Why does God exist?

[FFC]

But, unfortunately, not ample logical proof. There is, on the other hand, plenty of historical, archaeological, geographical (and every other kind of '....ical', yes - including logical - you can think of) proof that Christianity is a product of Jewish, Egyptian, Zoroastrian, and Hellenistic mythologies, beliefs and traditions, but people tend to see what they've been indoctrinated with and usually choose not to study such origins of what and why they believe to be true.

So, animal, what do you do when you come to that conclusion? The conclusion that the secular world view makes much more sense then Christianity all the way around?

The reason I ask is that it seems like you have closed your mind to Christianity. That is not a good thing to be displaying here. Remember the PM from the moderator?

My second question would be "are you here to debate for the sake of debate, or do you sincerely hope to gain the truth regarding God and christianity"?

[animal]

So, animal, what do you do when you come to that conclusion? The conclusion that the secular world view makes much more sense then Christianity all the way around?

Continue to learn and understand while killing ignorance in the process.

The reason I ask is that it seems like you have closed your mind to Christianity. That is not a good thing to be displaying here. Remember the PM from the moderator?

I actually think I've opened it, but couldn't I also simply say the same thing about your view toward secularism? Besides, if you read that post again, you'll find that I am asking questions and trying to learn more about the topics in question.

My second question would be "are you here to debate for the sake of debate, or do you sincerely hope to gain the truth regarding God and christianity"?

I think I have been doing that, but thanks for the concern. This site and forum contends to provide 'scientific evidence for the existence of god and the reliability of the bible' - I ask you; what good is any evidence if it can't stand up to any criticism?

[FFC]

I ask you; what good is any evidence if it can't stand up to any criticism?

No good at all, but there are different kinds of criticism. Positive and negative. Asking loaded questions with the intention of tearing down someone elses belief system is not constructive and tends to make a person defensive. I know because I do it sometimes myself. The point is to try to put the emphasis more on discussing than debating.

[Byblos]

I appreciate the effort, but you've simply restated the same problems...

'God' is outside of our time and space (and yes, our very existence) and as infinite as the previous universe was to the current one in the multiple and infinite universes theory (unless, of course, you do not subscribe to that theory, in which case you will have a whole other set of problems disproving yet another very popular theory, i.e. the big bang).

Again, if god is outside of time, space and existence... what's left? Something you've just made up? I do 'subscribe' to the parallel universes theory, however, judging by your positing of it in comparison to some deity not be applicable by it, I doubt you are aware of such a theory's implications. You have the set of problems (or rather gaps of knowledge) of explaining how a deity is 'above and beyond' parallel universes. It still rests within an argument from ignorance - I don't know x, therefore y.

Ordinarily when I discuss issues with others I tend at first not to appeal to their lack of awareness or ignorance of a particular subject until the discussion has progressed well enough to form such a conclusion, lest I come across as arrogant and insulting; but that's just me.

Having said that, let me try to explain what I meant as evidently I did not succeed in making it clearer the first time. First I did not mention anything about 'parallel' universes as in modal realism (all possible universes existing in parallel or concurrently) because that, to me at least, still begs the question as to who created all these universes. Ergo, that is not a serious alternative to the 'god' theory (although some would use the term as synonymous with multiple universes, that is not what I meant). What I meant by multiple and infinite universes are infinitely successive (not concurrent, although some can be I guess) universes where new ones are spawned as old ones die out. This, in my opinion, would be a serious alternative to the 'god' theory because it effectively says the ultimate super-universe (the collective of an infinite number of universes) is, in and of itself, infinite (i.e. eternal).

Given that, what I was alluding to is the fact that, since we believe God is infinite and eternal, since we believe God is the creator of the observable universe in which we live, therefore, as its creator, God must be outside of it. Then the analogy I gave would fit perfectly because the previous universe that is the root cause of the creation of this one must, by definition, be outside of it (no creator can be part of his creation or no cause can be part of the ensuing reaction, it is its trigger). So if you believe in the theory of successive universes, there's no reason whatsoever to deny that 'something' can be outside of our space/time reality, including the 'god' theory; then why is it so inconceivable that a claim of an all-powerful deity existing as such? This, in fact, would equally apply to the parallel universes theory as the contention is there are universes outside of this one so the possibility of something existing outside this one is inherent in the theory. I hope this is clearer now.

The only difference is that the theory of multiple and infinite universes is in the category of a 'nice idea'. 'God', on the other hand, has been known for a few millennia, wrote a best-seller book, and I hear some people contend He came down to earth to teach us a thing or 2 about this life and the one to follow, but very few people believed him. He even suffered, physically died and was resurrected, not just to prove a point, but to entirely take away the burden of proof from you and I and take it upon himself.

First, explain to me how 'god' doesn't fit the description of simply a 'nice idea'.

I already did. It's not just a 'nice idea' because we have tangible things on which to rely other than someone's theory. Please read on for more on the subject.

The concept of the Hindu deities have been around much longer than the concept of the Jewish or Christian deities... do they hold more weight or value in belief? We still have Aesop's Fables - do they hold more prevalence than the Bible since it's been around longer? I don't see the purpose of pointing out how long something has been around in a means to help justify it...

Now you're saying things I did not mention. I did not appeal to the length of time in order to justify my argument as you claim, it was only to indicate that the concept of a deity (any deity) has been studied and explored longer than recently proposed theories. Theories impossible to prove (as of yet of course ).

Also, I understand that it was men who actually wrote the Bible.. just as I understand you are to accept someone else's word that they were inspired by the deity they wrote about.

Yes, they were written by man but the claim is that they were divinely inspired. Now virtually every religion makes that claim so what separates the God of the Bible from others gods? Why do Christians claim that the God of the Bible is the all-powerful deity responsible for our very existence, and none other? Simply because of the fulfillment of the prophecies. The mark of a great prophet is in the verification of his claims and virtually all of the prophecies listed in the Bible came to pass in exactly the manner in which they were prophesied. Now you can say well, they were but mere coincidences, which is fine; we can argue probabilities until the cows come home and neither one of us will be convinced of the other's numbers (believe me, I've been down this road many times). But what you absolutely cannot do is dismiss the fulfillment of these prophesies out of hand. Even though one does not believe, it's gotta make you stop and wonder, though. That is Christianity's claim to fame (including the resurrection) and why God is not just a 'nice idea' (although He is).

Now, the story of Jesus in the Bible is certainly an interesting one. We are to believe that god sent himself down to earth to sacrifice himself to himself because it was the only way he could convince himself to forgive us all for being sinful beings... And what is sin? Sin is doing what god does not want you to do which basically means that god gave us free will but gets upset when we use it, calls it sin and has to bleed on a cross to make things better. That, of course, is paraphrasing.. but for the most part, that almost sums up this core doctrine in Christianity... do correct me if I am wrong about this. A bloody, sadistic human sacrifice somehow makes everything better... It actually reminds me of reading about other ancient traditions and religions around the time and before the story of jesus came around, but we can get into that a later if you'll indulge it further.

Again, what separates the story of Jesus in the Bible from all other ancient traditions and religions that came before him is the fact that it was prophesied in detail in the OT and it came to pass exactly as it did. There were multiple eyewitnesses to these events, some of whom weren't even Christian converts (who didn't have any vested interest in perpetuating a myth) that attested to his life, death, and resurrection. We can also get into the details if you wish.

As to why all this? Well, there's this little thing called the after-life. Even the most ardent atheists must have this nagging thought in the back of their heads, 'just what if?'. As for sin and what it is, we believe God formed us in his image and gave us a code of conduct of sorts (including yes, a moral code to live by, which incidentally is still the basis of most laws in every civilized and not so civilized nation). There are such things as absolute truths and morality is certainly one of them. We are not animals (no offense) and we do not operate by instinct. There are consequences to everything, including ones in the after-life. What is the meaning of free will if one is not held accountable for it? Is one free to kill their mother? Of course they are but they must face the consequences. Now before Jesus, believers had to follow the law and the result was ample proof that man is not capable of following the law, as, by his own nature, man will always drift to sin. God sent us his Son to relieve us of the burden of following the law and to tell us there's something even more beautiful that awaits us after death and the way there is through Christ himself. Christ's 'bloody, sadistic' death was not the point of his coming. It was his resurrection. We most certainly have the free will not to believe that but we must also recognize the real possibility of consequences to follow.

Now there's ample historical, archiological, geographical (and every other kind of '...ical' you can think of) proof for that but then again, people tend to see what their five senses can discern (i.e. only what they want to see).

But, unfortunately, not ample logical proof. There is, on the other hand, plenty of historical, archaeological, geographical (and every other kind of '....ical', yes - including logical - you can think of) proof that Christianity is a product of Jewish, Egyptian, Zoroastrian, and Hellenistic mythologies, beliefs and traditions, but people tend to see what they've been indoctrinated with and usually choose not to study such origins of what and why they believe to be true.

Of course Christianity has roots mainly in the Jewish religion and was somewhat influenced by others but I've already addressed what sets it apart from all other religions. As for logical proof, please define what a 'logical' proof is and how that can be applied to 'prove' the non-existence of a deity, and more to the point, how it can be applied to 'prove' the existence of multiple or parallel universes.

[animal]

Thank you for taking the time to engage in this discussion with me, I appreciate you taking the time to do so.

You've brought up a number of good points to address, I'll do my best to respond as soon as I can.

[Byblos]

Thank you for taking the time to engage in this discussion with me, I appreciate you taking the time to do so.

You've brought up a number of good points to address, I'll do my best to respond as soon as I can.

You're welcome and please take your time animal (I must admit I almost feel giddily guilty calling you animal, but if you don't mind ...). Just send me a PM to let me know when you do post (here and the other thread I'm waiting on you for). The search feature sometimes doesn't work so I end up fishing for new posts forum by forum and some tend to fall through the cracks so-to-speak. (Note to self, mention search problem to tech admin).

[FFC]

(Note to self, mention search problem to tech admin)

..also maybe you could put a plug in for spell checker while you are at it...

[Byblos]

(Note to self, mention search problem to tech admin)

..also maybe you could put a plug in for spell checker while you are at it...

I use the Google spell checker; it works pretty well virtually anywhere you can type (even in search fields). As I'm typing this I see the above words 'FFC', 'Byblos', 'admin', and 'lol' are underlined in red (which I promptly taught my dictionary).

[animal]

Sorry for such a delayed response - I've recently moved and things have been hectic in the past few days to say the least...

First I did not mention anything about 'parallel' universes as in modal realism (all possible universes existing in parallel or concurrently) because that, to me at least, still begs the question as to who created all these universes. Ergo, that is not a serious alternative to the 'god' theory (although some would use the term as synonymous with multiple universes, that is not what I meant). What I meant by multiple and infinite universes are infinitely successive (not concurrent, although some can be I guess) universes where new ones are spawned as old ones die out. This, in my opinion, would be a serious alternative to the 'god' theory because it effectively says the ultimate super-universe (the collective of an infinite number of universes) is, in and of itself, infinite ( i.e. eternal).

It is interesting how you frame the begging of the question as to 'who' created all these universes - as to assume that 'someone' must be responsible. I suppose you could replace 'who' with 'what' and 'someone' for 'something' but even then - the question still begs as to 'what' or 'who' was responsible for developing that 'thing' or 'person' being assumed or asserted does it not? Enter infinite regress. Perhaps it is because I am satisfied with simply saying 'I don't know', but I choose not to assume things simply because we can invoke that every effect must have a cause (and then put up a double standard and make your assertion that 'god' or the universe is eternal or the beginning or the 'zero point'). You don't know, I don't know, we (human beings collectively) do not know for certain... so why assume such things? Because it helps your argument? If so, I think its based on a false premise - or at least disingenuous at best as it rests, essentially, upon your 'best guess'.

That being said, to help identify what I meant when I stated the parallel universe theory - here is a link.

Based on that discovery, the implications allow the conception that somewhere in another (parallel) universe, people like you or me do not exist, in another ideas like Allah, Zeus or Yahweh are unheard of, in another leaders like Hitler or Genghis Khan never came into power, in another religions like Christianity, Islam or Buddhism never popularized, in another discoveries by Newton, Franklin or Einstein were never made, in another the branch of homeo-sapiens on the evolutionary tree did not grow, in another the planet earth never originated life and so on...

Now, although both the multi-verse and parallel universe theories are quite plausible - I certainly wouldn't defend them as established science; but surely - if you are to entertain them, I find it hard to argue for whatever deity you're willing to posit as its 'maker' or 'beginner' based on such implications...

I guess the point I am trying to draw here is; I am willing to concede my ignorance on the matters of 'first cause' to any of these scenarios/theorums - why aren't you? If you do - then why posit a deity in place of this ignorance?

Given that, what I was alluding to is the fact that, since we believe God is infinite and eternal, since we believe God is the creator of the observable universe in which we live, therefore, as its creator, God must be outside of it. Then the analogy I gave would fit perfectly because the previous universe that is the root cause of the creation of this one must, by definition, be outside of it (no creator can be part of his creation or no cause can be part of the ensuing reaction, it is its trigger). So if you believe in the theory of successive universes, there's no reason whatsoever to deny that 'something' can be outside of our space/time reality, including the 'god' theory; then why is it so inconceivable that a claim of an all-powerful deity existing as such? This, in fact, would equally apply to the parallel universes theory as the contention is there are universes outside of this one so the possibility of something existing outside this one is inherent in the theory. I hope this is clearer now.

A bit clearer, but more problematic.

Even if 'god' is infinite or eternal (I get what you mean when you imply infinity, but do consider that this concept really applies only to mathematics...) how does one go from 'god is its creator' to 'therefore god must be outside of it'?

If I were to create a painting, am I not contingent to that paintings existence? Based on contingency alone, it is necessary for me to exist 'in the same plane, space, existence, what have you,' in order for the painting to exist or be created... An artist doesn't create something and simply vanish or 'step back' or 'outside' into non-existence...

Even your connection to multi-verses in relation to 'god' breaks down with this respect because in spite of these infinite amount of universes which occupy this 'ultimate super-universe' you postulate, they (the infinite universes) would still depend on the contingency of the same existence as this 'super-universe' with which they occupy... You also have a begging the question with respect to this idea of a 'super-universe' and once again we fall into infinite regression... I see more problems and questions than I do answers with your contention.

Also, I don't see parallel universe theorem (based on the discovery I linked) implying 'outside existence' (what does this even mean, this still hasn't been explained). If universes 'split', than it implies they run parallel, ie 'next to'...

no cause can be part of the ensuing reaction, it is its trigger

Give me an example of something like this. What cause ISN'T contingent to the ensuing reaction?

Now you're saying things I did not mention. I did not appeal to the length of time in order to justify my argument as you claim, it was only to indicate that the concept of a deity (any deity) has been studied and explored longer than recently proposed theories. Theories impossible to prove (as of yet of course ).

I was only pointing it out as referring to how long something has been around or how many copies of something have been made (an argument ad numerum, if you will) seems to be a popular concept in some of the threads in this board and website when supporting Christianity or the Bible. My mistake in context if you took that directly, I was just emphasizing a point to readers...

Also, I find it hard to believe that any of these 'long studied and explored concepts' (especially in regards to deities) have reached the kind of 'apex' of intellect to which recent theories have been developed... That is - it is difficult to argue that anything can compare to the past, say, 200 years when it comes to human enlightenment, intelligence, literacy, the sciences, et cetera than any amount of time before that... Do you not agree?

Yes, they were written by man but the claim is that they were divinely inspired. Now virtually every religion makes that claim so what separates the God of the Bible from others gods? Why do Christians claim that the God of the Bible is the all-powerful deity responsible for our very existence, and none other? Simply because of the fulfillment of the prophecies. The mark of a great prophet is in the verification of his claims and virtually all of the prophecies listed in the Bible came to pass in exactly the manner in which they were prophesied. Now you can say well, they were but mere coincidences, which is fine; we can argue probabilities until the cows come home and neither one of us will be convinced of the other's numbers (believe me, I've been down this road many times). But what you absolutely cannot do is dismiss the fulfillment of these prophesies out of hand. Even though one does not believe, it's gotta make you stop and wonder, though. That is Christianity's claim to fame (including the resurrection) and why God is not just a 'nice idea' (although He is).

I don't dismiss this 'ace in the hole' which is used to support Christianity out of hand. I have and continue to investigate and research it/them.

Firstly, supposed 'fulfilled' prophecies are NOT unique to Christianity in any way. Have you ever read the Qu'ran? Nostradamus? Are you familiar with ancient cultures such as the Greeks, Indian or Roman with stories of prophecy (many of which self-fulfilling)?

In any case, consider; I have my birthday coming up in a couple of months, I state today that it will rain on my birthday. I have, definitively, made a prophecy - will it be fulfilled? If it rains on my birthday, does it make me a prophet? Does it verify me as a great prophet? People may tell me I am a fraud because here we are, on my birthday and it is not raining where we stand - yet, weathermen say it is raining somewhere to the south, north, east or west of where we are. My prophecy can be seen as fulfilled. Is it mere coincidence? Is it to be written off as too vague? My point is; does it mean anything at all?

In terms of the Bible prophecy... from what I have studied and researched on my own so far, I have concluded that 'fulfilled prophecies', especially in the NT, are really created prophecies by the NT authors using OT sources. Scholars especially see this most from the Gospel of Mark, which I agree is midrash. To which John, Luke and Mathew's Gospels are also 'effected' as it can be marked that they use Mark as a source. There is also an issue of translations from Hebrew to Greek texts - especially with regards to the Septuagint - a Greek version of the Torah. Just a couple of the kind of problems we face when we 'rely' on the bible for accuracy.

We see this sort of 'lifting' going on an awful lot in Mark. Consider the following example:

Mark 14
2 Samuel 15-16

Jesus is about to be rejected and executed
David has been rejected by the people in favor Absalom

Jesus heads for the Mount of Olives accompanied by disciplines
David makes for the Mount of Olives, accompanied by retainers

Jesus leaves 8 disciples behind and takes two with him a little way, and then leaves them
David leaves his retainers behind and sends three of his men back to Jerusalem

Jesus is sorrowful unto death
David is weeping for his horrible fate

Someone cuts off the servant of the High Priest's ear
Abishai asks David's permission to behead Shimei, who has mocked David, but David refuses.

Jesus says Peter will deny him
David says Shimei was sent by God to revile him

A young man betrays Jesus by running away
A young man betrays David by informing on his followers

Notice in the parallel of the High Priest's ear (Mark) and the permission to seek beheading (2 Samuel), the violence goes unresolved in Mark's text, where one might expect Jesus, like David to refuse the would-be assassin's request. You might expect one of the other Gospels to finish the parallel - and sure enough, Matthew and John have the attacker put away his sword, whereas Luke posits that Jesus restores the ear miraculously - most likely misunderstanding the text to focus on the severed ear, rather than the sword drawn from its sheath. This example I gave was to demonstrate how revealing this sort of lifting of earlier texts and sources is, as it seems that there was originally a line in Mark, now missing, that must have said 'put it back' (the sword). The concept of creation from the parallels helps predict that.

I can refer you to further research on this, if you'd like - but my going into detail here was to dismiss the idea that I myself simply consider prophecy in the Bible 'mere coincidence' or 'out of hand'. I've looked into it - I don't see biblical prophecies as simply 'coincidence', but rather 'created' by the intent of the authors. It is, of course, easy to fulfill a prophecy of you are the one simply writing its fulfillment... especially when a reader hundreds or thousands of years later reads it and supports it actually happened as was written.

Again, what separates the story of Jesus in the Bible from all other ancient traditions and religions that came before him is the fact that it was prophesied in detail in the OT and it came to pass exactly as it did. There were multiple eyewitnesses to these events, some of whom weren't even Christian converts (who didn't have any vested interest in perpetuating a myth) that attested to his life, death, and resurrection. We can also get into the details if you wish.

Again, its easy to see to it that an OT prophecy be fulfilled if you are the NT writer simply saying something happened (which 'just happened' to be an OT prophecy)... As for the eyewitnesses - thats speculation at best in my opinion, and in any case, such testimony was never written down till decades afterwards, placing questions as to the legitimacy of such oral testimony passed down. If you refer to the likes of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny... among a couple others who are always referred to as the independent sources for the veracity of things like Jesus and such... we can examine them if you wish to see if what we can learn from one another, but I personally, at this time from what I have studied, do not find them compelling (even what isn't doctored of them by the Church in later years).

As to why all this? Well, there's this little thing called the after-life. Even the most ardent atheists must have this nagging thought in the back of their heads, 'just what if?'.

No more than a nagging thought of if reincarnation is true...

As for sin and what it is, we believe God formed us in his image and gave us a code of conduct of sorts (including yes, a moral code to live by, which incidentally is still the basis of most laws in every civilized and not so civilized nation).

How is such a blanket statement supported? This is more than debatable and I think misses the historical context of how civilizations have evolved. Would you say that the Greeks, Romans, Incas, Mayas, Egyptian, Persian, Chinese civilizations had no moral code to which to live by? Keep in mind, these were great civilizations who had no idea who Yahweh was, or the Bible... How do you think the founders of Christianity or the Church got there 'moral code' from? I again refer you to the influences of surrounding and earlier societies, religions, mythologies and traditions... This assertion is more of a turning a blind eye or just simply a misunderstanding of social sciences of human beings and our history.

There are such things as absolute truths and morality is certainly one of them.

Really? Than why can't everyone agree on what is right and wrong? How do you know absolute truths exist? Are you absolutely sure?

We are not animals (no offense) and we do not operate by instinct.

Please research human psychology, social sciences and human history, than research specific aspects of the animal kingdom and review and analyze to see if there are any similarities. Be warned; you might be surprised on what you'll find...

There are consequences to everything, including ones in the after-life.

Is there? How do you know? Is this absolute? Or could this be a relation to a Freudian concept between one and an authority figure - a relationship programmed into us since childhood by our parents or guardians (who are also authority figures)?

What is the meaning of free will if one is not held accountable for it? Is one free to kill their mother? Of course they are but they must face the consequences. Now before Jesus, believers had to follow the law and the result was ample proof that man is not capable of following the law, as, by his own nature, man will always drift to sin. God sent us his Son to relieve us of the burden of following the law and to tell us there's something even more beautiful that awaits us after death and the way there is through Christ himself. Christ's 'bloody, sadistic' death was not the point of his coming. It was his resurrection. We most certainly have the free will not to believe that but we must also recognize the real possibility of consequences to follow.

This last concept and its line of logic, if any, is hard to follow. We either have free-will, or we do not. You can't have it both ways. You claim we do have free will.... but, we are in a way forced to make choices that ensures us into an afterlife with Jesus. Its kind of like you're seeking special pleading on the behalf of Christianity in order to establish that people need to be morally responsible (using only Christianity as a guide) so that there isn't chaos... frankly, it seems that past, great civilizations like the Greeks, Babylonians, Egyptians and even groups like Samurai did very well in upholding them (each had a different version if it according to each societies social structure, but nevertheless) considering they had no concept of the Bible or Jesus...

Also, how does one have free will if god exists? If god knows all - he knows what choices you'll make and what consequences follow, he even knew you'd be born to hold this very conversation with me... that's called fatalism - the anti-thesis of free will...

Of course Christianity has roots mainly in the Jewish religion and was somewhat influenced by others but I've already addressed what sets it apart from all other religions. As for logical proof, please define what a 'logical' proof is and how that can be applied to 'prove' the non-existence of a deity, and more to the point, how it can be applied to 'prove' the existence of multiple or parallel universes.

I don't think Christianity is unique in anyway as per some of the points I've addressed - specifically prophecy, or I at least have not been convinced otherwise...

As far as logical proof is concerned I think we can both agree we use logic (probably on a daily basis in one way or another) to determine what is valid or what is false, what is wrong and what is right, what makes sense and what doesn't.. et cetera... a lot of the problems and questions I have (a lot of which are being talked about and broached in our very discussion) I don't think are leaving Christianity in any 'logical' conclusion - especially when either you have to assume or assert certain things (or take them as faith) or come across information which lead to more problems and questions then they do answers...

I think the article I gave concerning the discovery of parallel universes (answered through mathematics) could suffice with respect to your last question. (as mathematics is a form of logic)

I look forward to your response - I think this is a great discussion.

[Gman]

This last concept and its line of logic, if any, is hard to follow. We either have free-will, or we do not. You can't have it both ways. You claim we do have free will.... but, we are in a way forced to make choices that ensures us into an afterlife with Jesus. Its kind of like you're seeking special pleading on the behalf of Christianity in order to establish that people need to be morally responsible (using only Christianity as a guide) so that there isn't chaos... frankly, it seems that past, great civilizations like the Greeks, Babylonians, Egyptians and even groups like Samurai did very well in upholding them (each had a different version if it according to each societies social structure, but nevertheless) considering they had no concept of the Bible or Jesus...

I would say you have a very warped view of Christianity if you say that we are forced to choose a relationship with Jesus that ensures us into an afterlife. If that is what you believe, you have been mislead. Nothing is "forced" in Christianity.. Nothing totally ensures a life with Christ in the afterlife...

[animal]

I would say you have a very warped view of Christianity if you say that we are forced to choose a relationship with Jesus that ensures us into an afterlife. If that is what you believe, you have been mislead. Nothing is "forced" in Christianity.. Nothing totally ensures a life with Christ in the afterlife...

Is not the only way to salvation through accepting Christ?

He who has the Son has life: he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life". (1 John 5:12-13)

[Gman]

Is not the only way to salvation through accepting Christ?

How do you accept Christ? I don't understand...

[animal]

How do you accept Christ? I don't understand...

My thoughts exactly...

Perhaps it depends on how you choose to interpret Christianity.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16)

[Gman]

How do you accept Christ? I don't understand...

My thoughts exactly...

Perhaps it depends on how you choose to interpret Christianity.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16)

And how do you choose to interpret Christianity? What does it mean?

[animal]

I think I've already addressed that in my posts in this thread... you've simply avoided sharing anything that might correct me or have explained what you meant in your initial response - instead you 'shot me down' in telling me my view is warped and I've been somehow mislead...

Do enlighten me. I only ask to explain yourself.