Thank you for sharing those Scriptures. They have done more than reveal the text — they have exposed the kind of “seeker” you are. Your reaction, sharp and unrelenting, is not against me but against the light that Scripture brings.
1 Like
Sorry for the “jabs”. It was unnecessary; I see it now. I thought it was fun ribbing, but I asumed on a relationsip where I should not have. I definatley could have either said it “more neutrally” or not said it at all. I know better now.
My apologies.
KP
1 Like
@Blindwatchmaker
oh ok good avoiding, let come to the ground
as i said dont use ai for philosophy, but u used it and u got the wrong answer.
why arent u answering the questions, pls ans those because it helps me know what is the foundational basis of ur question:
Can u tell: If belief’s are involuntary and responsibility requires libertarian freedom, how is your skepticism rationally accountable, distinct from a determined reflex
Can u tell: If sincerity alone defines moral worth, how do you distinguish between a sincere skeptic and a sincere dogmatist without an objective standard of truth?
Can u tell: Why is your deontological rejection of atonement inherently superior to an axiological framework, and what grounds your moral paradigm’s objectivity?
Can u tell: If human reason is finite, how can you demand exhaustive moral clarity now without contradicting your own epistemic humility?
Can u tell: If morality is intuitive and contingent, how do you condemn divine justice as objectively wrong without presupposing an absolute standard?
Can u tell: If belief formation is wholly involuntary, how is any epistemic stance, including your skepticism, morally or rationally accountable
If ur question has a firm basis, then expect the ans, by asking the question, im getting to know ur foundational basis, on which i can ans, otherwise go to hydepark
These question were there in the prev posts, but yeah again as i said..learn and dont argue..so we on terms eh..
And dont take it as street debate, this is scholarly because we on a scholar level theology, so mind the language, its becoming too casual, philosophy is about precise terms and answers, and we dont use “cruel” etc, and since u were able to answer my posts to some extent, shows u have exeptionally level of philosophical knowledge as if u are a student of it..so i dont expect u to use casual words, lets make it serious.
see ya tomorrow
Till then be safe and stay happy
Sam
Brother @Blindwatchmaker
Objection 1:
“According to you, everyone who seeks finds. So if someone doesn’t believe, it proves they never really sought. It’s a neat trick, rig the game, then blame the player.”
Answer:
No trick. No rigging. This is not my invention. This is Jesus’ own declaration.
Matthew 7:7–8: “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find… for everyone who seeks finds.”
Hebrews 11:6: “He rewards those who seek Him.”
Greek: τοῖς ἐκζητοῦσιν αὐτόν — those who diligently seek Him.
If someone seeks and does not find, then Jesus lied. But if Jesus spoke truly, then the non-finding proves the absence of true seeking.
This is not a loophole. It is the moral structure of divine truth. Revelation is not neutral data. It is light either resisted or received (John 3:19–20).
Objection 2:
“But here’s the uncomfortable truth. The Bible doesn’t just claim that unbelievers failed to seek hard enough. It says they are ‘condemned already’ (John 3:18).”
Answer:
Yes. That is exactly what it says.
John 3:18: “Whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
Why? Verse 19 gives the answer. “The Light has come… and men loved darkness rather than Light.”
Greek: ἠγάπησαν τὸ σκότος μᾶλλον ἢ τὸ φῶς — they loved the darkness more than the light.
The condemnation is not arbitrary. It is the fruit of love. They loved darkness.
They did not merely fail to be persuaded. They were morally oriented against the truth (Romans 1:18–21).
Objection 3:
“It lumps the unbelieving in with the vile and the murderers, the fiery lake, eternal torment for being unconvinced.”
Answer:
No. Not for being unconvinced.
It is for suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18),
for not welcoming the love of the truth so as to be saved (2 Thessalonians 2:10),
for refusing to come (John 5:40),
for making excuses (Luke 14:18–20),
for neglecting so great a salvation (Hebrews 2:3),
and trampling the Son of God underfoot (Hebrews 10:29).
These are not the sins of honest skeptics. These are the crimes of rebels dressed in robes of doubt.
And Revelation 21:8 does not single out intellectual hesitation.
It says τοῖς δειλοῖς καὶ ἀπίστοις — the cowardly and the unbelieving.
These are the morally evasive and willfully resistant, not humble seekers.
Objection 4:
“You’re defending this by redefining seeking until it only ever ends in belief. Circular. Morally grotesque.”
Answer:
I did not define seeking. The Bible did.
Jeremiah 29:13: “You will seek Me and find Me, when you seek Me with all your heart.”
Deuteronomy 4:29: “You will find Him if you search after Him with all your heart and soul.”
God does not play games with words.
The reason many never find is not because God moved the goalposts. It is because their hearts were divided, proud, and self-protecting (James 4:6–8).
They sought on their own terms, which is no seeking at all.
Objection 5:
“This is the theology of a rigged courtroom. It starts with the verdict, guilty, and works backward to invent a reason.”
Answer:
No. God starts with light — in nature (Romans 1:20), in conscience (Romans 2:15), in Christ (John 1:9).
And He watches how you respond.
Romans 1:21: “Although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks… their foolish hearts were darkened.”
They are guilty not for ignorance but for resistance.
Every rejection of light is an act of moral suppression. Every excuse is a form of darkness clinging.
The verdict follows the evidence. Not the other way around.
Objection 6:
“If someone longs for truth, wrestles with doubt, begs for clarity, but dies unconvinced, and your answer is ‘they loved darkness,’ then I have to say it plainly. You’re not defending divine justice. You’re baptizing cruelty.”
Answer:
Then say it plainly.
But in saying it, you are condemning Jesus’ own words, not mine.
Because that phrase — “they loved darkness rather than light” — was not mine.
It is John 3:19, and it was spoken by the Son of God.
If a man longs for truth, and truly longs, the God of all flesh will make Himself known.
Proverbs 8:17: “Those who seek Me diligently find Me.”
Final Word:
You say no amount of verse-stacking can cover the stench.
But what you call stench, the apostles called holy fear and unshakable justice (Hebrews 12:25–29).
Scripture is not an arsenal of prooftexts. It is the verdict of Heaven.
And if God’s justice offends you, then your quarrel is not with me but with the King.
And the King never trembles.
Thanks for sharing the Scriptures.
J.
1 Like
KP
Thank you so much for your last post. Honestly, it takes real integrity to step back and say something like that, and I truly appreciate it. It’s so easy for tone or intent to get lost online—especially when we’re deep in emotionally charged conversations.
For what it’s worth, I never doubted your sincerity. I was just a bit taken aback in the moment. But your message really matters, and it speaks well of you. No hard feelings whatsoever.
I see you. You strike me as a thoroughly decent person—and genuinely one of the nicest I’ve come across online.
I’m really glad we’ve been able to keep this exchange respectful and human, even when we disagree. That’s rare, and it means a lot.
Sam
I’m going to step back from our exchange here—not from the thread as a whole, but just this back-and-forth with you. The tone has drifted too far from good faith engagement for it to be productive. I’m here to have thoughtful conversations, not to trade jargon-stuffed ultimatums or wade through condescension.
All the best.
1 Like
Why didn’t u answer the can u tell questions, go on answer it, ans it like a philosopher, we ain’t as I said, this is not street debate, ur sincerely seeking for a project, so if u want a type of emotional, personal debate u can go to Hyde park, but if u want to continue with me, answer the can u tell questions, because again I want to test the foundational basis of ur question, and plus if u have been able to answer my posts till now, that means u have a good knowledge of philosophy, so brother why not, u are good in philosophy and any philosophy student knows we keep it serious, and not words like “cruel” but rather what u call as jargons are philosophical concepts which I’m highly surprised even though u know philosophy, u call it jargon, but any philosophy student will take it seriously.
So…ans the can u tell questions or else ur question and moral basis have no foundation and such question are faulty.
Plus if u ask me for yes or no answers, then idk ur not good in philosophy or ur pretending to be good, because clearly the question u have stated has no firm basis and even if i assume it has (which it doesn’t) u can clearly see its multifaceted question even from a layman’s point of view, then u expect a yes or no ans, my brother..u see the irony
Peace
Sam
@Samuel_23
There was a large bus, that held many people. Several of the bus passengers learned that there was a large bomb on the bus, and so they got off. There was a man on the bus who was unconvinced that there was a bomb aboard, even though many tried to tell him through the window where he was sitting. He says he wants to believe them, but he just can’t. He claims his desire to leave the bus is sincere, his heart is pure, he just has honest doubts; he especially doubts the bus manufacturer, if there is one, would make a bus that is not bombproof. This person is very intelligent, and so he listens to those outside the bus, contends with their logic, rebuffs their warnings, and takes detailed notes of the contentions so he can write a book, exposing the cruel methods and naïve approaches of who he sees as his opposition. Much of what he learns is provable; many of the methods he experiences are petty, some pretty harsh, some misguided, some naïve, some he finds no fault with, but he continues his occupation writing his book. This poor soul spends his entire time on the bus pointing the finger at the bus manufacturer, that he doubts exists, for negligence, contending with other passengers for their inability to warn him sufficiency or properly, and claiming he and others are victims, not victims of the bomber, but of those who have left the bus and are trying to warn him. He becomes so focused on the ineffective message of those who are trying to warn him, he completely misses the big picture, he completely ignores that he is sitting on a bus with a bomb on it.
1 Like
KP
Thanks for your imaginative and beautifully written metaphor.
But I think it’s disanalogous in a few important ways.
If you’ll permit me, here’s a version that I think better captures the moral and epistemic dilemma we’re actually talking about:
There’s a large bus carrying many people. Some passengers stand up and announce that the bus is rigged to explode at some unknown point in the future—and that the only way to survive is to get off.
But there’s a catch. The bus owner controls the doors, and according to the official manual, they will only open for those who sincerely believe that Superman exists and has a plan to save them. You can’t fake it. The doors respond only to real, heartfelt belief.
Many passengers leap off the bus joyfully, claiming to have a deep and loving relationship with Superman. Others can be seen getting off nearby buses, claiming their escape was thanks to Spiderman, or Poseidon, or some other savior figure. Each group insists that only their belief unlocks the doors—and that everyone else, no matter how sincere, is still doomed.
All of them appeal to something called “faith”—which, in this context, means belief without sufficient evidence. (Because if you have evidence, you don’t need faith.)
One man remains on the original bus. He listens carefully to the claims. He wants to survive. He even wants to believe. He tries—really tries—to generate conviction. But the feeling never comes. No matter how earnestly he prays, reads, or waits for the inner spark, it doesn’t happen. The signal never arrives. The line feels dead.
And so the doors remain locked.
People outside urge him to just believe, to just trust. But he can’t fake it—and true belief will not come. Still, he listens. He remains open. He continues to ask:
Would it be just for the bus owner to detonate the bus with him still on it, purely because he couldn’t make himself believe something?
Some outside acknowledge the problem. They see the moral tension. They admit it would be wrong to punish someone for failing to believe what they could not help doubting.
But others insist it must be moral—because the bus owner, by definition, is always good. If it seems cruel, the problem is with you, not Him. “Good”, in this system, means whatever the Owner does. They also insist that the man is lying about the sincerity. That really his inability to believe in Superman is not because he has looked honestly but because he has a hardened heart and is proud. They dismiss the possibility that he is speaking honestly without the slightest hesitation.
And so the man sits. Still unconvinced the explosion is real. Still unconvinced that belief unlocks the door. But absolutely convinced of one thing:
That many good people—people who would never defend such cruelty in everyday life—have had to redefine what “good” means in order to make peace with a system they’ve been told they must accept.
And in that redefinition, something truly important (truly human) gets lost.
Will u answer the “can u tell” questions or just leave it like that..why..is it that u ignore it..i want to know ur basis of questioning
Why..u nervous..I ain’t, I’m ready for ur answer
Sam,
Respectfully, I’ve already explained why I’m not engaging further with you.
It’s clear we’re not going to have anything resembling a meaningful or productive conversation.
If you want to interpret that as some kind of “win,” you’re welcome to it. All I ask in return is that you stop cluttering the thread with teenage text-speak laced with copy-pasted jargon you plainly don’t understand.
Let’s leave it there.
The encounter between Jesus and the rich young ruler speaks directly to this. A man who had kept the commandments from his youth (Luke 18:21) comes to Jesus, not with rebellion, but with reverence. He kneels before Him and asks, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Mark 10:17). By every social and moral standard, he is the very picture of a “good man”—respectful, law-abiding, earnest.
But Jesus, “looking at him, loved him” and yet laid bare the one thing that exposed his heart: “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me” (Luke 18:22).
He walked away grieving, for he was extremely rich (Luke 18:23). That grief is key—it was not an intellectual disagreement, nor a philosophical objection to ethics. It was the sorrow of a man who would not yield his heart.
So yes, many redefine “good” in order to stay at peace with what Jesus actually calls idolatry. The ruler could not imagine life without his possessions… just as many today cannot imagine faith that crucifies self, pride, or ideology. In that refusal, something deeply human is lost—the broken, needy heart that bows and believes.
It’s not that the call of Christ is unclear. It’s that the heart resists it.
Johann.
1 Like
Yeah ok so u wanna tap dance…fine..and teenagers ain’t good at philosophy…I prefer u go to Hyde park and argue..so yeah..u can’t answer those questions because u don’t have the ans and when u ans it, it proves u wrong, thus u conscience is troubled..
By not answering the can u tell questions, it shows ur question has no firm foundational basis and it came from ur dream
By asking faulty questions, ain’t u gonna get faulty replies..so yeah I’m leaving but if u ans the can u tell questions, ima come back..till then be safe and happy
But I warn everyone whose replying that the question has no foundational basis and thus answering it is ur risk, first clarify ur basis the ask questions, or else go to Hyde park
This.
This is exactly what I mean.
What a horrible and inhumane thing it is to tell someone who’s searched sincerely, wrestled honestly, and come up empty—not that they’re mistaken, but that they’re proud.
To frame an honest intellectual journey as rebellion isn’t just wrong. It’s demeaning. It denies the integrity of the search and replaces it with blame.
blindwatchmaker is very strong in philosophy..man he’s amazing..keep it up
if u want u can ans, im here, but pls be philosophically precise and dont be emotional and use “cruel” etc and avoid questions by calling it “jargons” these are philosophical question and concepts which may seem Jargon to u because maybe u dont know it, but u seem to respond well to my posts, thus its highly unlikely u ain’t aware of philosophy:
What’s the ultimate aim: to learn, but u want to argue. So I’m ready to argue, but if u are ready to learn, I’m ready to learn
so
all depends on u, the epitome of ur basis is founded by 6 questions
I’m warning those who ans: to first clarify the basis of the question otherwise one is hitting a brick wall. A question without proper pillars, is like a rubber band which can be twisted to fit one’s thought and avoid the counter argument..so first clarify then answer
You say you’ve searched sincerely. Sincerely according to what standard? Your own inner compass, or the testimony of the One who said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6)?
When you came up empty, did you fall before Christ like the blind man who cried, “Son of David, have mercy on me” (Luke 18:38), or did you walk away like the ruler who was grieved, not changed (Mark 10:22)?
If God is holy, and you are not, why should the conclusion of your search vindicate you rather than humble you?
“The Lord is near to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit” (Psalm 34:18).
Are you broken, or simply offended?
Have you submitted to the Scriptures—not as a philosophy to dissect, but as a word that judges the thoughts and intentions of the heart (Hebrews 4:12)?
Or do you reserve the right to sit in judgment over what God has revealed?
Finally, if God has already said, “You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart” (Jeremiah 29:13), what does it mean if you say you searched and did not find Him?
Is the error in the promise—or in YOUR heart?
Scripture holds the answers to every question that burns in the human soul, including yours. But you’re not here to find truth. You’re here to philosophize, to ask questions Scripture already answered long before you were born.
You speak as though your inquiries are noble, but “ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7) is not a virtue. It’s a warning.
Truth is not found in speculative syllogisms. It is found in the Word made flesh (John 1:14), and the Word He gave. “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth” (John 17:17). There is no truth outside the Scriptures. None. Not in this forum. Not in your mind. Not in academic journals. Not even in your cleverest thought.
And unless the Spirit opens your eyes, you will grope in darkness while holding a lamp you refuse to light. “The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God… they are foolishness to him” (1 Corinthians 2:14).
You don’t need more questions. You need repentance. And the Scriptures are not silent. They’re waiting.
And don’t you worry, I’m not very popular here.
Johann.
1 Like
Johann,
You’re treating sincerity as if it can be measured by external conformity—as if someone’s heart can only be genuine if it leads to your conclusions. But sincerity is an internal condition. It’s just a measure of whether or not a person is being honest with themselves and others. You don’t get to say that a person is only sincere if their conclusions are the right ones.
I could equally (and easily) say that your claim of belief is insincere for whatever reasons I might think up.
But I would never do that because I would not presume to know how honest you are with yourself an others in your declaration of faith.
Your framework leaves no room for the unconvinced truth-seeker. It redefines unresolved searching as pride, and unanswered questions as rebellion. That move doesn’t clarify anything. It just protects the system from scrutiny by discrediting those who don’t arrive where you’ve landed.
If sincerity only counts when it leads to agreement with you, it isn’t sincerity you value—it’s submission, honest or not.
ok clearly u dont have the basics right, so i aint expecting u to ans the 6 “can u tell question” without which im not moving forward so
In response to ur post to johaan,
brother, really
U said sincereity is an internal condition, brother idk why u do half cook argument, that is only valid till someone is being honest with themselves.
The problem is : scripture doesnt treat sincerity as an end in itself
The prophets of baal were sincere when they cried out all day
Saul was sincere in persecuting christians
Pharisees were sincere in their zeal for God
yet Christ called out the pharisees as blind guides.
Brother ima tell u honest truth, Sincerity is not salvific (dont jump and attackme for this, first ans the “Can u tell questions” because ur questions are wrong at the first place, i mean it doesnt have foundational basis)
but truth is
So let’s stop pretending sincerity alone validates one’s position before a holy God.
You said
You could, but brother for the past 10-12 posts i have been telling this is pure subjectivity, not substance. Im not judging sincerity based on agreement with me. Im pointing to Christ’s standard. If someone says they sincerely searched but deliberately refused to what Christ declared, the issue is not sincerity but suppression of truth (like ur doing and not ans the 6 can u tell questions)
Christ said
John 8:31-32
31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
you say that our framework “redefines unresolved searching as pride”, what…??
“People loved the darkness rather than light because their works were evil”
Unbelief aint neutral, its moral, its resistance ur showing
True seeker doenst just asks questions like ur doing now, he learns and tries to find counter-argument.
You are fast on the button @Blindwatchmaker
You are defending sincerity as if it were self-validating. But sincerity, when severed from truth, is the oldest self-deception in the Scriptures.
The prophets of Baal were sincere. They cried aloud and cut themselves with swords until the blood gushed out, yet the heavens stayed silent. Why? Because sincerity without truth is worthless.
Only Elijah’s altar saw fire from heaven because only he stood on the Word of God (1 Kings 18:26–38).
You claim sincerity is internal. Scripture says the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately sick.
Who can understand it (Jeremiah 17:9)? If your own heart is your guide, you are not seeking truth. You are circling yourself.
So let me ask. When the Word of God confronts you, do you tremble—or do you retreat behind your sincerity? Do you measure truth by your inner impression—or by whether it exalts Christ crucified and calls you to die?
The Pharisees were sincere.
Jesus said to them, You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires (John 8:44).
Would you accuse Him of denying their inner integrity?
The rich young ruler was moral, reverent, and sincere. But when Jesus told him to give all and follow, he walked away grieving. The Scripture says Jesus looked at him and loved him, and then gave him the very word that revealed his unwillingness to surrender (Mark 10:21–22).
He was not condemned for asking. He was exposed by his refusal to obey.
You say you would never question my sincerity. Why not? Jesus did. Why do you call Me Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say (Luke 6:46)?
Paul did. Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves (2 Corinthians 13:5).
Are you more merciful than the Lord or more cautious than the apostles?
And tell me this. If your searching never bends the knee, never yields to the text, never trembles at the voice of God, how do you know it is searching and not just stalling?
The Word of God is not a mirror for self-justification. It is a sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and it judges the thoughts and intentions of the heart (Hebrews 4:12). Are you willing to be cut, or only comforted?
Do not stall. Do not tap dance. Do not gaslight. There are seekers—and then there are “seekers.” One gropes in the dark crying for light. The other sharpens his questions into blades, not to be taught, but to cut. And yes, I have rightly discerned which you are. That is precisely why you bristle.
I am not @KPuff. I am not here to massage your ego or issue an apology to validate a performance. I am here to call you out. So cut the nonsense. Stop hiding behind rhetorical smoke. Admit you are wrong. And seek.
The Greek verb is ζητέω zēteō, present active imperative: keep on seeking, not once, not for show, but with a soul that hungers until it breaks. “Seek the Lord while He may be found; call upon Him while He is near” (Isaiah 55:6). That is not a suggestion. That is the mercy of God wrapped in urgency.
Jesus used that same word: “Keep seeking and you will find” (ζητεῖτε καὶ εὑρήσετε – Matthew 7:7). But the context matters. He was not handing out invitations to skeptics who admire their questions. He was speaking to the bowed, the desperate, the ones who ask because they believe He answers.
Do you believe He answers? Then seek. But if you sit in judgment over His voice, do not be surprised when the Word judges you.
“Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts” (Hebrews 3:15). The invitation has a clock. Mercy speaks with warning. Christ is near now. But not forever.
So drop the act. Stop performing. Bow low. Seek the Lord and His strength. Seek His face continually (Psalm 105:4). Or stop calling yourself a seeker at all.
Johann.
1 Like