No matter how you twist and turn, you are still falling on the critical terms essential for a "contract" [or whatever names it is called], i.e. offer and acceptance.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:30 pmBoy, you sure used a lot of words. But you got it wrong again. Sorry.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:09 am John 3:16 merely represent the offer by God/Jesus.
Now, what you missed out is this;
when the believer accept the offer from God/Jesus then there is a 'contract' in effect and the "terms of the contract" is everything [every word and small prints] that are in the Gospels.
When a believer believed in Jesus, it imply he has to believe all that are the words of Jesus or the reported acts and intent of Jesus and God in the Gospels [with Acts and OT as appendixes to the contract].
I didn't "miss" anything in John 3:16. It has no "small print" as you call it. But what's misleading you is your determination to see Christianity as a "contract." That's backward: you're reading a human construct of quite modern provenance back into a situation that does not contain any of it, and in fact, preceeded it by thousands of years. And when you realize that, you have to understand that using "contract" as a metaphor is badly anachronistic, however much it may seem winsome to you.
And in point of fact, when you read those books to which you refer (Acts and the OT: you forgot the Epistles) you find exactly what I'm saying: that there's no "contract."
Instead, there is only the requirement, on the human side, of belief in the sincerity of God's offer.
Over and over again, the Bible outlines how that salvation is an act of God, and not contingent on some deal made by human actions. That's galling to our pride; but it's the truth.
Btw, have you studied or are you familiar with the Principles re the Law of Contracts.
I have taken such a course and one will be amazed how a judge can deduce the essence [offer and acceptance] of what is a contract as implied from the most vague circumstances.
Are you implying that if one were to evilly and violently tortured and killed millions or billions of humans, God will still offer him salvation to heaven with eternal life regardless of such acts?Over and over again, the Bible outlines how that salvation is an act of God, and not contingent on some deal made by human actions. That's galling to our pride; but it's the truth.
If such an interpretation is true and all Christians are aware of it, then [in real life] it is likely a great % of Christians will torture and kill humans [Christians and otherwise] because they are not "contractually' [covenantly] bound to refrain from killing other humans re Mathew 5:44 and other verses.
In this case, Christianity is inherently an evil laden religion.
If that is your view, I will not waste time disputing it.
My point is,
God is illusory and impossible to be real, but if Christians insist on believing such a God, then at least defend [to non-believers] that Christianity is not inherently evil which is supported by the 'contract' perspective.