Now a question for RJT, NotReady, and other believers

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
What does that mean? "Trust in Christ"?

So, it's not enough to believe that Christ was God... and that He came and died for your sins. You have to "Trust". I know the "demons shuddering" verse you refer to. But, I also know John 3:16, and Romans 9:10-11. It would seem that just believing Christ died for your sins (and confessing it) is enough to be saved. But, then, James says faith without works is dead. Ahhh... so, just as soon as DS starts to believe in God, then he'll have to figure out whether the Arminians are right, or the Calvinists. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

James' message was that a true saving faith has an impact on how you live. Someone who says they are a Christian - that they have faith - and they live like hell is a liar. DS does not have to understand this. He does not need to know the Arminian/Calvinist debate. But if he has saving faith, his life will show marks of it through the way he lives.

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
My question for you is, if [enough geniuses studied the topic and declared God's existence to be probable] and Sklansky started to believe on those grounds, would you consider that a valid reason for belief? Do you think God would consider it valid?

[/ QUOTE ]

No indication is given in scripture that there is such a thing as invalid grounds for belief. Some believed with very little information or empirical evidence. The apostle Paul had to be knocked from his horse and struck blind before he would believe. If it takes a panel of geniuses declaring the probability of God's existence to get DS to believe, that will in no way mean his belief is invalid.

I would also say that the fact that you are assuming that he becomes a Christian necessarily involves faith in the person of Jesus Christ and not simply in the fact that there *probably* is a god.

[jester710]

[ QUOTE ]
I would also say that the fact that you are assuming that he becomes a Christian necessarily involves faith in the person of Jesus Christ and not simply in the fact that there *probably* is a god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is what I wanted people to assume, that the geniuses had recommended Christianity as probably being correct. Apologies if I didn't make that clear.

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, this is what I wanted people to assume, that the geniuses had recommended Christianity as probably being correct. Apologies if I didn't make that clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

No apology necessary. You were very clear. I only included my comments about faith in Christ to get them on the record so that I was not misinterpreted.

[Darryl_P]

To answer your question in a slightly restated way, I think belief based on a genius consensus would not be genuine belief. Rather, it would just be a human-to-human suck-up exercise much like a frog looking into a flashlight. His definition of genius already shows this by requiring a person to both suck up to the system and get sucked up to in representation of the system -- something that has little to do with one's reasoning abilities and even less to do with one's understanding of God.

I don't think God sets standards for valid and invalid ways to believe. As long as the belief is genuine, ie. really and truly that, deep in your heart and soul, then He will take care of you.

Sklansky makes a fundamental error in assuming this question is a rational exercise. To make the leap of faith you need to (among other things) create axioms. Logical thought OTOH involves arriving at various truths starting from a given set of axioms.

God and the devil are battling it out for Sklansky's soul and he is blissfully unaware. At one point it will become clear who is the victor but for now he'll just keep running 'round and 'round in his little logical gerbil wheel, creating threads that entertain and annoy us all the while.

[spaminator101]

In my oppinion and that of udontknowmickey and notready's. God would have decided wether or not D.S. would beleive. So if He beleives then he beleives and its just that simple.