Clearly, both you and Balerion are looking at this from your own personal perspectives, a clear case of not respecting the scripture, or more to the point, the context
which these verses are placed. That is the equivalent of coming out of a Superman movie saying what a load of crap, no human can fly by himself, in the earth or out in space, thereby missing the whole point of the movie. IOW, your personal belief or opinion is of no real importance with regard to what is said.
This analogy fails at every level. For one, believing a man can fly is not a prerequisite to enjoying a Superman movie. I thoroughly enjoyed the Superman films in my youth, and I knew all the while that it was all special effects. For the bible to mean anything to anyone, it must either be taken completely
out of context and infused with modern values, or one must actually believe that it represents historical truth. Particularly the passages condemning people for unbelief. Where is the context I'm missing there? Staying in line with your stupid analogy, what point am I missing in the condemnation because I don't believe in God?
The word ''Immanuel'' means ''God is with us.
So if one doesn't believe that God is with us, [...]
You're a bit off-base. You noticed he wasn't actually named Immanuel, right? That's because the "name" in the prophecy refers to titles, or what people will say of him. The differentiation in the John verse between believing in Jesus and believing in his name appears to be one that is not always highlighted, and that is the difference between his acts and deeds, and his claims. In other words, John is saying that one must not just believe that Jesus is doing what people are saying he's doing, but also that he really is the son of God. You can't hedge your bets, you must believe in all of it.
then one acts as though God doesn't exist. This action is what condemns us.
No, because belief is not an action. I could act as if God doesn't exist while really believing in him, and also act as if he does exist while
not believing in him. What we are condemned for is
belief. We are condemned for acts, as well, but belief in particular is highlighted as the difference between damnation and salvation, and that is not an act. One can
show faith through acts, but one does not need to in order to
have faith.
And as I've been saying all along, it is not us who condemn ourselves. God created the gambit, so it is God who ultimately decides who goes and who doesn't. It's his choice, not ours.
2. What do you mean by ''believe in Jesus''? Can you actually describe that action?
By the same token, I could ask what
unbelief looks like, what that action entails. You would likely repeat your previous statement of "acting as if," to which I would respond that belief is also "acting as if," just in the opposite direction. But I think we both understand that this is not belief. It is merely action.
Earlier I described your and Balerion's attitude as coming out of a Superman movie exclaiming how crap it was because everyone (or any rational person) knows that humans can't fly, unaided, in the earth what to speak of outer-space. If this were to occur it would be based on your own belief. But while seemingly correct in your understanding, you would be missing the whole point of what the director had in mind, and would miss out on some essential things.
Believing the Bible is not the point here, because if you don't believe, nothing is going to change that until you change your position. What is important however, is the context.
If you are being honest, then you will understand the context, otherwise you will disregard it, already an act of ones own self-condemnation.
You've manage to type two paragraphs and yet say nothing. What context are we missing?
Coming back to my point, there are 2 types of belief: One which lies at the forefront of our conscious awareness, i.e. I believe for the sake of the film that Superman can fly, or I believe in God because it seems like a better deal than not believing, or because my parents believe. And the other one which is the basis for every single thought and action.
Wait wait wait wait waitwaitwait.
Nobody believes Superman can really fly. There is no "for the sake of the movie." People who love superhero movies and comic books do not simply pretend for an hour or two that people can fly. They are constantly aware that they are watching actors on a screen, or looking at pictures on paper. No one simply
forgets that people don't really fly.
The underlying reasons for why consciously do things. The latter, we cannot identify with our brains, because we are already immersed in it, and cannot step out of it the way we can step out of the former. I regard this as the sub-conscious awareness (for want of a better description)
Gibberish. Word salad.
Jesus (Immanuel) made a claim. He said: “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
Now we know he didn't mean light as in ''sunlight'' or something to improve ones eyesight. So according to Strongs Concordance dictionary, that leaves the other option:
...Which falls in line with his NAME (Immanuel: meaning God is with us). The latter of the two descriptions of ''belief'' I gave would be conspicuous in the way of those that heard
the words of Jesus would understand what he was saying, and know that to be truth, while the former would not understand it, but make a decision on whether or not it is truth by their own understanding.
This really has descending into the absurd. You certainly didn't get any of this imaginary "belief vs belief" crap from scripture, so I'm not going to bother arguing with you about it. You can't even explain it in a coherent way, so even if I wanted to challenge you on it, I would be throwing darts in the dark. So let's go ahead and assume, for argument's sake, that you're right. Let's say that there are two kinds of people--those who innately believe and have no say in the matter, and those who don't innately believe and must therefore make a conscious decision about their faith. So then, by your own count, the only people who risk salvation or redemption are those who can, at best, believe in God for superficial reasons.
Not to mention the fact that if this were the case, it's still up to God to decide who innately "gets it" and who doesn't, thus once again creating a gambit in which man can fail. You apologists really should just accept the fact that this whole bit about man condemning himself is a contradiction, an error in the lore, and get on with it. You overlook the stuff about mixed fabrics and shell fish, so why not just add this part to the list?
