Is this good for Christianity?

[Justadude]

You are without excuse. That is what God's Word states clearly.

You are not able to discern or to appraise the spiritual. That is what God's Word states clearly.

He has mercy on whom He desires to have mercy. That is what God's Word states clearly.

Those who turn to Jesus (in truth), Jesus states clearly He will not cast out >>

Study Bible
Jesus the Bread of Life
…36But as I stated, you have seen Me and still you do not believe. 37Everyone the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but to do the will of Him who sent Me.…
Berean Study Bible · Download

So if you do not receive eternal life, you have no one at all to blame except yourself.

I'm curious about something. You know I'm not a Christian and don't believe the Bible is God's Word. So what sort of reaction were you expecting me to have to your post?

 

[Paul Christensen]

I am talking to you as an individual.
Nothing about groups.

Here, I"m going to just break out of all of these stereotypes you have--

I'm Christian. LDS Christian or "Mormon" to be more specific. I'm also scientist and got my phD in Evolution/Ecology/Data, working that field for many years. Obviously I'm a big fan of science, evolution, education etc. I believe quite strongly in respecting others, being self aware, and thoughtful about whatever you believe. And earnest questions are seeds of knowledge & wisdom.

Talking about you: I completely acknowledge your right to believe whatever the heck you do. Even if it's (in my assessment) damaging and/or stupid. Whatever, you have the right to believe it. While i"m happy to chat & have quality two-way dialogue, I really really strive to ever avoid preaching at somebody (and get really annoyed when other people do so). I'm not going to try to force you to believe anything or police you.

Talking about @Paul Christensen for a moment (I'm assuming he's ok with that, Paul speak up if you're not) : while both Paul and I are Christians, we obviously have very different views on many subjects. He's anti-evolution, very literal belief, much more preaching-inclined, etc. We've chatted respectfully off and on for years. I totally acknowledge his right to believe what he believes, regardless of what I think about it. I'm not going to try to force him to believe anything -- which includes forcing him to be less preaching-inclined.


Does that make sense?

It makes sense to me.
For someone who does not believe the gospel and therefore has not received revelation from the Holy Spirit, anything we try to say will be a strawman argument with him.

Now that I know that you are doing a PhD in those areas of science, you will get the drop on me every time in any debate about evolution because of your more comprehensive scientific knowledge. Gaining a PhD in any discipline takes years of dedication and hard work and anyone who achieves one should be respected. I should have started earlier with my M.Div, because I could have gone on to do a D.D. if I was younger, but now I just haven't got the energy, although I have one or two good topics. I achieved my M.A. in English Literature at the age of 41, but was not interested enough to go on and do a PhD in it. However, at my age (72) and retired, what would I do with a D.D.? I think I did well getting two mastorates.

So, with your developing PhD, and my M.Div, we can give people a run for their money, and each other also!!

 

[Justadude]

Of course it doesn't make sense to you, because the things of the Spirit of God come by revelation from God Himself to those who choose to believe the gospel. As long as you remain agnostic, you won't receive that revelation, because you have to choose to believe the gospel first. That's just the way it is.

Maybe I was wrong. I guess you really are doing the best you can do. If the best case for Christianity you can present is a circular argument, then I don't have much else to say.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Not in the context of what we've been talking about. I've been talking about being persuasive and compelling, which you seem to be conflating with forcing things on people.

That preaching-inclined behavior.
Do you want it turned "on" or "off"?
"On" would be preaching at other Christians AND at you.
"Off" would be not preaching at other Christians AND at you.

On a side note, I recently saw poll results that showed what was for me, a shocking percentage of Mormons who denied the evolution of humans. I only know a few Mormons and even then it's very superficial (one family hasn't spoken to me after they found out I wasn't religious at all), so I've never really known for sure what the Mormon Church's stance is. Is it part of official Mormon doctrine that humans are separate creations rather than evolved primates?

Speaking broadly and then going specific---

There's no official "you must believe X position".

Vast majority of LDS Christians folks acknowledge evolution (at least in the US). If you attend an LDS sponsored college like BYU as a life science major, you'll hear it taught over and over again, including in it's own specific required course.

Survey's may or may not accurately capture this depending on the phrasing of questions. For example the question "do you believe in A) evolution or B) creation", it leaves people like me in an awkward place -- can I have a "C) both"???.

Regarding human-specific evolution: that gets trickier. There is the official belief that a human's spirit is from God- that's not just something evolutionary created (not that evolution is persay random in the first place). Majority of folks, do believe that human bodies were created by the same process that created everything else biological, but is a smaller majority. I will tell you that the BYU Evolution course has a month long section specific on human evolution, both macro and micro scale.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Maybe I was wrong. I guess you really are doing the best you can do. If the best case for Christianity you can present is a circular argument, then I don't have much else to say.

You see, the principle of revelation doesn't figure to the rational mind - that a God we can't see can give an insight from the written text of the Bible that we can't understand clearly without that insight; and that insight can come only to genuine converted believers who have the Holy Spirit. All you have to do is read the testimonies of believers who say that they gained a whole new understanding of what God was all about when they believed the gospel and turned to Christ as their Saviour.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

It makes sense to me.
For someone who does not believe the gospel and therefore has not received revelation from the Holy Spirit, anything we try to say will be a strawman argument with him.

Now that I know that you are doing a PhD in those areas of science, you will get the drop on me every time in any debate about evolution because of your more comprehensive scientific knowledge. Gaining a PhD in any discipline takes years of dedication and hard work and anyone who achieves one should be respected. I should have started earlier with my M.Div, because I could have gone on to do a D.D. if I was younger, but now I just haven't got the energy, although I have one or two good topics. I achieved my M.A. in English Literature at the age of 41, but was not interested enough to go on and do a PhD in it. However, at my age (72) and retired, what would I do with a D.D.? I think I did well getting two mastorates.

So, with your developing PhD, and my M.Div, we can give people a run for their money, and each other also!!

Haha-- I will say I won't recommend getting a phD except under rare circumstances. It's very painful and seldom necessary. Master's I would generally recommend (I did enjoy mine).

But year, that's my field of study. I get to be a complete fan-gril oogling at God's creations and figuring out just the tiniest fraction of it all.

 

[Joseph77]

Love (As written in God's Purpose - a choice of the will, not an emotion nor a feeling)
Hopes for the Best.

"We" hope you want to be saved - but if not, then we will only do what we can so you do not destroy others - especially little ones and those who are weak in faith, and those who are seeking.

If , as you say, you reject God's Word, and accept the devil's word (that is the only two choices anyone has - there is no inbetween position)

then you remain his , and not even God will change your mind. (He says just let you go) (for some, He says to pray for them) (for others, He says they have sinned a sin that leads to death, and does not say to pray for them - He does not either hear the prayer of anyone who "considers sin in their heart", so there are multitudes whose prayers He does not listen to (Christians and non-Christians, both) ....

Even "rocky soil" can sometimes (perhaps) be made 'good soil'.....

Do you choose to be good soil ? Do you want to be ? (with other beliefs in lies evident now in your posts, remember that all the enemy's lies must be repented of, IF you want to be healed)

I'm curious about something. You know I'm not a Christian and don't believe the Bible is God's Word. So what sort of reaction were you expecting me to have to your post?

 

[Enoch111]

The explanation of how the universe works in a noble pursuit.

Exactly. And that is why it behooves you to engage in it.

But why insert a singular creator?

Have you ever seen anything creative created by a committee? All that is created is by INDIVIDUALS. Therefore it is more than reasonable to believe that there in one Creator who created this universe.

What evidence leads to such a hypothesis?

All scientific studies provide the evidence. I showed you a picture of DNA. Only a fool or a liar would claim that there was no amazingly intelligent design behind that. And that is only the tip of the iceberg. Examination of everything in nature is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE of a Creator with amazing designer capabilities. Study fractals is you doubt this.

How does that hypothesis stand up to testing? Can it even be tested?

Absolutely. The natural laws which exist in the universe can not only be tested, but are known to be immutable. Physics and chemistry are prime example of inviolable natural laws.

In brief, agnostics and atheists do not have a leg to stand on because they have wilfully blinded themselves to the truth found in nature.

 

[Justadude]

That preaching-inclined behavior.
Do you want it turned "on" or "off"?
"On" would be preaching at other Christians AND at you.
"Off" would be not preaching at other Christians AND at you.

But you agree that it's possible to talk with people and try to persuade them without preaching at them, right? So you're not limited to the binary choice between ignoring the situation and preaching at your fellow Christians.

There's no official "you must believe X position".

Okay, thanks.

Vast majority of LDS Christians folks acknowledge evolution (at least in the US).

Actually it looks like that's not the case. This table has the results that I described as "shocking".

As you can see, the majority of Mormons don't acknowledge the fact of evolution. And since there's no official doctrine one way or the other, I'm wondering why that is.

If you attend an LDS sponsored college like BYU as a life science major, you'll hear it taught over and over again, including in it's own specific required course.

Then what explains the numbers above?

Survey's may or may not accurately capture this depending on the phrasing of questions. For example the question "do you believe in A) evolution or B) creation", it leaves people like me in an awkward place -- can I have a "C) both"???.

I've seen that, but changing how the question is asked doesn't move the results all that much.

Regarding human-specific evolution: that gets trickier. There is the official belief that a human's spirit is from God- that's not just something evolutionary created (not that evolution is persay random in the first place). Majority of folks, do believe that human bodies were created by the same process that created everything else biological, but is a smaller majority. I will tell you that the BYU Evolution course has a month long section specific on human evolution, both macro and micro scale.

Then I have to wonder why so many LDS's deny it.

 

[Justadude]

You see, the principle of revelation doesn't figure to the rational mind - that a God we can't see can give an insight from the written text of the Bible that we can't understand clearly without that insight;

So I have to be irrational and suspend all critical thinking to be a Christian?

and that insight can come only to genuine converted believers who have the Holy Spirit. All you have to do is read the testimonies of believers who say that they gained a whole new understanding of what God was all about when they believed the gospel and turned to Christ as their Saviour.

Do you think Christians are the only religion with those sorts of testimonies?

 

[Justadude]

Love (As written in God's Purpose - a choice of the will, not an emotion nor a feeling)
Hopes for the Best.

"We" hope you want to be saved - but if not, then we will only do what we can so you do not destroy others - especially little ones and those who are weak in faith, and those who are seeking.

If , as you say, you reject God's Word, and accept the devil's word (that is the only two choices anyone has - there is no inbetween position)

then you remain his , and not even God will change your mind. (He says just let you go) (for some, He says to pray for them) (for others, He says they have sinned a sin that leads to death, and does not say to pray for them - He does not either hear the prayer of anyone who "considers sin in their heart", so there are multitudes whose prayers He does not listen to (Christians and non-Christians, both) ....

Even "rocky soil" can sometimes (perhaps) be made 'good soil'.....

Do you choose to be good soil ? Do you want to be ? (with other beliefs in lies evident now in your posts, remember that all the enemy's lies must be repented of, IF you want to be healed)

I'm getting the impression that you're the type of religious person who's unable to talk to people like a normal person, and for whatever reason feels obligated to speak 100% of the time as if you're a preacher giving a sermon.

That's too bad.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

But you agree that it's possible to talk with people and try to persuade them without preaching at them, right? So you're not limited to the binary choice between ignoring the situation and preaching at your fellow Christians.

You don't answer my question--
That preaching-inclined behavior: Do you want it turned "on" or "off"?
"On" would be preaching at other Christians AND at you.
"Off" would be not preaching at other Christians AND at you.

There's no choice for "selectively only preach at that atheists or Justadude disagrees with". Or any other selective filter.


(I'll respond to rest of the side track later)

 

[Joseph77]

"Normal people" / persons/ are doomed without hope i Christ Jesus. Too bad? Very common. Only a few ever get saved.

If you were dying of a terrible disease (and you are, it is called sin),
but if it was like rabies and cancer and migraines and boils all over,

would you then seek some sort of relief? Some sort of help ?

True, as long as you remain disobedient , and don't care for the truth, no one , not even God, can help you.

I'm getting the impression that you're the type of religious person who's unable to talk to people like a normal person, and for whatever reason feels obligated to speak 100% of the time as if you're a preacher giving a sermon.

That's too bad.

 

[Joseph77]

I'm getting the impression that you're the type of religious person who's unable to talk to people like a normal person, and for whatever reason feels obligated to speak 100% of the time as if you're a preacher giving a sermon.

That's too bad.

For people who hide that they believe in evolution, or that they are gay, or that they commit idolatry often,
or any other sin,
it is rare for them to turn away from their sin.

 

[Justadude]

You don't answer my question--

Well, it's not that I'm ignoring it, it's that I don't think it's framed fairly.

That preaching-inclined behavior: Do you want it turned "on" or "off"?
"On" would be preaching at other Christians AND at you.
"Off" would be not preaching at other Christians AND at you.

There's no choice for "selectively only preach at that atheists or Justadude disagrees with". Or any other selective filter.

You're presenting the fallacy of false dilemma. Why can't people be selective (or I would put it, considerate) about who they do and don't preach at, and in which settings they do or don't do so?

 

[Justadude]

"Normal people" / persons/ are doomed without hope i Christ Jesus. Too bad? Very common. Only a few ever get saved.

If you were dying of a terrible disease (and you are, it is called sin),
but if it was like rabies and cancer and migraines and boils all over,

would you then seek some sort of relief? Some sort of help ?

True, as long as you remain disobedient , and don't care for the truth, no one , not even God, can help you

For people who hide that they believe in evolution, or that they are gay, or that they commit idolatry often,
or any other sin,
it is rare for them to turn away from their sin.

From just today's conversations, it seems in order to be a Christian I have to be irrational, turn off my brain, believe blindly in things that don't make sense, believe certain people's dreams are revelations from a god, not be a normal person, and deny reality.

Not.....very.....attractive.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Well, it's not that I'm ignoring it, it's that I don't think it's framed fairly.


You're presenting the fallacy of false dilemma. Why can't people be selective (or I would put it, considerate) about who they do and don't preach at, and in which settings they do or don't do so?

It's phrased that way because it's side-steps the question of "who gets to pick all of the filters of what/when/where/who does the preaching".

People here preaching at you about salvation are don't so because they honestly believe it's the most important subject/thing to do.
Other people likewise preach about the things they believe to be the most important.

Do you want it turned "on" or "off"?
"On" would be preaching at other Christians AND at you.
"Off" would be not preaching at other Christians AND at you.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

From just today's conversations, it seems in order to be a Christian I have to be irrational, turn off my brain, believe blindly in things that don't make sense, believe certain people's dreams are revelations from a god, not be a normal person, and deny reality.

Not.....very.....attractive.

You're stereotyping again and stating generalizations you know aren't true.

 

[Joseph77]

The lost are corrupt in the flesh and in spirit. Their minds are unable to understand the truth.

"Rational" ? The mind of man cannot conceive the things of God, nor grasp them.
"Brain" ? The rebellious 'brain' has no part in God's Kingdom.
"make sense" ? The spiritual truth does not make sense to the carnal man.
"revelations" ? The heavenly Father REVEALS (i.e. revelations) TO LITTLE CHILDREN Salvation and everything concerning Salvation. (and HIDES IT from the educated) for thus it is HIS GOOD PLEASURE SO TO DO ----
-----0-----
since mankind in its best wisdom and knowledge serves the creature

instead of the Creator
and
tries to drag everyone down to destruction.

Your reality? Like that homosexuals are okay somehow ? (note they are not in heaven)
(unless they repent and are born again by the Will of the Father from heaven)

Reality? Unwilling to give up sinning ?

So be it.

From just today's conversations, it seems in order to be a Christian I have to be irrational, turn off my brain, believe blindly in things that don't make sense, believe certain people's dreams are revelations from a god, not be a normal person, and deny reality.

Not.....very.....attractive.

The lake of fire was made for the devil and his angels who rebelled.....
People choose to go there by rejecting Jesus' Grace.

Not attractive at all.....

 

[Justadude]

It's phrased that way because it's side-steps the question of "who gets to pick all of the filters of what/when/where/who does the preaching".

It has a much bigger problem.

People here preaching at you about salvation are don't so because they honestly believe it's the most important subject/thing to do.
Other people likewise preach about the things they believe to be the most important.

I understand that. But I also understand that people have the ability to moderate how and when they "preach". Your question assumes they don't.

Do you want it turned "on" or "off"?
"On" would be preaching at other Christians AND at you.
"Off" would be not preaching at other Christians AND at you.

Only two possibilities are presented, either all on or all off. The possibility of people being considerate and discerning about how and when the "preach" needs to be included.

You're stereotyping again and stating generalizations you know aren't true.

Wrong. I specifically said "from today's conversations". Please read more carefully next time.