u/Lordnigel you are correct, both stories are possible.

The reason I changed what I’m choosing to believe is because in either case, “God has saved, is saving, and will save us” is true, and the better story. Not only that, but if the version you present is true, we could never know that, which means we could never prove that, which begs the question of why we would advocate that story?

What would be the point? To discredit the other option that God saved us and we should have faith, so that we can advocate that we are being saved, and by a plan so complicated it doesn’t seem man could with 100% success rate (because failure would not be an option) execute it, and sounds really sketchy?

It’s absolutely worth being aware of, but it’s also a total crap story. Both stories have to be taken on faith. Both stories will always have to be taken on faith.

Why would we not choose the better story?

This same train of thought applies to so many “theories” we are presented from things like science as well. They acknowledge that we are taking the story on faith in how they name the story. Why should we ever choose the story that doesn’t credit God?

What’s really being exposed, here? The veil has been torn. All will be revealed.

Excellent post!!

u/Lordnigel you are correct, both stories are possible.

The reason I changed what I’m choosing to believe is because in either case, “God has saved, is saving, and will save us” is true, and the better story. Not only that, but if the version you present is true, we could never know that, which means we could never prove that, which begs the question of why we would advocate that story?

What would be the point? To discredit the other option that God saved us and we should have faith, so that we can advocate that we are being saved, and by a plan so complicated it doesn’t seem man could with 100% success rate (because failure would not be an option) execute it, and sounds really sketchy?

It’s absolutely worth being aware of, but it’s also a total crap story. Both stories have to be taken on faith. Both stories will always have to be taken on faith.

Why would we not choose the better story?

This same train of thought applies to so many “theories” we are presented from things like science as well. They acknowledge that we are taking the story on faith in how they name the story. Why should we ever choose the story that doesn’t credit God?

What’s really being exposed, here? The veil has been torn. All will be revealed.

u/Lordnigel you are correct, both stories are possible.

The reason I changed what I’m choosing to believe is because in either case, “God has saved, is saving, and will save us” is true, and the better story. Not only that, but if the version you present is true, we could never know that, which means we could never prove that, which begs the question of why we would advocate that story?

What would be the point? To discredit the other option that God saved us and we should have faith, so that we can advocate that we are being saved, and by a plan so complicated it doesn’t seem man could with 100% success rate (because failure would not be an option) execute it, and sounds really sketchy?

It’s absolutely worth being aware of, but it’s also a total crap story. Both stories have to be taken on faith. Both stories will always have to be taken on faith.

Why would we not choose the better story?

This same train of thought applies to so many “theories” we are presented from things like science as well. They acknowledge that we are taking the story on faith in how they name the story. Why should we ever choose the story that doesn’t credit God?