Does the (Christian) God Exist?

[Whitton World]

A lot of people are wrong if God does not exist. Especially as we are talking about the same God for the Jews and Muslims as well as the Christians - obviously the Jews and Muslims do not view Christ in the same way.

And it would be awful to think that so many wars have been fought over a God that does not exist!

[Mavorpen]

What is it with you and accusing anyone with whom you disagree of lying, Mav?

Never said you were lying.

But to address your actual question, you must be confused about what circular logic is and how to apply it because it most certainly does not here apply.

Let me try again then. "It doesn't apply because I say so, and I say so, because it doesn't apply."

Better?

[Norstal]

-snip-.

How are Protestants not Christians, is my own pressing question?

Same way Menassa said that Christians aren't worshiping the Jewish God.

[Distruzio]

I understand; however, Catholics and Protestants do have a lot of things in common.

Just as Jews and Christians and Hindus and Muslims. Would you say they are the same?

They just differ on what is it the bible teaches

The Protestant bible is not the Christian Bible. The two are not the same. Like... at all.

, not on what the main precept they both hold is

Actually, they do. Protestant dogma holds that God is a spiritual being (sometimes a monad, depending upon the variation of Protestantism or a modalist being)

: which is that a belief in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation.

No. Not close at all.

They each may agree with that phrase itself but the manner in which that phrase is understood reflects a fundamental distinction in dogma. For the Protestant, one need only have faith in their Lord and Savior. For the Christian, one must also be a Christian - that is to agree fully and completely with the Creed (which Protestants, universally, do not).

If you ask a Protestant and a Catholic the same important questions in doctrine you will find similarities, it is in the inclusion of saints, the icons of the church, and the sola scriptura belief that they differ; however, this does not deter Protestants and Catholics from belonging to Christianity.

Actually, it does.

Protestants are no less Christian than Catholics in my opinion, but then again this comes from someone who has visited - and has learned from - both schools of thought.

As have I. Intently. For more than a decade.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

How are Protestants not Christians, is my own pressing question?

Essentially, it comes to this response I made to a Protestant:

If you believe, as you say you do, that Jesus is fully God and fully Man, that Jesus ascended into heaven complete (body, mind and soul), and that Jesus is the head of the Church, then I have to wonder how you think that that Church is any less physical than He is? Further, Jesus himself said that upon Peter would he build His Church and that the gates of Hell would fail to stand against it. How can you doubt that Jesus would create a physical Church upon physical men with Himself as the head of it physically, spiritually, and mentally, and yet fail to maintain it? Moreover, if you believe that the Word is the infallible Word of God b/c it is protected by the Holy Spirit, also God, then how can you doubt when the very text of the Word states that the pillar and foundation of the Truth, also Jesus, is the Church, that it means any other Church than the only physical Church that existed at the time of the compilation of the Scriptures? Just what Church do you think the man was talking about when he proclaimed Himself the head, that He Himself would guard it against Hell, and that upon His chosen men would it be built? How could you deny that the Church he described was a real and physical thing - especially within the context of historical considerations surrounding the formulation of the scripture as I have described before?

By all accounts within the text of the scripture, by your own professed beliefs, it cannot be denied that the sola scripturist "bible alone" approach to Christianity is a borderline heretical approach that denies the position of Jesus as the head of the Church, denies the existence of Jesus as fully God and fully Man, denies the very words of Jesus Himself, and denies the words of the Bible itself. The Sola Scripturist, in claiming that the "bible alone" is all that is necessary for salvation, removes from authority the Holy Spirit and the Son - two of the triune nature of God Himself. The Sola Scripturist, in claiming that the "bible alone" is all that is necessary for salvation substitutes himself for the supreme pontiff, higher even, than God.

---

I now don't even consider it "borderline here[sy]."

It is absolute heresy. And absolutely distinct from actual Christianity.

That's not even what Sola Scriptura even means.

Sola Scriptura, using Wikipedia means:

that its teaching is needed for salvation (necessity); that all the doctrine necessary for salvation comes from the Bible alone (sufficiency); that everything taught in the Bible is correct (inerrancy); and that, by the Holy Spirit overcoming sin, believers may read and understand truth from the Bible itself, though understanding is difficult, so the means used to guide individual believers to the true teaching is often mutual discussion within the church (clarity).

Note that this is NOT the same as saying "You don't need Jesus Christ to be saved" but it means "everything you need to know for salvation is contained in the bible". We also follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and we consider them as our saviour. To say otherwise would be stupid.

[Distruzio]

What is it with you and accusing anyone with whom you disagree of lying, Mav?

Never said you were lying.

Doesn't sound like you're being entirely truthful about this

Ring a bell? Ive yet to see a post from you in which you don't offer so contentious a response in some manner.

But to address your actual question, you must be confused about what circular logic is and how to apply it because it most certainly does not here apply.

Let me try again then. "It doesn't apply because I say so, and I say so, because it doesn't apply."

Better?

Try actually reading my responses, hmmm?

[Mavorpen]

Essentially, it comes to this response I made to a Protestant:

If you believe, as you say you do, that Jesus is fully God and fully Man, that Jesus ascended into heaven complete (body, mind and soul), and that Jesus is the head of the Church, then I have to wonder how you think that that Church is any less physical than He is? Further, Jesus himself said that upon Peter would he build His Church and that the gates of Hell would fail to stand against it. How can you doubt that Jesus would create a physical Church upon physical men with Himself as the head of it physically, spiritually, and mentally, and yet fail to maintain it? Moreover, if you believe that the Word is the infallible Word of God b/c it is protected by the Holy Spirit, also God, then how can you doubt when the very text of the Word states that the pillar and foundation of the Truth, also Jesus, is the Church, that it means any other Church than the only physical Church that existed at the time of the compilation of the Scriptures? Just what Church do you think the man was talking about when he proclaimed Himself the head, that He Himself would guard it against Hell, and that upon His chosen men would it be built? How could you deny that the Church he described was a real and physical thing - especially within the context of historical considerations surrounding the formulation of the scripture as I have described before?

By all accounts within the text of the scripture, by your own professed beliefs, it cannot be denied that the sola scripturist "bible alone" approach to Christianity is a borderline heretical approach that denies the position of Jesus as the head of the Church, denies the existence of Jesus as fully God and fully Man, denies the very words of Jesus Himself, and denies the words of the Bible itself. The Sola Scripturist, in claiming that the "bible alone" is all that is necessary for salvation, removes from authority the Holy Spirit and the Son - two of the triune nature of God Himself. The Sola Scripturist, in claiming that the "bible alone" is all that is necessary for salvation substitutes himself for the supreme pontiff, higher even, than God.

---

I now don't even consider it "borderline here[sy]."

It is absolute heresy. And absolutely distinct from actual Christianity.

That's not even what Sola Scriptura even means.

Sola Scriptura, using Wikipedia means:

that its teaching is needed for salvation (necessity); that all the doctrine necessary for salvation comes from the Bible alone (sufficiency); that everything taught in the Bible is correct (inerrancy); and that, by the Holy Spirit overcoming sin, believers may read and understand truth from the Bible itself, though understanding is difficult, so the means used to guide individual believers to the true teaching is often mutual discussion within the church (clarity).

Note that this is NOT the same as saying "You don't need Jesus Christ to be saved" but it means "everything you need to know for salvation is contained in the bible". We also follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and we consider them as our saviour. To say otherwise would be stupid.

I don't think you underlined the most relevant part.

that its teaching is needed for salvation (necessity); that all the doctrine necessary for salvation comes from the Bible alone (sufficiency); that everything taught in the Bible is correct (inerrancy); and that, by the Holy Spirit overcoming sin, believers may read and understand truth from the Bible itself, though understanding is difficult, so the means used to guide individual believers to the true teaching is often mutual discussion within the church (clarity).

That last bit completely destroys his notion that Sola Scriptura requires that you deny the importance of the Church.

[Distruzio]

Essentially, it comes to this response I made to a Protestant:

If you believe, as you say you do, that Jesus is fully God and fully Man, that Jesus ascended into heaven complete (body, mind and soul), and that Jesus is the head of the Church, then I have to wonder how you think that that Church is any less physical than He is? Further, Jesus himself said that upon Peter would he build His Church and that the gates of Hell would fail to stand against it. How can you doubt that Jesus would create a physical Church upon physical men with Himself as the head of it physically, spiritually, and mentally, and yet fail to maintain it? Moreover, if you believe that the Word is the infallible Word of God b/c it is protected by the Holy Spirit, also God, then how can you doubt when the very text of the Word states that the pillar and foundation of the Truth, also Jesus, is the Church, that it means any other Church than the only physical Church that existed at the time of the compilation of the Scriptures? Just what Church do you think the man was talking about when he proclaimed Himself the head, that He Himself would guard it against Hell, and that upon His chosen men would it be built? How could you deny that the Church he described was a real and physical thing - especially within the context of historical considerations surrounding the formulation of the scripture as I have described before?

By all accounts within the text of the scripture, by your own professed beliefs, it cannot be denied that the sola scripturist "bible alone" approach to Christianity is a borderline heretical approach that denies the position of Jesus as the head of the Church, denies the existence of Jesus as fully God and fully Man, denies the very words of Jesus Himself, and denies the words of the Bible itself. The Sola Scripturist, in claiming that the "bible alone" is all that is necessary for salvation, removes from authority the Holy Spirit and the Son - two of the triune nature of God Himself. The Sola Scripturist, in claiming that the "bible alone" is all that is necessary for salvation substitutes himself for the supreme pontiff, higher even, than God.

---

I now don't even consider it "borderline here[sy]."

It is absolute heresy. And absolutely distinct from actual Christianity.

That's not even what Sola Scriptura even means.

Sola Scriptura, using Wikipedia means:

that its teaching is needed for salvation (necessity); that all the doctrine necessary for salvation comes from the Bible alone (sufficiency); that everything taught in the Bible is correct (inerrancy); and that, by the Holy Spirit overcoming sin, believers may read and understand truth from the Bible itself, though understanding is difficult, so the means used to guide individual believers to the true teaching is often mutual discussion within the church (clarity).

Note that this is NOT the same as saying "You don't need Jesus Christ to be saved" but it means "everything you need to know for salvation is contained in the bible". We also follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and we consider them as our saviour. To say otherwise would be stupid.

Indeed. The wiki article doesn't contradict my usage of the term at all.

The Bible doesn't contain Christianity. At all. Not even the Jews believe that the Bible holds the entirety of the truth in their religion. Why not? Because to believe so is ridiculous.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I understand; however, Catholics and Protestants do have a lot of things in common.

Just as Jews and Christians and Hindus and Muslims. Would you say they are the same?

They just differ on what is it the bible teaches

The Protestant bible is not the Christian Bible. The two are not the same. Like... at all.

, not on what the main precept they both hold is

Actually, they do. Protestant dogma holds that God is a spiritual being (sometimes a monad, depending upon the variation of Protestantism or a modalist being)

: which is that a belief in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation.

No. Not close at all.

They each may agree with that phrase itself but the manner in which that phrase is understood reflects a fundamental distinction in dogma. For the Protestant, one need only have faith in their Lord and Savior. For the Christian, one must also be a Christian - that is to agree fully and completely with the Creed (which Protestants, universally, do not).

If you ask a Protestant and a Catholic the same important questions in doctrine you will find similarities, it is in the inclusion of saints, the icons of the church, and the sola scriptura belief that they differ; however, this does not deter Protestants and Catholics from belonging to Christianity.

Actually, it does.

Protestants are no less Christian than Catholics in my opinion, but then again this comes from someone who has visited - and has learned from - both schools of thought.

As have I. Intently. For more than a decade.

The problem with Protestantism is that yes, Protestants do find that study and analysis of the scripture within one's own means is necessary and to do so may be difficult, encouraging people to talk about it with their church. Thus, making scripture more accessible to the public.

Also, how are the Catholic and Protestant bibles different aside from the omision of a few books in the Protestant bible which are the Deuterocanonical books?

[Distruzio]

That's not even what Sola Scriptura even means.

Sola Scriptura, using Wikipedia means:

that its teaching is needed for salvation (necessity); that all the doctrine necessary for salvation comes from the Bible alone (sufficiency); that everything taught in the Bible is correct (inerrancy); and that, by the Holy Spirit overcoming sin, believers may read and understand truth from the Bible itself, though understanding is difficult, so the means used to guide individual believers to the true teaching is often mutual discussion within the church (clarity).

Note that this is NOT the same as saying "You don't need Jesus Christ to be saved" but it means "everything you need to know for salvation is contained in the bible". We also follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and we consider them as our saviour. To say otherwise would be stupid.

I don't think you underlined the most relevant part.

that its teaching is needed for salvation (necessity); that all the doctrine necessary for salvation comes from the Bible alone (sufficiency); that everything taught in the Bible is correct (inerrancy); and that, by the Holy Spirit overcoming sin, believers may read and understand truth from the Bible itself, though understanding is difficult, so the means used to guide individual believers to the true teaching is often mutual discussion within the church (clarity).

That last bit completely destroys his notion that Sola Scriptura requires that you deny the importance of the Church.

No it doesn't. Sola Scripturists universally believe the church is spiritual in nature. Note that the word itself is not capitalized. The article isn't talking about a single Church. It's talking about the sola scripturist interpretation of the word church.

[Mavorpen]

Doesn't sound like you're being entirely truthful about this

Ring a bell?

Yes. Which doesn't mean I believe you're actively lying about this. You probably do sincerely believe you would be worse off without Christianity. But, I don't buy that nor do I think that you're being entirely honest with yourself.

Ive yet to see a post from you in which you don't offer so contentious a response in some manner.

...Kay?

Try actually reading my responses, hmmm?

I did. Couldn't find an actual reason by you why circular reason doesn't apply, so I assume that you're concluding that it doesn't apply because you say so.

Don't blame me for your inability to back up your claims.

[Distruzio]

Off to work folks. I'll come back laters.

[Dutch Union of Americana]

If he created it, he is not Omnibenevolent.

There you go, now you have an argument that actually makes sense: if God created sin and the capacity for sin then how can he be omni-benevolent?

Answer that Distruzio.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Indeed. The wiki article doesn't contradict my usage of the term at all.

The Bible doesn't contain Christianity. At all. Not even the Jews believe that the Bible holds the entirety of the truth in their religion. Why not? Because to believe so is ridiculous.

No, it actually does.

You are suggesting that Protestants are not Christians because they deny the church's authority, when this isn't the case. You are the one who is suggesting that Christians have to abide by the tenets - all tenets - of the church, when we can't even go around without judging others, which is not something Christians should do. By your own logic not even Catholics are Christians but heretics as well.

[Sociobiology]

That's write right they amended the mnemonic didn't they, it's CHONP no.
You get an A.

CHNOPS - actually. There is also Sulphur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHON

I feel old

[Whitton World]

I understand; however, Catholics and Protestants do have a lot of things in common.

Just as Jews and Christians and Hindus and Muslims. Would you say they are the same?

They just differ on what is it the bible teaches

The Protestant bible is not the Christian Bible. The two are not the same. Like... at all.

The protestant and catholic branches of the Christian faith share the same Bible.

Jews and Christians and Muslims all share a faith in the same God. The teachings of the Torah is included within the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, and both the Torah and the Bible is regarded as a holy book within Islam, but obviously Muslims consider the Quran as their central religious text.

As I understand it, Hinduism is a faith having many gods.

[Shaggai]

That's write right they amended the mnemonic didn't they, it's CHONP no.
You get an A.

CHNOPS - actually. There is also Sulphur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHON

I prefer SPONCH, because it's easier to say.

[Galloism]

I'd like to introduce you to all the teenagers in the world.

no kidding. what did adam and eve know of consequences, sin, death, suffering? nothing.

Well, they were familiar with the concept of death. The animals still died after all.

[Farnhamia]

no kidding. what did adam and eve know of consequences, sin, death, suffering? nothing.

Well, they were familiar with the concept of death. The animals still died after all.

Yeah, but animals aren't real, you can always buy another one.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

There you go, now you have an argument that actually makes sense: if God created sin and the capacity for sin then how can he be omni-benevolent?

Answer that Distruzio.

I am not he, but I can give an educated answer.

The reason sin exists in the world, based on Christian teaching, is because God also gave us free will. We can choose to obey or to be rebellious with God, but God is not going to stifle free will; because we are His creation, he made us in a perfect manner based on his likeness, and so free will was something that also needed to be there.

Therefore sin is the practice of our own free will, albeit to disobey God when we do so. So a Christian would argue that God is omni-benevolent because he didn't make us mindless drones without a will of our own.

I am not claiming this as my answer though, but it is one of several answers out there dealing with this issue.

[Dutch Union of Americana]

Answer that Distruzio.

I am not he, but I can give an educated answer.

The reason sin exists in the world, based on Christian teaching, is because God also gave us free will. We can choose to obey or to be rebellious with God, but God is not going to stifle free will; because we are His creation, he made us in a perfect manner based on his likeness, and so free will was something that also needed to be there.

Therefore sin is the practice of our own free will, albeit to disobey God when we do so. So a Christian would argue that God is omni-benevolent because he didn't make us mindless drones without a will of our own.

I am not claiming this as my answer though, but it is one of several answers out there dealing with this issue.

But God still allowed Sin to exist, which has led to much suffering, and he does nothing.

[Farnhamia]

I am not he, but I can give an educated answer.

The reason sin exists in the world, based on Christian teaching, is because God also gave us free will. We can choose to obey or to be rebellious with God, but God is not going to stifle free will; because we are His creation, he made us in a perfect manner based on his likeness, and so free will was something that also needed to be there.

Therefore sin is the practice of our own free will, albeit to disobey God when we do so. So a Christian would argue that God is omni-benevolent because he didn't make us mindless drones without a will of our own.

I am not claiming this as my answer though, but it is one of several answers out there dealing with this issue.

But God still allowed Sin to exist, which has led to much suffering, and he does nothing.

You're thinking of sin as a thing. It isn't, it's the absence of godliness. Someone who does not obey God's commandments sins. There have come to be things listed as specific sins, in varying degrees, but that's because humans like categories.

[Dutch Union of Americana]

But God still allowed Sin to exist, which has led to much suffering, and he does nothing.

You're thinking of sin as a thing. It isn't, it's the absence of godliness. Someone who does not obey God's commandments sins. There have come to be things listed as specific sins, in varying degrees, but that's because humans like categories.

He still allowed suffering to exist, so not Omnibenevolent.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

But God still allowed Sin to exist, which has led to much suffering, and he does nothing.

That is a fairly good point, although it all depends on how people determine God.

As a Deist myself I just see it as shit happens and humans will be humans. God has no power over controlling nature at his beck and call in my view unlike Theists who do believe in this notion.

[Conscentia]

CHNOPS - actually. There is also Sulphur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHON

I prefer SPONCH, because it's easier to say.

I prefer SPONCH to CHNOPS. I prefer not using a mnemonic to both. I've never been a fan of mnemonics.