Sorry it took me so long to reply. Unfortunately, I don’t think you’ll be too impressed with this one.

It seems we’re kind of at an impasse (as I’m sure you’re aware). I must say, however, that I thought this conversation was pretty awesome. If you’d like to continue with another topic, or whatever, I’m game for sure.

Nice talking, my friend.

Hey bud, I haven’t forgotten your response. I’ve just been kind of busy lately. I will give you a response soon. Sorry for the wait.

I was just reading 1 John at the time, and the popular verses in John 14 (Jesus being the way the truth and the life), came to mind.

You said that you don’t think the Scriptures agree on the exclusivity of Jesus. Care to elaborate?

I’m not a Calvinist, so I disagree with much of the theology you tore apart here.

I’ve seen many non-Calvinists present Christianity this way as well, including the aspect of free will. I’ve seen many non-Calvinists say that we don’t have the ability to be good without God’s intervention at all.

Right. As I said before, creation implies imperfection.

But the point about this wasn’t what creation implied. The point was what the word “perfect” involves, which is that something perfect cannot produce imperfection. If we say that it can because creation is imperfect, this doesn’t solve the problem of the very meaning of the word “perfect.” If I say I am perfect, and yet produce an imperfect work of art, then I cannot hold to the description of “perfect” in terms of myself. Otherwise, the work of art would also be perfect.

If we look to creation, it seems like we’d be going backwards in order to define the word “perfect.” Rather than say “This is what perfect means” and then see if creation matches up to the definition, we look at creation and say even though it’s imperfect, it still came from a perfect creator. It’s using the results to define the word, rather than having an objective standard to see if the results merit the description of the word.

In any case, the problem is that man does not have a choice. Whether God forces it onto the man or He creates Him with that limitation, the problem is the same.

I think what I was originally commenting on was the aspect of God forcing someone to love Him, and how “force” is only applicable if there’s free will involved. If man is 100% good, then man can’t be forced to follow anything that is good.

But why is it a problem if there’s no free will in terms of doing good? (I think a standard response to this is that God doesn’t want robots, but God would get robots in the end anyway, when people choose God. In heaven/afterlife/after the second coming, there’d be no evil anyway, which means that man would have to be 100% good in order to lack the ability to do evil. If free will were that valuable, shouldn’t man have it for an eternity?) Why wouldn’t you want a creation that is created wholly good, with no room for evil? Free will itself is pretty much useless to God, because He knows what will occur anyway. There are no surprises to Him. And, I still get dragged back to the inclination factor. If God did not create man 100% good, as you seem agree with, then there had to be something to fill in that “non-good gap.” It would mean that by creating man with free will, God had to create man to be both good and non-good. Free will can only exist is man is created to do both evil and good. And so I circle – again and again and again – around the point that God had to create man with the ability to do evil. Or free will wouldn’t have worked.

I disagree with this. The Bible is very clear on the exclusivity of Jesus.

I do find it curious that none of the Synoptic Gospels were quoted here (and I would say that it was more portions of the NT that insist on the exclusivity, not the entire Bible itself). The reason I say why the John verse of the way/truth/life, no one approaches except thorugh Jesus focuses more on what he represents rather than who he is is due to the Synoptics. For instance, replace the word “Jesus” with “Love.” Or mercy, or any other attribute of God. The statement still works, especially if Jesus is set up as a contrast to Adam. Love as a way to God is still “exclusive”, because it eliminates any ways that are not loving.

If I look at the sheep/goats parable, the point to that wasn’t who did or did not believe the right things about Jesus, or have the right faith. The point was on the person’s actions. Jesus also comments on how a person’s faith has saved them – I think it’s about six times – yet they wouldn’t have known the “right” things about Jesus, or the right doctrine. He makes references that peacemakers are the children of God, or that we know who God’s children are by the fruit they produce. Or the Samaritan – he was praised by Jesus, and yet didn’t follow the exclusive way. That’s why I see Jesus as representing something, rather than just saying, “Believe in me and that’s it.”

I’ve never met an agnostic that tries to live as though He does.

Okay, but this still wouldn’t make sense, if we’re going based on the Christian God. The agnostic would have to live a perfect life, which is impossible, so … what would be the point? Plus, they’d be living such a way in order to get some sort of reward. As in, if there is a God, one better live a life pleasing to God just in case there are repercussions. But that’s a selfish way to live.

Everything they had told them the earth was flat – but they were wrong.

But then it’s not an irrational or emotional belief, it’s a belief based on the best evidence at the time. To use your analogy here, the way it was originally presented, and what I was reacting to, was that you felt we all knew the Earth was really round and had evidence as such, and yet kept insisting that the Earth was flat.

Another thing – and I’ll think you’ll agree with me on this – for many people emotional factors do come in to play. This is true on both sides, Christians and non-Christians.

I don’t deny it. But I find that many of the contributors here did not want to lose their faith. Many of the atheists I know are in the same situation. They did everything they could, they pleaded with God, dove into the Bible, and in the end, could not rationally hold to certain, or all, Christian beliefs.

Your best bet in convincing me that God does not exist,

I’m not trying to convince you that God doesn’t exist. I do think God exists. Just not in the manner in which you describe. My point here is that if you don’t think we have rational reasons for why we believe what we believe, and react purely and only on emotional reasons, then even a theological discussion as to the nature of God is going to be futile because there’s not actually a discussion with the other person, there’s a discussion with a caricature.

If you want to continue to discuss these things (and I’m willing), I’d like to take the conversation to email. It’s easier for me to edit long responses and offer replies (I can save drafts and the such)

I’d rather not move to e-mail, just because of the time factor. We’d probably go four times as long or such. If you’d rather end the conversation here, that’s okay.

Here’s a couple verses from Paul for you:

“But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”[a] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.” (Romans 10:8-10)

“12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory” (Ephesians 1:12-14)

“For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess 5:9)

“Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.” (2 Tim 2:10)

“14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” (2 Tim 3:14-16)

I didn’t quote the Acts verse because it was a bit long and required context.

He cited Acts. That’s not Johannine. He could have cited I Timothy 2:5. There are more.As far as I’ve ever been concerned, it is exclusive.

If you can make a solid case for the non-exclusivity of Christianity, from the Bible, I’d be interested.