No such thing as nothing?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Using a fallacious beliefs argument to argue for a fallacious belief would be… fallacious?

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@Klax

God’s self existence is no more, and is in fact infinitely less, ‘reasonable’ than nature’s.

@Dale

That sounds like it is based on some presuppositions which may be rational and themselves ‘reasonable’, but which are nevertheless untrue (infinitely).

Personally I’d have to declare it a tie: an always existing God is no more or less demonstrable than an always existing natural process. My own bias is that the importance of God should not depend in any way on His having created every atom, microbe and galaxy. I would argue what one thinks about the origins of creation/existence is unsupportable. Frankly I prefer religionists who talk about why the relationship with God should matter to people rather than arguing about His backstory.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

I’m a Personist.

@MarkD

why the relationship with God should matter

…is about deep joy in this life – Maggie had reason(s), so did George and so do I, among many, many others. Oh, it’s also about deep joy in the next, too.

[fmiddel]

@Klax

Our mere fallacious beliefs don’t compare with the faithfulness of Christ.

I don’t disagree with that except for the implication that all our beliefs are fallacious. If you believe that, then your belief that all belief is fallacious is itself fallacious.

All our beliefs (fallacious or not) don’t compare with the faithfulness of Christ.

That true.

It’s also not relevant to anything I said. So…a true “non-answer.”

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Yeah, that’s just common sense… and rationality.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

It has everything to do with it. The common fallacy of common Christianity is that our faith has anything to do with salvation.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Dale

Using a fallacious beliefs argument to argue for a fallacious belief would be… fallacious

It would, that’s right. Well done. Go and sin no more.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Klax

The common fallacy of common Christianity is that our faith has anything to do with salvation.

That would be the common fallacy of your interpretation of common Christianity. If you want to talk about universalism, take it to a private message.
 

@Dale

Faith in Christ works well, too.

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
Matthew 7:13

[fmiddel]

@Klax

It has everything to do with it. The common fallacy of common Christianity is that our faith has anything to do with salvation.

Once again, I’m not sure whether you are talking about pistis or Enlightenment faith.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

When I use faith I mean faith. The thing we do. When I use faithfulness I mean faithfulness. The thing Jesus did.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Oh, you mean what we do, like this:

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
 
Hebrews 11:6

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

I’m not interested in rhetoric taken out of context. I.e. proof texts.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Put it in context, then, like reality.

https://biblehub.com/esv/hebrews/11.htm

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

Sorry, the Epistle to the Hebrews, by Junia or whoever (not Paul of course, since Eusebius), is a remarkable piece of ancient literature, an early Christian masterpiece to a wavering Jewish audience. What does that have to do with the fact of Christ’s universally efficacious faithfulness?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Klax

What does that have to do with the fact of Christ’s universally efficacious faithfulness?

Like I said, if you want to peddle universalism, take it to a private message.
 

You could be more deeply joyful if you would adopt Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s hermeneutic (which does not ignore textual criticism):

First of all I will confess quite simply – I believe that the Bible alone is the answer to all our questions, and that we need only to ask repeatedly and a little humbly, in order to receive this answer. One cannot simply read the Bible like other books. One must be prepared really to enquire of it. Only thus will it reveal itself. Only if we expect from it the ultimate answer, shall we receive it. That is because in the Bible God speaks to us. And one cannot simply think about God in one’s own strength, one has to enquire of him. Only if we seek him, will he answer us. Of course it is also possible to read the Bible like any other book, that is to say from the point of view of textual criticism, etc.; there is nothing to be said against that. Only that that is not the method which will reveal to us the heart of the Bible, but only the surface, just as we do not grasp the words of someone we love by taking them to bits, but by simply receiving them, so that for days they go on lingering in our minds, simply because they are the words of a person we love; and just as these words reveal more and more of the person who said them as we go on, like Mary, “pondering them in our heart,” so it will be with the words of the Bible. Only if we will venture to enter into the words of the Bible, as though in them this God were speaking to us who loves us and does not will to leave us along with our questions, only so shall we learn to rejoice in the Bible…

If it is I who determine where God is to be found, then I shall always find a God who corresponds to me in some way, who is obliging, who is connected with my own nature. But if God determines where he is to be found, then it will be in a place which is not immediately pleasing to my nature and which is not at all congenial to me. This place is the Cross of Christ. And whoever would find him must go to the foot of the Cross, as the Sermon on the Mount commands. This is not according to our nature at all, it is entirely contrary to it. But this is the message of the Bible, not only in the New but also in the Old Testament…

And I would like to tell you now quite personally: since I have learnt to read the Bible in this way – and this has not been for so very long – it becomes every day more wonderful to me. I read it in the morning and the evening, often during the day as well, and every day I consider a text which I have chosen for the whole week, and try to sink deeply into it, so as really to hear what it is saying. I know that without this I could not live properly any longer.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

.

[fmiddel]

@Klax

When I use faith I mean faith. The thing we do. When I use faithfulness I mean faithfulness. The thing Jesus did.

Given that “biblical faith” (pistis) does not map directly onto “Enlightenment faith,” and includes facets like faithfulness, trust, and allegiance, I’m still not sure what you mean when you say “faith” (especially because pistis includes the idea of faithfulness, whether Jesus’ or ours).

[fmiddel]

@Klax

Sorry, the Epistle to the Hebrews, by Junia or whoever (not Paul of course, since Eusebius), is a remarkable piece of ancient literature, an early Christian masterpiece to a wavering Jewish audience. What does that have to do with the fact of Christ’s universally efficacious faithfulness?

Odd reply, that, since Hebrews is probably the highest and most comprehensive exposition of Christology in all of Christian scriptures. Not only that, but it includes the great “faith chapter.” It’s more than little disingenuous to distinguish between “faith” and “faithfulness,” since the original Greek word means both of those things. Distinctions might be imposed, revealing theological biases.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@fmiddel

@Klax

When I use faith I mean faith. The thing we do. When I use faithfulness I mean faithfulness. The thing Jesus did.

Given that “biblical faith” ( pistis ) does not map directly onto “Enlightenment faith,” and includes facets like faithfulness, trust, and allegiance, I’m still not sure what you mean when you say “faith” (especially because pistis includes the idea of faithfulness, whether Jesus’ or ours).

I mean faith. Jesus exercised faithfulness, so all is well for all.

@fmiddel

@Klax

Sorry, the Epistle to the Hebrews, by Junia or whoever (not Paul of course, since Eusebius), is a remarkable piece of ancient literature, an early Christian masterpiece to a wavering Jewish audience. What does that have to do with the fact of Christ’s universally efficacious faithfulness?

Odd reply, that, since Hebrews is probably the highest and most comprehensive exposition of Christology in all of Christian scriptures. Not only that, but it includes the great “faith chapter.” It’s more than little disingenuous to distinguish between “faith” and “faithfulness,” since the original Greek word means both of those things. Distinctions might be imposed, revealing theological biases.

Nothing odd about it. Quite deliberate. Hebrews can be what it likes. Jesus, if God incarnate and thereby proving God and successful transcendence for all, existential equality of outcome, exists, is bigger than that.