic/reason comes from...

---

quote:

---

J:
Why not? This really doesn't make sense.

---

what doesn't make sense? a materialist is one who believes nothing exists outside of nature, nothing that isn't suspended in space/time... to a materialist, where does her power of reason come from? what makes her beliefs more or less reasonable than anyone else's? if her very existence is an accident, why should we believe her apparently reasonable arguments and not those from another purely accidental conciousness?

quote:

---

f: christians can explain these things.

---

quote:

---

J:
By appeal to an unverifiable entity? I can explain anything I wish in the same manner, but no one would take me seriously. Why should I take you seriously?

---

yes you can, but do you? i have a worldview in which there is no contradiction... the atheist has no such luxury... what you call unverifiable i call obvious evidence... if your reasoning ability is based on the accident of this solar system's existence, how can it be accepted as anything more than a result of that accident? why should your opinions be any more acceptable than anyone else's?... here's a simple question for you, john... is logic material or immaterial?

quote:

---

f:so my statement above, and in other places, was meant to show that the atheist has to borrow from the christian worldview to even discuss these things

---

quote:

---

J:
Then no peoples prior to christianity have been able to discuss these thing or think these things, as there was no christian worldview from which to borrow?

---

that does not follow from anything i said... assume abiogenesis to be a fact for a moment... there is no human life yet, nobody to classify things... now, did laws of logic exist at this time? was the law of non-contradiction still a law, even with noone around to 'name' it? could, apart from man's existence, a = ~a in the same way at the same time? so you see, it does not follow that the christian worldview needed to be articulated for it to be true... logic need not be known to exist for it *to* exist

quote:

---

f: now then, either what i wrote is true or it isn't... is the above statement a knowledge claim?

---

quote:

---

J:
It is a knowledge claim, but it isn't my knowledge claim. I have explained my position.

---

then i wasn't speaking to you, i was speaking to whomever made the original statement... it was made as if it contained a truth value... but it was merely asserted and the person asserting it should be held to account

quote:

---

f: if so, more than merely asserting it as such should be attempted...

---

quote:

---

J:
Certainly, but I haven't made the assertion you present. I don't make the claim that that the universe is material-- the word doesn't mean a lot to me actually-- nor do I make the claim that only empirically verifiable things exist. The claim I make is that empirical evidence is the only evidence we've got and that believing something without evidence is irrational.

---

there is an internal inconsistency in that paragraph... if truth can be ascertained from immaterial entities, why is one considered irrational for maintaining something to be true utilizing those entities? if, as you affirm, empirical evidence is the *only* evidence we've got, and if, as you affirm, other than material entities exist ("empirically verifiable things" are surely material, are they not?), from whence the logic required to hold that view? you are using an entity that can't be empirically verified to assert that only empirically verified entities can be used for evidenceperhaps you don't see the inconsistency in that, but i'm quite sure others do... since you state several times that you don't hold a certain position, why not just say what you do believe? in your view, is existence made up of only those things which are termed 'material'? iow, is all that exists suspended in space/time? i'm not asking you to make a case for your beliefs at this time, i'm simply trying to find out what they are

hi p.e. ... hope i don't ramble, i'm listening to the saints game while trying to think about your post... aarrgghhh eh?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Primordial Egg:

​

quote:

---

f: see, the group who believed something was in the box were so convinced because of past evidences left by the artist... christians believe the order of the universe (among other things) is an evidence of God's existence, which means the "box" of their faith isn't empty nor is it in the least unreasonable...

---

quote:

---

PE
Unreasonable wasn't the word I chose, rather extraordinary, and I didn't even mean it in quite that sense. If you want to convince me of something outside of my sensory perception (e.g that air has weight) then you have to provide evidence (like weighing a balloon before and after inflating). The more outside of my own direct experience that is, the more direct evidence I'll require. If the argument is that the notion of God (or more mysteriously "that which we cannot know") is just as, if not more likely than no God then you have to explain to me why more likely or different from the Goblin outside my door. (Gene hinted at it with his strong feelings and testimonies comment, but it seemed more like a throwaway comment in context).

---

​

i think the analogy concerned the nature of, or rather what one would accept as, evidence and whether or not empiricism was the only criteria... as for your goblin (an issue i had to go read since it wasn't part of my original post), i tend to agree with gene that if we had people with strong personal convictions/interactions with a goblin then the "evidence" for its existence could be more easily accepted...

​

however, that analogy is the same that others use whether or not it's a pink unicorn, etc.. granted, the numbers of people who hold a view don't speak to the truth of that view, there is still weight to be attached to views held by large groups... in those cases, checking to see which group is more internally consistent would be appropriate

​

quote:

---

F: now the theme i believe i sensed is one that asks how it is that atheists seem to borrow from the christian worldview when arguing against christianity... i've seen others belittle this stance with arguments like "one can't prove a negative," but that in no way invalidates the concept... it's based, it seems to me, in a contradicion, in a mindset that both affirms and denies metaphysical or transcendental entities... the atheist who uses reason and logic to argue with the theist is using something that has no materiality, something unexplainable in a naturalistic worldview yet *is* explainable in a christian worldview...

---

quote:

---

PE
From reading following posts, you seem to be saying that I am using reason, which is inherently a Christian worldview, and that I have no way of knowing that reason is "right". Much of what you say centres around the concept of materiality, or what is immaterial or not so I'm first going to examine what that might mean.

---

​

it's a christian worldview in the sense that christians can claim to know from where metaphysical (or transcendental) entities come... the materialist not only can't make such a claim, they deny the existence of such entities

quote:

---

PE
To me, material means "something you can touch", to put it crudely, or, in an accounting sense "something of non-trivial importance", or to a fundamentalist materialism may be something to do with rampant consumerism. Later on you describe a property of a material universe as "occurring by accident", and then "something existing in nature".

​

Aha, but looking at the philosophy dictionary it defines it as:

​

Belief that only physical things truly exist. Materialists claim (or promise) to explain every apparent instance of a mental phenomenon as a feature of some physical object. Prominent materialists in Western thought include the classical atomists, Hobbes, and La Mettrie.

​

So I'm learning something...

​

Well, logic certainly isn't something you can touch (does this make it immaterial?), but I can't see how you make the leap to :"an atheist should not be interested in logic". This is getting almost too esoteric here, but I don't see the problem in having concepts per se be you atheist or theist - for example are you saying that an atheist should not use concepts like charge or gravity without an external logocentral absolute to pin them down onto?

---

​

yes, logic is immaterial by definition... i never said an atheist shouldn't be interested in, nor even utilize, logic... having such concepts is fine, what isn't fine is being inconsistent in ones worldview... the atheist (materialist, anyway) uses reason and logic every day... unfortunately, she denies the very existence of that which she uses to deny the existence of ...

quote:

---

PE
I'm also very troubled by your notion that using logic is a Christian worldview. Did you really mean to write this?

---

​

yes i did mean it... see p.e., the christian believes that being created in God's image means (among other things) being created with the attributes he possesses... we believe transcendental entities exist because God exists, therefore we have no inconsistencies in this area... to my knowledge no other worldview embraces such a concept

​

quote:

---

F: the atheist (admittedly i'm speaking of the person who believes the material world is all that exists) who then uses these weapons is borrowing them from the very people who believe they know from whom they come

---

quote:

---

PE:
Even if this were true (which I don't accept), I'm not sure what it means - after all, Christians use toasters, thus implicitly bringing science rather than faith into their lives

---

​

the christian has no problem in granting the existence and utility of science or of material goods... the converse can't be stated, which is my point...

quote:

---

PE:
Would a true materialist say that electric charge "existed", or quark colour? These concepts, like words can only be described in terms of other concepts, or words. Does that make them immaterial?

---

---

yes i believe a materialist would grant those things, but they are material entities... suspended in time and space or the result of things suspended in space time... 27-7 saints over ravens at the moment, did i ramble too much? *grin*i replied to a post by john in which i posed a hypothetical concerning abiogenesis... if logic existed before life, why? is it an inherent property of the universe? was it "born" during bb? by what means? no, metaphysical entities do exist and i'll stand by my statement that the atheist has to borrow from the christian the very tools she needs in order to argue *against* christianity

hi john... i think i can look at two or three things you say below to maybe show that you have misunderstood what is being said... i also find it somewhat ingenious when you refuse to answer a direct question as to your beliefs, but maybe that's just me, maybe others don't see the same thingsOriginally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

quote:

---

what doesn't make sense? a materialist is one who believes nothing exists outside of nature, nothing that isn't suspended in space/time... to a materialist, where does her power of reason come from?

---

​

It a function of the brain, assuming the premise of materialism. Things fall down, not up. The critters that figure this out survive, the ones that don't figure it out die. Millions of years of trial and error produce patterns of thought. Logic isn't something mystical. It is really just a condensed version of what works.

---

this ties in with my hypothetical question below and, imho, shows either a marked misunderstanding of the issues else a purposeful misstatement of what's been said... i'll speak more to this below, but in the meantime how can you assert that logic didn't exist in the universe before life?

quote:

---

quote:

---

yes you can, but do you?

---

​

Do I appeal to unverifiable entities? Nope.

---

no? verify logic for me, empirically... verify reason... does love exist? ethics? verify them

quote:

---

quote:

---

i have a worldview in which there is no contradiction...

---

​

That isn't hard to come by. But internal consistency doesn't make a theory true. There are many theories that are internally consistent, but don't match observations.

---

no, but internal inconsistencies should make one question the veracity of a worldview, yes?

quote:

---

quote:

---

the atheist has no such luxury...

---

​

There is nothing self-contradictory about atheism. That fact alone doesn't make it true though.

---

sigh... john i've spent a very long time showing there *is* self-contradiction... what you've done is simply to say that *you* aren't mired in inconsistencies but you've only done that by dancing around direct questions concerning material and non-material entities...

quote:

---

quote:

---

why should your opinions be any more acceptable than anyone else's?

---

​

Not my opinions or any one else's either. This is where verifiability becomes important. I say the steak is raw. Well, you look and see for yourself. You say that jesus saves... hmmm, just have to take your word for it. I say, no, but Allah saves. By the same logic you have to take my word for it. And surprise, the two religions are mutually exclusive. We find ourself in very short order having to accept contradictory assertions. And there is no way to sort out which is correct.

---

you again miss the point... it's not that we can't use reason, it's that the atheist can't *account* for reason while remaining faithful to her worldview... she must borrow from mine

quote:

---

quote:

---

here's a simple question for you, john... is logic material or immaterial?

---

​

Logic is a description of how things work in our neck of the woods. Is that material or immaterial? It is a human construct portions of which are likely shared by many animals on earth. Even plants react to changes in the environment, so there must be a simple logic engine running in flora as well-- a turing machine of sorts.

---

i asked you your opinion, you repeated the question for me... so logic is a human construct "shared" by many animals?... imagine a vast primordial soup, no life exists as yet... does the law of non-contradiction exist? can that vast soup both be and not be at the same time in the same way? if not, logic existed... if so, you are correct... do you really mean to say that man needed to be present for logic to exist?

quote:

---

quote:

---

that does not follow from anything i said

---

​

You said that atheists must borrow from the christian worldview in order to discuss 'these things.' It does follow that in the absence of christianity people would not be able to discuss 'these things.'

---

no john, it is a non sequitur as shown by my example above... the "christian worldview" is that God created man with attributes possessed by God... logic existed before man, logic is an attribute of God... now it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with this, what matters is that the christian's beliefs are consistent while the atheist's aren't... what matters is that the christian can accept as real metaphysical entities while the atheist (at least the materialist) can't... and *that's* all i've been saying

quote:

---

quote:

---

assume abiogenesis to be a fact for a moment... there is no human life yet, nobody to classify things... now, did laws of logic exist at this time? was the law of non-contradiction still a law, even with noone around to 'name' it? could, apart from man's existence, a = ~a in the same way at the same time?

---

​

Not really. Logic is a description like mathematics. It doesn't exist until it is created, though the underlying local and applicable physics do. But I think that may be what you mean.

---

here is the clearest statement you make to deny that logic existed prior to man... before man, did two plus two equal four? before man, was pi R round or square?... for it not to exist until "created" (whatever that might mean) makes no sense, as i'm sure you're aware... did quarks exist before they were "created?"

quote:

---

quote:

---

so you see, it does not follow that the christian worldview needed to be articulated for it to be true... logic need not be known to exist for it *to* exist

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

if truth can be ascertained from immaterial entities, why is one considered irrational for maintaining something to be true utilizing those entities?

---

​

I said nothing about truth being gathered from immaterial entities. I said nothing about material entities either.

---

​

quote:

---

if, as you affirm, empirical evidence is the *only* evidence we've got, and if, as you affirm, other than material entities exist ("empirically verifiable things" are surely material, are they not?), from whence the logic required to hold that view?

---

​

Again, you are dragging in this concept of material entities. Are you talking about what science considers matter, or about philosophical materialism of some variety? There is a big difference. The scientific version is a description of phenomena. Philosophical materialism is a metaphysics.

---

the above concerns your statement (italics mine) so as you can see you did in fact state that only empirical evidence is acceptable since it's the *only* evidence that exists... and you further state that anyone who believes something without empirical evidence is irrational... i find this amazing since you're using that which can't be empirically verified (logic, reason) to make the statement you just made... yes, inconsistent in the extreme

quote:

---

You have really got to disentangle empiricism and materialism. They are not the same thing. Empirically verifiable things don't have to be material. There doesn't have to BE any material. History is full of philosophers who did not believe such a thing actually exists. And the atoms of science are nothing like the 'matter' spoken of by the more famous philosophical materialists. It is difficult to keep track of what you are actually arguing.

---

some examples please? given the definitions of the terms, show us how you'd verify a metaphysical entity

quote:

---

Finally, I don't affirm anything about material entities or about non-material ones.

---

so i see... why not, don't you have an opinion on this? you don't deny the existence of material entities, do you? do you deny non-material entities?

quote:

---

quote:

---

you are using an entity that can't be empirically verified to assert that only empirically verified entities can be used for evidence

---

​

What entity?

---

sigh... logic? reason?

quote:

---

quote:

---

in your view, is existence made up of only those things which are termed 'material'?

---

​

I don't really believe in 'material' except, as I said earlier, in metaphorical sort of way.

​

quote:

---

iow, is all that exists suspended in space/time?

---

​

I don't know. All I have to deal with is space-time. How can I speculate outside of that?

---

you do so repeatedly, john... you not only speculate, you intentionally denigrate those who hold opposing views... if you can't speculate "outside of that (space-time)" where do you get the right to argue God's (a being who exists both inside *and* outside space/time) existence? does this seem a tad inconsistent to you?

hi john... my entire series of posts was aimed at showing, not that atheists (and several times i qualified the word to mean materialists) don't utilize or even depend on metaphysical entities, but that they can't account for those entities... while denying the existence of such things they still feel comfortable arguing that God doesn't exist, all the while failing to understand that the means by which they frame their arguments have to be borrowed from those who *don't* deny their existencei wrongly assumed that you were a materialist also, since your arguments had been aimed at asking for proof of God (a transcendent being)... how, my thinking went, can someone ask for proof of a transcendent entity while utilizing just such an entity to form his arguments? and it is inconsistent, if you think about it...the christian doesn't deny the existence of transcendent entities, therefore there is no inconsistency... but since your view doesn't fall within the framework of beliefs held by those to whom i was originally writing, there isn't an inconsistency therei am troubled that you seem to confuse the result of such an entity (billiard balls for example) with the entity itself (laws of physics, for example)... and also by the obvious (to me) truth that before life existed on earth, logic did... whether it was discovered or not, whether it was catalogued or not, it still existed... quarks, i thought, were a good example of that... something can exist without anyone knowing of it, correct? that was my pointapologies for misunderstanding you

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

the point i (and i believe gene) was making is that in a materialistic universe, one in which all things that exist do so because of accident, nothing can possibly exist but that which is natural, ie. material... atheists (for the most part, there may be exceptions) cannot explain the powers of reason they use to argue with christians, they can't explain where this logic/reason comes from...

---

quote:

---

S:
Actually, evolutionary psychology is investigating these ideas...

---

​

investigating what? how to explain a transcendental entity from within a worldview that denies such entities?

​

quote:

---

f:
christians can explain these things...

---

quote:

---

S:
No, they can't, at least not by using faith or belief or whatever you are claiming.

​

"Godidit" isn't an explanation.

​

I could say that invisible pink unicorns gave us logic and reason.

​

There. Understand now?

​

...see the problem?

---

---

schraf, you have misread the posts, i believe... it doesn't matter whether or not one says God or pink unicorns, the materialist denies *all* metaphysical entities while utilizing those same entities in her arguments... the christian doesn't... so you are mistaken, christians can constently utilize transcendental entities, there is no problem from their worldview... materialists (i've taken to using that word since not all atheists subscribe to materialism) can't.. i hope that clears it up for you

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

the christian doesn't deny the existence of transcendent entities, therefore there is no inconsistency...

---

​

Technically, this is not true.

​

Christians deny the existence of all transcendent entities except the Judeo/Christian concept of God.

​

You all flatly reject the notion that any other gods or supernatural entities exist.

---

schraf, you haven't followed the thread i don't think... let me quickly go over itatheists (most i've encountered) believe we are here by accident... all that exists can be traced backward in time, and all that exists owes that existence to a chain of accidents going back 15 billion years... all that exists, they say, is material... only those things suspended in space and time can exist... ok so far?the atheist who believes the above denies the existence of metaphysicality... but if logic is not suspended in space/time, if logic is not material, the atheist is inconsistent in her worldview... she denies the existence of that which she uses to deny the existence of... so it's not that the christian can deny the existence of a *particular* transcendent entity, it's that the atheist denies the existence of *all* such entities... and therein lies the problem.. for in so denying, the atheist is borrowing from the christian worldview

hi p.e.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
You have to define exactly what you mean by logic before I can answer this? Why would it be surprising if it was a human invention? Did the concept of "humanity" exist before life? Again, you'll have to differentiate the two transcendental concepts for me.

​

PE

---

this seems to be the crux of the problem... i define logic as based on the law of non-contradiction... i gave an analogy to john, i'll use it here... it's earth, 3.5 billion years ago... there is no life of any kind... none, zip, zilch... is the law of non-contradicion in effect? can earth both occupy it's portion of space/time and *not* occupy its portion at the same time in the same way? if not, logic existed...

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

f:
investigating what? how to explain a transcendental entity from within a worldview that denies such entities?

---

quote:

---

S:
No. YOu said that athiests couldn't explain where logic and reason came from, and that Christians could.

---

i believe i said "account for" but i may have inadvertantly said explain... in any case, the materialist denies the existence of entites required to deny anything...

quote:

---

S:
I pointed out that Evolutionary Psychology is investigating the origins of logic and reasoning ability.

---

and *i* pointed out that materialists can't account for either, yet borrow from the worldview of those who have no such inconsistencies

quote:

---

f:

quote:

---

schraf, you have misread the posts, i believe... it doesn't matter whether or not one says God or pink unicorns, the materialist denies *all* metaphysical entities while utilizing those same entities in her arguments... the christian doesn't... so you are mistaken, christians can constently utilize transcendental entities, there is no problem from their worldview... materialists (i've taken to using that word since not all atheists subscribe to materialism) can't.. i hope that clears it up for you

---

​

The problem is your use of the word "explain."

​

"Explain" means something different to the materialist than it does to the mystic.

---

i've my above paragraph several times and i don't see "explain" in it... i do say "utilize"... why not just read the paragraph again and argue against *it* and not something it doesn't say?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

Just wanted to pop in and say something about "faith". I am reminded of Paul (from the NT) who actively pursued and persecuted the church. Did he earn faith? I don't think so.

---

​

Paul had a work to do. He's one of the exceptions, and I don't envy him because the he was *given* faith that others have to earn. I suspect the bar will be higher for him in the last days than it might have been otherwise.

​

See Luke 12:48 and John 20:29.

​

As for faith being increased, do you not agree that studying the Scriptures, praying, and trying to be like Christ will increase your faith?

---

i have to disagree with you gene... here's the thing... if faith is required for salvation (it is) and if we can earn or deserve any aspect of our salvation (we can't), then what need of Jesus did we have? did he have to die? or would maybe a little torture have done the job?the bible tells us 'by grace are we saved through faith - and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God - not of works lest any man should boast'... and also we're told that *every* man is given "the measure of faith"... now then, if as you say we have to earn faith, is that not a work? and if it is a work, may we not boast of it to God?you're standing before God and he asks why he should let you into his heaven.. do you say "because i earned the faith to be here?" or do you say, "because i earned the faith to be here AND because Jesus died for my sins?" or do you say merely "i don't deserve to be here but Jesus Christ died and earned heaven FOR me?"no gene, if we can earn or deserve salvation in any way, it isn't of grace... we can no more earn enough faith to gain entrance to heaven than we can earn enough righteousness to gain entrancefaith is a gift... all have been given a measure of faith... some harden their hearts, some hide the truth from themselves... but none can earn that which has been freely given

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Just my opinion too. I believe that faith is God-given (therefore I am against missionaries) but salvation, either in this world or the next, has to be earned. Btw I am no Christian so maybe this is a different theology.

---

christianity teaches that "all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory"... the difference between christianity and most other religions is in the effect of sin, and in how sin works to come between God and man... sin is like a disease for which NO cure exists... once you have it, you can't do anything at all about it... no amount of good works, no amount of work, will eradicate sin... man alone would have no chance for salvationbut God... but God did something (with him it was not impossible) for us that we could never do for ourselves... he's the Great Physician, he's the one who has the only cure for sin, he's the one who can give his son's life as atonement, as propitiation, for our sin... so that's why we see "for all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory" followed by "but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord"we can't earn it, we can't deserve it... salvation is ALL "of the Lord".... it's grace, pure and simple, and it's received thru faith, pure and simple

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
You need the Atonement so that your sins may be forgiven (assuming you have developed, ie, earned, faith) and you need the Resurrection so that you may come forth from the grave in the day of Judgement. I'm not implying that you don't need the Saviour.

​

We do each have a certain amount of tendency toward faith but I believe we can supplement our faith through diligent study, through prayer, by magnifying our callings, and striving to be more Christ-like. This concept is similar to the parable of the ten talents, in Matthew 25. (I am perplexed that all of you disagree because it seems like an axiom to me).

---

i think you should be careful using the gospels in any discussion of salvation (ducking)... not that the gospel *message* can't be found in them, but that there's a tendency to forget that "Jesus was a jew, sent to the jews" for a reason... the gospel message can and should be understood in the context of paul's writings...if you believe we can supplement our faith, it isn't a gift... if it isn't a gift, if it isn't by grace alone, it's a work... it can't be partly a work and partly grace, it's all of one or all of the other... if grace, no works... if works, no grace... God gave ALL of us the measure of faith... and we know how much faith it takes, right? very little is needed gene...it appears you have worked diligently to acquire more faith than i would ever have, since i haven't worked at all... all that i have is God-given... i wouldn't know how to "earn" more faith anyway... God gives what i need as i need it