I find arguing with someone who is not open and is planning his next "verbal" counter attack while I text is a waste of time. What it boils down to is even if you have full knowledge of science, archeology, history, and philosophy, all of which support orthodox Christianity, and still refute the living God, it's because you've decided you don't WANT to believe and be held accountable to Him. It's not based on evidence; your belief is based on will which, by the way, God grants you. He does not twist arms or kick the door in.
The Bible calls you "a fool", not me, though who am I to disagree with that? Atheism, Agnosticism, etc. are religions too, dogmas, as all of thinking, evidence, and nature presents evidence to the contrary. And while you don't accept Biblical scriptures for proof of same, let me tell you that as the gambler you are (you are you know, and betting against much more than a full house) you are betting that the verse--Roman 8:16--that tells you you "are blind" as an unbeliever and that you cannot perceive spiritual truth until you believe in Jesus Christ, is untrue. I know you don't have the hand to beat that--there is none..The verse actually says that the believer by faith has the truth confirmed to him by God's spirit communing with ours, the implication being the opposite too true (which I just stated)--that the unbeliever cannot know this and it is foolishness to him. Romans 8:16 is the unbeliever's Catch 22.
But carry on; though, if seriously questioning, I'm all yours.
I apologize too for my first comment which was not very helpful if you are truly seeking truth.
George, thank you for the apology. Since I believe there was no ill will in your heart, I accept it.
It appears to me, from the nature of your arguments, you are used to having these discussion it a more highly Christian acculturated area such as Iowa. Let me take a moment to deconstruct the flow of your logic, and you will see why they are less effective in other environments.
When you assert someone is a "fool" of course this takes on the tone of a personal attack. This will typically cause all except the most vulnerable to put up a tough resistance to defend the attack against their psyche. By asserting "I didn't say it, the Bible did", you are switching to a combination of circular reasoning (you must believe the bible because the bible tells you to), and an appeal to authority (authority of the bible). It's also an interesting way to disclaim personal responsibility for the attack, after all, you were just quoting the Bible.
From here you move to a threat, it the form of Pascal's wager. To begin with, Pascal's wager is a
False Dilemma, it ignores other religions, other heavens, and other hells, it claims that believing costs you nothing. It also assume you can choose to believe, and the all knowing God cannot see into the heart of a person who just claims to believe just to make it into heaven. If the correct answer is Mormons, where does that leave you?
But underneath it all, it's just a threat, and nothing more.
It interesting to me how such a well meaning person, such as yourself can become so acculturated to the Christian doctrine that you fail to see the threats and logical flaws for what they are.
