"my answers in bold (and if bold is obnoxious, let me know and I'll change my method of replying."

I think it would be easiest to put what you're replying to in bold and your original answer in plain text. 

"First, I would have to believe that God was good. Would you follow God if He told you to rape women, murder babies and steal from the weak? Would you follow the Devil if he promised you more than God did?"

But that isn't the situation under consideration.  In the chopper pilot scenario, you know you're drowning, and the rope is the only thing offered.  I suppose you could be worried that the pilot might pull you up only to shoot you in the head.  That is a logical possibility.  If you're so worried about it, drown.  :)

This goes to the central issue of determining precisely what situation we're in.  If you don't think you're drowning, then by all means, refuse the offered rope. 

"Second, I do have to believe the Bible is real. Otherwise, how would I reach the conclusion that the rope (Jesus) exists in the first place? How would I conclude that your assessment of the situation is the correct one?"

This is a valid question, although you seem to be having trouble separating out the issues.  It is the Bible that tells you that faith is the mechanism and it is the Bible that tells you about the situation.  But you don't want an answer that relies on believing the Bible.  You want independent confirmation.  That's fine, but then you say:

I understand also that if in fact the situation is as you describe, it would be the logical option. Jesus is the only way, so therefore faith is necessary.

So, at this point your problem isn't with the provided mechanism at all, but rather why we should believe the situation is as the Bible describes.  I believe we can have a fruitful conversation about the latter, but it is hard when you keep objecting to the former yet seeing it 'as the logical option.'  For example,

"Why does He care if I think the evidence for His existence (in the way you/the Bible describe) is inconclusive, and I just deep in my heart don't buy it? Or don't know if I buy it? I don't get it."

But I thought you just said that you understand it 'as the logical option'?

In my opinion, the 'saving by faith alone' issue is not the real issue at all.  It is the analysis about the situation we're in that is important.

"OK, if I wanted to live, then opting not to grab the rope would be the wrong decision. Where is the immorality in disbelief? I admit, if I wanted to live, I

As for the definitions, I meant them in commonly understood, dictionary forms. My reason for not wanting to play with free will was because... actually, I don't remember even typing that out, haha. It was probably because I was tired of people trying to say that we have choice in what we believe in, which seems pretty ridiculous to a certain extent and is ultimately irrelevant.

First of all it is very logical to believe (assume if you will) that we humans do have choices.  We make choices every day.. probably hundreds or more choices every day that we are not even aware of.  Whether that is actually "free" is another topic.  :)   That is why, in other threads, I make note that God has a will.. and mankind has a will too (my "will within a will" thing that is still in the works.  haha).

Also, we do have a choice in what we believe in.  That is just what happens as we become aware of things.  There are some caveats to this but I think you get my point so far?

You are quoting me:

Zagzagel: Now the "judgment" thing part of your question.  There is nothing in scripture that can answer your direct question there.  What I have found is that judgement is based on "good" and "bad"... and is never connected with faith.   But maybe there is a connection there afterall?  Sounds cryptic.. but I chose to answer that way on purpose.  Good luck with your studies.

Your response:

Again, tempted to agree. I don't like the Lutheran approach of "Through faith alone" because the Bible is a pretty thick book. If it was meant to be taken like that, then it probably would have fit on those pamphlets that people are so fond of handing out on the streets of New York. You know, the ones that read "Do you know where you are going when you die?".

You see, you do have a choice, or as you say "tempted to agree".  God has given every man the ability (gift) to believe.  Faith is a very necessary thing and is the means in which God is justified with how he will save all.

Anyways.. I wish I could write more but I'm kinda rushed with many other things to do.  As I would say to athiest I say to you.. wake up!!  :)  God is trying to wake you up to his day star!  Talk to you later.


 

"I will take that to mean you'd rather me answer the question you ended with than waste more time on what would appear to be irrelevant at this point."

Well, unless you thought something was relevant.  :)  Of course, if it becomes relevant later on absolutely.  I suppose if we were sitting face to face the conversation would be easier and more efficient.  I just want to save us all time and mean nothing severe by the request.

st.:
"Which brings me back to what I think is the central issue:  precisely what situation are we in?"

"Why should belief or faith be used to determine who goes to Heaven?"

would you still ask me what situation we are in, or would you approach the question differently?

I think generally I would say the same thing.  If we are speaking from within the framework of what is described in the Bible then we ought to use the Bible in order to answer it.  If it is in the Bible that the 'problem' is presented it is only fair to see if the Bible offers a 'solution.'  Thus, we agreed that given the 'situation' as the Bible understands it, the importance of faith here is logical.

Now, if the question were, "How can I know that we are in the situation as the Bible describes?" which is where we're heading, I would take a different approach.  And we are on our way with this post.  :)

"I cannot "observe" that the chopper pilot and the rope from your metaphor exists, therefor I must be blind/unconscious and the situation is as I describe."

My point was that when we talk about our relation to a transcendental entity we already know that mere observation isn't going to cut it.  We will have to tailor our expectations about how we hope to interact with this entity in light of our relationship with him. 

We already do the same thing.  For example, you tailor our interaction with me on the presumption that you can't observe me, too.  I doubt you suspect that I don't exist.  :)  But at the same time you don't sit at your computer and talk to it, expecting me to hear.  You know that if you don't type it out at a particular place on the Internet I will never see the message.  On the same principle,  when we go 'looking' for God we need to understand the thing we're looking for and tailor our expectations accordingly.

So, there is a sense in which even Adam and Eve did not see God- reason A- because he is transcendent and immanent, and another reason- reason B- they had their butts thrown out of the garden, ie, the human race became cutoff from a direct relationship with God.

We seem to be clear about reason A.  As for reason B, trying to persuade you that we are in a situation where our relationship with God is broken would form a key part of my presentation as to why you should be a Christian, generally speaking.  In the context of our conversation, though, if I can persuade you that we do very much appear to be in the situation as described in the Bible, that would do two things simultaneously:

1.  Provide independent corroborating evidence for the trustworthiness of the Scriptures.
2.  Give you good cause to trust that God's reliance on faith as the means to rescue the human race is 'logical.' 

In my opinion, reality as we experience it is perfectly matched with the Scripture's account of it.  In the first place, humans are, by nature, naughty.  Left to their own devices, who knows what they will do.  At the tail end of the 1800s secular humanists were abuzz on the prospects of a world at peace.  They even created a Humanist Manifesto to document their path to paradise on earth.  Then came the Bolshevik Revolution, World War 1 and 2, numerous civil wars, the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Conflict, Cambodia's Khmer Rouge, China's Cultural Revolution, and on and on and on, totaling hundreds upon hundreds of millions dead, most of them murdered outright, but a great deal killed by human caused famine, etc.

So, it was a very violent century and as for myself, I see no reason to think it is any less violent right now.  Indeed, I see nothing but violence and oppression throughout all of human history.  The only fool thing is ever believing it will change.  But what explains it?

At the same time, Man is universally 'religious.' Even hard core atheists like Dawkins admit to staring up at the sky and being overwhelmed with awe.  His mistake (among many) is to think that by simply re-labeling the experience he has set himself apart from the billions of people he mocks and condemns.  Man is in a constant quest for Something, God, the divine.  What explains this?

Do the various attempts to reach 'God' show that none of the attempts are valid?  Or does it perhaps mean that there is no direct relationship between God and man?  (Whether there ever was is irrelevant for this point)  Man, left to his own devices, acts out on his various faults, and at the same time creates religious systems the best he cans with the information he has.

What accounts for the universal 'religious' nature of humans of all times and ages as well as their vile violence against each other?

I think before the conversation can go beyond this, we need to at least be agreed that people appear to be, as a rule, 'religious', distinguished if you will from dogs and apes who appear to care nothing for the great wonders that reality present to them, and also that they appear to be quite naughty, especially if left unchecked.  So, what do you think?  Can we admit these facts into evidence?