Ok, I've gotta ask, once and for all... Muscleman/whatsupyall and all other strong religious people are especially welcome in this debate, as are athiests and agnostics to balance it. But someone please explain to me when they believe in God... And put it in the following context:

If you were born today and had no contact with another human being... No parents to teach you about God (or the easter bunny for that matter), no preachers to reinforce the belief, not pastors on tellevision, no book written by man (bible) nothing... What, in the world around you, THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN, would make you believe in God!?!? Other than the dogma you've been hearing your whole life, what reason does anyone have to believe in God!?

I dunno, for kicks probably :rolleyes:

What, in the world around you, THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN, would make you believe in God!?!?People tend to anthropomorphize things they don't understand. Dogs & cats, flowers, trees, social groupings, the moon and sun ....

The problem is that in such circumstances as you propose, it wouldn't matter much.

But why, oh why, did human beings ever deify fire and rain and wind and earth in the first place?

And, quite frankly, your fears of things would be less rational. Watch flies, fish, monkeys ... doesn't matter what. Fears are much more generalized among other animals.

It's a matter of knowledge, I suppose. I'm still wondering if anyone ever catches it when I say that religions are generally the deified sum of our ignorance. Once you get used to that idea, religions don't surprise you very much.

And, for the record, are you talking about theism or religion? It's not clear from the conflicting conditions of the topic post

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

That is a good question. The Bible says that God is a just God. We know that whatever He does is right. When it comes to those who have never heard the Gospel, He will do what is right, whatever that is. But as for you, you have heard the gospel and He will judge you according to how you respond. He is calling you to repentance, to turn from sin and come to Him.

In Romans 2:11-16 it speaks about those who have never heard the Law of God and how they will be judged according to the law that is written in their hearts. The Law written in their hearts is the knowledge of right and wrong. Perhaps God's judgment of those without a proper knowledge of Him is included there where it says that they will be judged according to their own consciences that "bear witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them." God will do what is right and the only way to have your sins forgiven is through Jesus.

><>

Why be religious? Because it works for some people. Just because atheism works for some others doesn't mean that it has to work for everyone.

Well, the title of this thread is good except for all the exclamation points, indicating that the starter thinks that atheism is superior...which it's not...

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

-central philosophy of Zero, Sage of Chaos

The only thing that would lead you to believe in god would be your own ignorance(for lack of a better word).

When lightning lit up the sky you might think something or someone is trying to strike you down. You might then call this enitiy god.

Given our understanding of the world today, there is nothing that would lead you to believe in a god. Note that I am talking specifically about theism (thats for tiassa ;)).

Originally posted by Zero
...which it's not...


Dammit, READ my stupid post.

I think it's that funky blue color Zero... it's just so... mezmerizing... :eek: :p

Tiassa
And, for the record, are you talking about theism or religion? It's not clear from the conflicting conditions of the topic post
Sorry, my bad, I meant theism... Tsk Tsk on me!

Inspector,
I respect your input, but my real question is, without the bible or references to any person or man-made thing, why would you believe in a God? I am not mocking anyone or anything, I am truly interested in the responses I get!

Zero
Why be religious? Because it works for some people
I completely understand that. Just as I understand atheism works for others. I am more agnostic in the fact that I simply don't know if there's a God or not, but based on what I've seen in my life I am more inclined to believe there is not a God. The only reason this "works" for me is because it's what evidence points to.

Well, the title of this thread is good except for all the exclamation points, indicating that the starter thinks that atheism is superior...which it's not...
In hindsight perhaps that wasn't such a good idea. It was meant to point out that I really don't get it. I don't think athiesm/agnosticism is better, but it IS the only one I really understand. I am only looking for lessons on how one becomes a theist WITHOUT dogma.

Captain
Given our understanding of the world today, there is nothing that would lead you to believe in a god.
Hmmm, so suppose in this day and age, a child is born, and has human contact, but never sees or hears of religion, the church, Buddha, Jesus, bible, etc... Never even hears of the idea of a God. Would something still compel him to believe in a God in this day and age with what we now know?

I've thought about this. Ignoring that Paul said "who can come to God if no-one preaches, and who can preach if no-one sent him?", and that the hypothesis requires there to be no history...

I might have experienced something beautiful or awe-inspiring, and maybe also have realised that death is universal. I would have asked myself: why is this? Nobody taught me how to appreciate beauty or how to accept love or ordered me to die - yet it has such a profound affect on me, life-changing effects. You can't know love if you don't experience it. How are we different from animals - they are also alive, but they don't work or display any responsibility towards anything other than themselves. Life as a universal truth might have a universal significance or meaning. Of course, only if I have experienced love will I be able to know its worth. But once I have experienced genuine, unselfish love, I would have known how it inspires meaning. Why do some people go through great lengths and personal pain to keep loving, while others simply don't bother at all? All of this would only have created the possibility of a common or higher meaning. Only under those circumstance would I have realised that if I were the only human being on earth, my life would still have that same meaning, otherwise what I feel now would be false. Since only only love has made me experience this meaning, something or someone might have provided the 'original' love. The truth of experience must remain equally true even after the experience has passed, and by implication even before it has happened.

Considering that the earliest religions were pretty empty - they basically had a god for everything, explainable or unexplainable - I think people have an inherent and natural affinity for spirituality and belief, although maybe not for faith. We distrust everything because we are aware of our own unreliability. Whatever started the movement towards a montheistic religion must have had a pretty strong case, because the idea of only one all-powerful god is less 'humanly reasonable' than the idea of many. The oldest religious systems, Hinduism and Buddhism, have no clear concept of 'god', but very specific ideas about human nature. There is nothing wrong with their humanity, especially in buddhism, but there is really no god in the picture, no real need for a god, only the acknowledgement of a godly nature.

Having imagined the possibility of a god, I would ask myself what role he would have played in my existence. Clearly a god must be supernatural, because nature is definitely not in charge of this planet, or the universe for that matter. God would know me and love me, and also tell me what He expects from me. I would by now have realised that betraying love leaves a mark on my conscience, a feeling of having wronged the hand that feeds me, and the realisation that I do not deserve that love, that the lack of it will be like punishment justly deserved. But having experienced that the love does not punish me, I will be conscious of a suspended punishment, fearful that at any stage my wrongdoing might come back and bite me in the ankle. If the orginal source of love is God, then I am ultimately responsible to God for my lack of love. This responsibility is about the closest I would be able to get on my own initiative. Otherwise the whole concept of a god falls flat, and once again I am only responsible to myself. This will however deny the love that I have already received. The best I would be able to do is to try to earn that love.

My search for God would have led nowhere if God did not come down to earth to make Himself known. I can't deny that I know God because I know Jesus (who was the face of God) through the collection of accounts called the Bible. Ther is no getting past the fact that God is a historical God, "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", a present with Him is the same as a past and a future with Him. My experience of his love has left no doubt about God's existence, and my utter inability to know Him except though what I see spiritually. I would have lived in fear of God if it were not for Jesus who died in my place, and provided the only way of knowing God. I would always have tried to earn God's love, and follow His rules knowing I would slip up sometime. Pain has disciplined me and perseverence has strengthened my character. Now that I have reason to trust God I have reason to hope that death isn't final, because what can anyone do worse than killing me. Surely God's mercy is greater than any person's punishment?


11Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience. 12We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to take pride in us, so that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart. 13If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. 14For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
16So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Hmmm, so suppose in this day and age, a child is born, and has human contact, but never sees or hears of religion, the church, Buddha, Jesus, bible, etc... Never even hears of the idea of a God. Would something still compel him to believe in a God in this day and age with what we now know?
No.

This fact alone makes it impossible for me to believe in the major religions of the world.

Before I get flamed too heavily...note that I assume 'God' in notme's question is a deity. God in a more lose sense such as a 'creating force' is another matter entirely and not the point of notme's post from what I can tell.

Jenyar, I cannot find ANY loopholes in your statements... It's a fully functional system... I can't say I believe it, of course, but none the less, at least you can say you know WHY you believe what you believe, which is worthy of anyone's respect.

Captain, I was referring to deity form of God, but for more conversation, born in to this universe alone, would you have any reason to believe in ANY form of God?

Originally posted by notme2000
What, in the world around you, THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN, would make you believe in God!?!? Other than the dogma you've been hearing your whole life, what reason does anyone have to believe in God!?

I suppose you are correct... since He is invisible, there is no way to know unless He told you...
There are many who claim just that.

So then God depends on the voice of man... Hmm... Somehow I'm not suprised.

Well, apparently except for the time he was able to talk directly to moses. Or was it the bush speaking? :D

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

There are a few instances where God spoke to an individual personally. I recall that when Saul saw the light and heard the voice, his companions just saw the light but didn't hear anything.

In another instance, when God spoke to Jesus after his prayer, some of his disciples thaught it was thunder, and some thought it was an angel speaking.

Remember, the object of "speech" is to convey meaning. Actually, human speech is rather an inadequate medium. But the understanding of the intended receiver is what is most important. The speaking in tongues demonstrates this - a phenomenon also touched on a few times by Paul. When praising God, it is the working of the Holy Spirit given voice, and language is almost irrelevant. But when people are supposed to be able to understand it, an interpreter is required to be present.

Why Be Religous!?!?!?!?!?

Why not?

Depends on the religion. Some promise heaps of groovy girls after you die. ;)

Why not just have your own opinion on it? I mean interpret the bible for yourself? Find what you think is the truth. Thats what Im doing. And Ive been happy with it.

When I think that its time for me to pick a religion IL tell yall. Which I probably wont pick a religion.

Originally posted by notme2000
If you were born today and had no contact with another human being... No parents to teach you about God (or the easter bunny for that matter), no preachers to reinforce the belief, not pastors on tellevision, no book written by man (bible) nothing... What, in the world around you, THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN, would make you believe in God!?!? Other than the dogma you've been hearing your whole life, what reason does anyone have to believe in God!? [/B]

Under the conditions you mentioned, there would be no reason, if you were still alive. But as you have given a foolish situation that has not occured, you are left with the question, why do we believe in God.
Because it is natural, to some people.

Love

Jan Ardena.

"Why not just have your own opinion on it? I mean interpret the bible for yourself? Find what you think is the truth. Thats what Im doing. And Ive been happy with it."
------------------------------------------

Coffee, please be careful when relying on your own interpretations of the Bible. This is the foundation of the many false religions in existence today. The Bible is straightforward in it's commands and instructions. If you need help, please contact me via PM. I will try to help, but if I am unable, I will point you in the direction that can. BTW, there is nothing wrong with being non-denominational. Good luck.

><>

[COLOR=blue]

That is a very interesting question. In a way, I think some people need some sort of religion in their life to have a sense of morals and ethics to guide them through life. All that extra stuff like redemption and hell, we don't need. I think thats a psychological scare tactic. I dont think fearing something should be requirement of faith in something. And as far as myself is concerned, I consider myself a spiritual person instead of a religious person. I believe there is an order in the universe and that it is maintained by some unifying element that is natural. I don't believe in some anthromorphic God in the clouds. Besides, Religions are dogmatic and limiting. I cant deal with a religion with only one way to enlightenment. When I think of something spiritual, I think of me being aware of our connection with the natural order of life and the wonder that is there.

There is no absolute truth. Truth is relative to the individual. Finding answers just leads to more questions. And thats the fun part.

agreed, Truth is subjective

OST

I think some people need some sort of religion in their life to have a sense of morals and ethics to guide them through life.

I don't agree that people need religion to gain morals and ethics. Sociology can determine what works best and makes people happy simply by studying relationships and behaviorism. By generalizing the results of the observations, we can make recommendations for conduct in general. In that way, ethics and morals can be gleaned from scientific study with personal happiness being the ultimate motivator.

Welcome!

"There is no absolute truth. Truth is relative to the individual."
-----------------------------

Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. But, if we look further, we see that this proposition is not logical. In fact, it is self-refuting.

To say all truth is relative is to be illogical. If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false.

To say there are no absolute truths is also illogical. The statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism.

><>

I agree with inspector. If life were to die out would the universe too? I doubt it. Just cause we aren't in interaction with something doesn't mean it stops existing. So why would truth be subjective? Maybe your perception of it, or your opinion on it, but the truth itself is objective.

Yes but speaking in regards to religion, truth is subjective. A Muslim's truth is just as real as a Christian's truth. And since they are both subjective there would be no reason to argue either.

Truth is only subjective to those willing to let it be? But then that is not truth, just their ignorance. Just as I am ignorant of the truth, but I do not claim my ignorance to BE the truth. Because no one has ever known THE truth, all we are left with is perceptions, and this makes it very easy to believe the truth is subjective.

yes, ofcoarse. This is what the topic is about right? Religious truth?

It could be. Or we could ask what truth is behind it all... Of course it would only be speculation...

I agree that the Absolute Truth has to be objective. But religious truth and Absolute Truth are different.

I speculate that it is all speculation :D

Logical absolutes exist. For example, 'X' cannot be both 'X' and not 'X', right? Therefore, if God exists, He cannot be both the Christian God and the muslim god, right? However, this does not invalidate the evidence in favor of a particular God's existence. Evidence is simply evidence. Subjectivity lies in people.

><>

And the truth lies outside of people...

In John 18:38, Pilate asked, "What is truth?" That question is one of the best questions asked in the entire Bible...and it was asked by an unbeliever. "What is truth?" The answer to this question is very important since various religions, secular movements, ideologies, etc., all claim to ultimately base their presuppositions on the answer to that question. Of course, in Christianity, we hold to the truth that Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9), that He died on the cross, was buried, and rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:3-4), and that on the cross He bore our sins in his body (1 Pet. 2:24).

But truth to others can consist of believing there is no God, to believe God came from another planet (Mormonism), to God being an eternal divine essence emanating in the universe (New Age), to whatever other position that the human mind can conjure up. The problem is that they cannot all be true since truth does not contradict itself. God cannot be a man from another planet and NOT a man from another planet. We cannot have God exist and not exist.

So, what is truth? I like to say that truth is what corresponds to reality. Look at it this way. Reality exists. Reality is not an illusion (if it were, the statement "reality is an illusion" would be an illusion and not true). Therefore, truth is that which conforms to reality. Truth is not self contradictory and truth exists. Since truth exists and is not self contradictory, it is absolute. Therefore, what is absolutely true is that which corresponds to absolute reality.

Is it reality that Jesus is God? that He rose from the dead? that He walked on water? Yes, yes, and yes. Of course, there are those who will disagree with these statements. To do so, they would have to say that they are not 'real,' they are not true. But that is another subject for another time.

><>

I'm not familiar with the theories of logic. I'll see about getting hip to it.

As far as everyone's opinions are concerned, you have made interesting points. There is a difference between religious truth and absolute truth.
Religious truth IS only true to the followers of that particular religion. All Religions have their own truths. But they're not absolute and indisputable since beliefs and ideas evolve over time.

Heres the dictionary definition of absolute. It might help us out..

Absolute- not be doubted or questioned. positive. perfect in quality. complete.

an example of an absolute truth will be 1+1= 2. no question.

My conclusion based on the definition of absolute would be that since scientific theories, ideas, and religious truths are always question and doubted to make room for other ideas, then they couldnt be absolute and undisputed. That would make them relative. I dont think we can no the TRUTH TRUTH like somebody said in one of the posts unless I just went in a time machine to the beginning of the universe( if it had a beginning) and see what REALLY happened. But thats mere speculation.

you said something that is absolutely true exists in reality and you can't dispute. And you said anything existing in reality must be true. That leads to what is real and what qualities makes something real.

The problem is that they cannot all be true since truth does not contradict itself.

It is also possible that not a single one of them are true. By your quote I could simply write off Christianity due to the contradiction that exists inside the Bible.

And every religion must be held to the same standard. Knowing this, you should be open-minded enough to realize that your religion could not be TRUE.

"By your quote I could simply write off Christianity due to the contradiction that exists inside the Bible."
--------------------

What contradictions? I possibly have an explanation for any biblical passages which you might find contradictory. Can you provide a specific example?

><>

How about the two, contradictory, geneologies of Jesus?
How about God creating Adam at the same time as Eve, and yet God created Eve out of Adam's rib?
How about the question of whether or not God repents?
Does God want children to die?
Can God be found through reason alone?
Do evildoers prosper?
Do Christians need to follow Old Testament laws?
Just how many gods are there?

"How about the two, contradictory, geneologies of Jesus?"
----------------------------

Let's look at this one for a moment. Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem. They are different. Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).

There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary. Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph, even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship. Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? Not at all. They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary. Third, notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.

Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.

><>

Just how many gods are there?
-------------------

The Bible tells us that there is only one God in all existence (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8). However, it also mentions "other gods." For example there is Adrammelech and Anammelech (2 Kings 17:31), Asherah (1 Kings 18:19), Baal (Judges 3:1), Chemosh (Num. 21:29), Dagon (1 Sam. 5:2), Molech (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5), etc. The Bible is not contradicting itself. When the Bible speaks of other gods it is speaking of false gods that have no true existence. Gal. 4:8 says, "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods." See also, Isaiah 37:19 and Jeremiah 2:11. God tells us that he alone is the true God and that all of the invented gods of man do not exist except in their own minds. So, we can see that the Bible is not contradicting itself regarding how many gods there are in existence. There is only one.

><>

Inspector...do we really need to go through all of the contradictions? Here is something I posted in another thread which originated from a sciforums member.

"Some Forgotten Sayings of Jesus"

Any believer can call God “Father” according to the Bible
Jesus, at the end of his mission, made it clear that God is not only his father, but father of all, and God of all, and even his own God whom he worshipped throughout his earthly career. He said:
“I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (John 20:17 RSV 1952)
The writer who is Paul also made it clear that any believer can address God as “Father.” He wrote:
"We cry, Abba, Father" (Romans 8:15 KJV 1611).
Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
“. . . Do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. (Matthew 23:1,9 NIV 1984)
According to Matthew, Jesus taught the crowds to call God ‘Father’. He said to them:
“This, then, is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name . . .’ ” (Matthew 6:9 NIV).

Jesus made it clear that he is not God when he said:
“Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” (Mark 10:18)
A man had ran up and knelt before Jesus and called him “Good Teacher.” Jesus used the opportunity to make it clear to people that they must not praise him more than a human being deserves to be praised.

Jesus depends on God for Authority: God depends on no one.
Jesus said:
“I can do nothing of my own authority” (John 5:30).
“I do as the Father has commanded me” (John 14:31 RSV).
Needless to say, God does not receive commands from anyone. Jesus said:
“The words that I say to you I do not speak of my own authority.” (John 14:10 RSV)
“I do nothing of my own authority but speak thus as the Father has taught me.” (John 8:28 RSV)
God has full authority, and full knowledge. He cannot be taught, but He teaches.

Jesus is not Equal to “The Father”
Jesus said:
“The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28 RSV).
People forget this and they say that Jesus is equal to the Father. Whom should we believe—Jesus or the people?

Jesus Does Not Know Everything
Speaking of the Last Day, Jesus said:
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only” (Matthew 24:36).

Did Jesus Raise Himself up?
God raised him up. (Acts 2:24)
Jesus did not have power to raise himself up. God had to raise him up, as the author of Acts says.


Jesus prayed to God: God prays to no one. Jesus prayed, saying:
“Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt.” (Mark 14:32)
Jesus fell on his face and prayed to God, begging God to save him from crucifixion. This also shows that Jesus had a will different from God’s will. The writers of Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us that it was Jesus’s wish to be saved from crucifixion, but it was God’s will to let the crucifixion take place. This shows that Jesus had a will different from the will of God, at least for a moment. Therefore he was not God. He declared in a moment of desperation:
“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)

Jesus did not know the tree had no fruit
He [Jesus] was hungry. And on seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it , he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs (Mark 11 12-13).
When he saw that the tree had leaves, he thought that he might find fruit on it. But when he came up close to the tree he realised there were no fruits. After all, it was not even fig season.

Bible calls Jesus Servant of God
“Behold my servant whom I have chosen.” (Matthew 12:18 In this passage God calls Jesus His servant)
"The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus" (Acts 3:13).

For truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus. . . (Acts 4:27).
Everyone, except for God, are God’s servants. Jesus, too, is God’s servant.

Who was real Worker of Miracles?
Bible says it was God who did the miracles through Jesus:
Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: (Acts 2:22 KJV)
People say that since Jesus worked many miracles, he must be God. But here we see that God did the miracles; Jesus was the instrument God used to accomplish His work. Jesus was a man whom God approved of. This means he was a righteous man.

Jesus cannot guarantee positions
“To sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father” (Matthew 20:23).
Therefore if we want to secure our position with God in the life hereafter we must turn to God and ask Him.

A Misunderstood saying
I and the Father are one. (John 10:30)
People like to quote this saying, but they forget the following saying:
John 17:11: "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."

This shows that what was meant was one in purpose, not one in substance as people think. The disciples could not become one human, but they can pursue the same goal. That is to say, they can be one in purpose, just as Jesus and the Father are one in purpose.

Did Jesus say everything John says he said?
Consider the following sayings of Jesus found in John's Gospel alone:
John 14:9: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father."
John 6:35: "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life."
John 8:12: "I am the light of the world."
John 8:58: "Before Abraham was, I am."
John 10:7: "I am the door of the sheep."
John 11:25: "I am the resurrection, and the life."
John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth, and the life."
John 15:1: "I am the true vine."


Christian scholars tell us that if Jesus had made all these fantastic claims about himself, the first three gospels would surely have recorded them. Mark was written around 70 C.E., followed by Matthew and Luke somewhere between 80-90 C.E. John, written around 100 C.E., was the last of the four canonized gospels. The Christian scholar James Dunn writes in his book The Evidence for Jesus:

“If they were part of the original words of Jesus himself, how could it be that only John picked them up and none of the others? Call it scholarly skepticism if you like, but I find it almost incredible that such sayings should have been neglected had they been known as a feature of Jesus’ teaching. If the ‘I ams’ had been part of the original tradition, it is very hard indeed to explain why none of the other three evangelists made use of them.” (The Evidence for Jesus, p. 36)

Similarly, the New American Bible tells us in its introduction, under the heading How to Read Your Bible:
“It is difficult to know whether the words or sayings attributed to Jesus are written exactly as he spoke them. . . . The Church was so firmly convinced that . . . Jesus . . . taught through her, that she expressed her teaching in the form of Jesus’ sayings.” (St. Joseph Medium Size Edition, p.23)


What we have in John, then is what people were saying about Jesus at the time John was written (about 70 years after Jesus was raised up). The writer of John simply expressed those ideas as if Jesus had said them. Rev. James Dunn says further in his book that, almost certainly, the writer of the fourth gospel
“was not concerned with the sort of questions which trouble some Christians today — Did Jesus actually say this? Did he use these precise words? and so on.” (The Evidence for Jesus, p. 43)

Scholars have concluded that this gospel was originally written in a simple form. But this gospel was later on, as the New Jerusalem Bible says, “amplified and developed in several stages during the second half of the first century.” (The New Jerusalem Bible: Introduction to John, p. 1742)

It says further:
“It is today freely accepted that the fourth Gospel underwent a complex development before it reached its final form.” (p. 1742)
On a previous page, the same Bible says:
“It would seem that we have only the end-stage of a slow process that has brought together not only component parts of different ages, but also corrections, additions and sometimes even more than one revision of the same discourse.” (The New Jerusalem Bible, p. 1739)


The New American Bible says that most scholars “have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original.” (The New American Bible, Revised New Testament, p. 143)



The fact still remains that if you apply your logic you must hold all religions to the same standard. It would be hard and unclear for one to make an educated decision when they are already Bias to one.

"How about God creating Adam at the same time as Eve, and yet God created Eve out of Adam's rib?"
------------------------

I am not sure where you read this. Genesis 1:27 says, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Where does it say 'at the same time'?




"How about the question of whether or not God repents?"
-------------------------


Hebrews 9:14 says that God is without sin. Jesus did not sin. Without sin, there is no need for repentance.

><>

Lightbeing, most of those contradictions you have presented are due to a lack of knowledge regarding the biblical Trinity and basic soteriology. I have addressed most of those on another thread here on this site.




"The fact still remains that if you apply your logic you must hold all religions to the same standard. It would be hard and unclear for one to make an educated decision when they are already Bias to one."
----------------------

I have already addressed this also. The truth is the text of the Bible. Any deviation from the text is, therefore, false. Just because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence does not automatically invalidate the evidence. Your presuppositions are tainted with prejudice and you, by necessity, must dismiss all evidence to satisfy your presuppositions. This is called 'begging the question.' You are assuming what you are trying to prove.

><>

"Does God want children to die?"
----------------------------

Physically or spiritually? It is our nature as humans to die physically. Spiritually, God wants salvation for everyone. He offers the free gift of grace. However, we are saved by grace THROUGH faith in Him (Romans 5:1).





"Can God be found through reason alone?"
-----------------------------

If verses like these are in the Bible, what do you think? "Lean not on your own understanding." Also, "Now you see but a poor reflection, then you shall see clearly. Now you know in part, then you shall know fully."





"Do evildoers prosper?"
-----------------------------
The Bible tells that all have sinned. We are all sinners. However, sinners without salvation are given over to their passions. In plain English, eternal damnation.



"Do Christians need to follow Old Testament laws?"
------------------------------

Which laws?

><>

Lightbeing, most of those contradictions you have presented are due to a lack of knowledge regarding the biblical Trinity and basic soteriology.

No it's not. I have a basic understanding of the Trinity and soteriology. These contradiction are pretty cut and dry. Why do Christians always try to dance around what is written in their book?

The truth is the text of the Bible

This is your opinion

Any deviation from the text is, therefore, false.

Question, how can you be sure that the Bible today is not a deviation from the original Books in the Bible?

Simply because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence does not automatically invalidate the evidence.

What is this evidence you speak of?

. Your presuppositions are tainted with prejudice and you, by necessity, must dismiss all evidence to satisfy your presuppositions. This is called 'begging the question.'

Again, I don't presume anything. I don't claim to know all the answers or the Truth. Nobody should. I keep my mind open to endless amounts of possibilities. I hold everything to the same standard, unlike you. This little debate hasn't satified anything. Questions will still go unanswered. You can try to prove that you are correct by examining Exhibit A. The Bible but have failed to acknowlegde that Exhibit B. The Quran has the same effectiveness. You must hold everything to the same standard when determining the truth. Your mind is closed, Bias and made up already.

"This is your opinion"
-----------------------

........based on and derived from valid evidence supporting the existence of God. You simply choose to dismiss the evidence because it clashes with your presuppositions.



"Question, how can you be sure that the Bible today is not a deviation from the original Books in the Bible?"
-----------------------

.........because there are over 24,000 original manuscripts that support the textual accuracy of the Bible. Once again, you simply choose to dismiss this archaeological evidence because it clashes with your presuppositions.





"What is this evidence you speak of?"
-------------------------

Research my posts on other threads.




"You must hold everything to the same standard when determining the truth."
--------------------------

And what is this standard? Define this standard you use to evaluate all things.

><>

In the Bible people seemed to live for a very long time.
For example, according to Genesis 9:29 Noah lived for
950 years. How is that possible?

"In the Bible people seemed to live for a very long time.
For example, according to Genesis 9:29 Noah lived for
950 years. How is that possible?"
------------------------------------------


This is a good question, and one I have pondered on myself from time to time. The bottom line is that we will likely never know for sure. Also, there are many theories regarding this topic. Having reviewed several theories, I have subscribed to the conclusion that after the Fall, the genetic line of Adam and his descendents was very pure, so their health would have been incredible. Living that long would not have been a problem. Also, some theologians think that there was a canopy of water that engulfed the entire earth and that it was released at the time of the flood. "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life , in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened," (Gen. 7:11). The "floodgates of the sky" are sometimes alluded to as great amounts of water suspended in the sky. Also, no rain is recorded in the Bible until after the flood which seems to support this idea. This canopy, if it is true, might have provided some sort of protection from the sun's harmful rays. We can't know for sure and it is only a theory. Nevertheless, after the flood, the lifespan of people on earth was drastically reduced. "Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years," (Gen. 6:3). Whether or not this reduced canopy had any affect on human lifespan may never be known.

><>

inspector: Thank you for your reply, I appreciate it. I still think
Genesis (and a whole lotta other stuff) is more storytelling than
truth. I have read Genesis many times and always come to the
same conclusion. If something comes along to change that view
I will reconsider. Until then - my opinion remains the same. :)

"Until then - my opinion remains the same."
------------------------

Agreed. Some parts of the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, are difficult to understand. However, regarding the Flood, there is secular, scientific evidence supporting a massive flood consistent with the biblical timeline.........in case you were wondering. ;-)

><>

"Some parts of the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, are difficult to understand. However, regarding the Flood, there is secular, scientific evidence supporting a massive flood consistent with the biblical timeline.........in case you were wondering. ;-) "

ooohhh... don't get me started on that whole flood thing :p

In case anyone doesnt know, there are two separate creation stories in Genesis if you read it carefully WITHOUT being biased towards it because of your beliefs. The reason why there are two creation stories is because they came from ancient sumerian and babylonian myths predating Christianity over a thousand years. If you dont believe me, you can look it up. It was an archaelogical find. Myths change through cultural transmission.

A person has to be open-minded when it comes to certain things, especially religion, when your beliefs and emotions overshadow your judgement and common sense. You cant be biased. Because if you are biased, you want be enlightened by certain truths.

I normally try to keep quiet during these things, but I'll make a minor point to agree with inspector on the Adam/Eve ribbing event. I'd say inspector knows what he's talking about there.

Though for the REST...:p

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

*Stares at Inspector in disbelief*

Yikes, where do you find that kind of time?

The Bible tells us that there is only one God in all existence (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8). However, it also mentions "other gods." For example there is Adrammelech and Anammelech (2 Kings 17:31), Asherah (1 Kings 18:19), Baal (Judges 3:1), Chemosh (Num. 21:29), Dagon (1 Sam. 5:2), Molech (Lev. 18:21; 20:2- 5), etc. The Bible is not contradicting itself. When the Bible speaks of other gods it is speaking of false gods that have no true existence. Gal. 4:8 says, "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods." See also, Isaiah 37:19 and Jeremiah 2:11. God tells us that he alone is the true God and that all of the invented gods of man do not exist except in their own minds. So, we can see that the Bible is not contradicting itself regarding how many gods there are in existence. There is only one.

Ex.15:11
"Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?"

Ex.18:11
"Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods."

1 Sam.28:13
"And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

Jer.10:11
"The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens."

"Does God want children to die?"
----------------------------

Physically or spiritually? It is our nature as humans to die physically.

Physically, He puts Gilles du Rais and Jeffrey Dahlmer to shame.

God killed all the children of Sodom and Gomorrah.
God ordered the Israelites to kill all of the children in the cities that they invaded.
God killed all the children on earth (except Noah's) during the Flood.
God promised to kill all the children of Samaria.
God ordered Saul to kill all of the Amalekite children.

Spiritually, God wants salvation for everyone. He offers the free gift of grace. However, we are saved by grace THROUGH faith in Him (Romans 5:1).

How can a five year old understand God if brilliant academics have been unable to understand Him for over 2000 years?

Thus, any child who dies must go to hell.

Is that right?

"Can God be found through reason alone?"
-----------------------------

If verses like these are in the Bible, what do you think? "Lean not on your own understanding." Also, "Now you see but a poor reflection, then you shall see clearly. Now you know in part, then you shall know fully."

Job 11:7.

"Do evildoers prosper?"
-----------------------------
The Bible tells that all have sinned. We are all sinners. However, sinners without salvation are given over to their passions. In plain English, eternal damnation.

That's nice, but it still doesn't explain why Job 12:6 says "The tabernacles of robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are secure; into whose hand God bringeth abundantly." and Psalm 34:21 says:
"Evil shall slay the wicked: and they that hate the righteous shall be desolate."

And if we are God's creation, how can our sin offend Him, since He created us to be sinners?

Therefore, sin freely, and remember that Satan loves you and has a great plan for your life. :)

This tread is a good example how logic can murder facts. Just because Y can be logically demonstrated to follow X, does not preclude A - W or even Z from following X as well. Otherwise language would not have been possible ;)

There is an absolte truth, but I believe only God knows enough (all) of it, and that people can only have parts, shadows, and revelations of it. As a matter of fact, I strongly suspect that 'truth' can never be anything but 'relative' to humans - to whom everything is subjective. Only God can have an objective, absolute view of the WHOLE truth. We will always leave something out, because we simply cannot imagine enough to be aware of everything.

BUT. From the Bible we have all the truth we need on which to base our faith. The Old Testament was is use by Jews ever since they came to know that there was only one true God. How did they come to know this when the Bible didn't exist as such? They were living lives that did not depend on anything but survival, and God provided that survival. The Old Testament tells their story, which is completely human and relevant - they had wars, we have wars, there were atrocities just like now. And most of all, we have accounts by people who had faith in God about what God did.

The apostles had this written history of the Jews - the collection of people that God chose to carry His covenant with all of humanity. The Bible doesn't presume to be a "handbook for the use of conversion" or even try to prove that God exists. It knows the truth, that God does exist, and goes on from there. When Paul went on his missions, he did not preach the Bible - he used it to validate Jesus' history - coming from God - and fed it back to the Jews who held to it. But more than anything Paul and the apostles taught Jesus as Saviour. Instead of sacrificing dead animals, people were told to sacrifice thanks and praise. For what? For love received - not for truth received.

The truth was and still is irrefutable, but the means of conveying that truth has always created controversy. It goes against people's nature. It teaches the unknowable. It asks people to see the invisible. If this weren't possible, Christianity would have been no better than New Age or whatever religion is relevant to what people need to believe the time.

Xev: those gods were man-made and dependent on man for existence. Their is only one God who is self-sufficient and capable of being heart, body and soul so completely that each characteristic can exist of its own accord - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - yet still be the one "I am".

Jenyar:
Perhaps God is truth - the sum total of the universe, the ultimate truth?

That is, what if God's possession of truth is the same thing as It's being truth?

(No, I am not tripped out on acid)

Xev: those gods were man-made and dependent on man for existence. Their is only one God who is self- sufficient and capable of being heart, body and soul so completely that each characteristic can exist of its own accord - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - yet still be the one "I am".

Perhaps. But the Bible makes it sound very much like there are other Gods.

See Jenyar, you're an athiest too, you just believe in one more God than I do. :p

Or three more Gods. Or three in one more Gods. What the hell, Satan still loves you.

Another thing: the further you look back, the more simple things look. It is a wonder that such an old religion can retain so many complexities intact, yet remain so simple in its intent.

Those events that you mention are so distant that they almost become metaphors - like parables. But even though their meaning is more important than their truth, their meaning does not diminish their truth, but enhances it. Tell me, Xev, when you have a child someday - will it be more important that he or she knows every last detail of your psychology and motives for your action, or that she knows, feels and sees that you love her?

You don't believe the Bible or it's message, so stop using it to refute the very thing it testifies about.

How can a five year old understand God if brilliant academics have been unable to understand Him for over 2000 years?

Thus, any child who dies must go to hell.
Exactly. The way to knowing God comes from Him, not from yourself. Do you think God wants or permits only people with an IQ over 200 to believe in Him?
Matthew 18:3
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven..."

1 Samuel 28
13 The king said to her, "Don't be afraid. What do you see?"
The woman said, "I see a spirit [or see spirits ; or see gods] coming up out of the ground."
14 "What does he look like?" he asked.
"An old man wearing a robe is coming up," she said.
Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.

Oops - it wasn't a god after all.

Jer.10:11
"The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens."

I wonder, did you even read the rest of the Jer.10?

..."Do not learn the ways of the nations
or be terrified by signs in the sky,
though the nations are terrified by them.
3 For the customs of the peoples are worthless;
they cut a tree out of the forest,
and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.
4 They adorn it with silver and gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails
so it will not totter.
5 Like a scarecrow in a melon patch,
their idols cannot speak;
they must be carried
because they cannot walk.
Do not fear them;
they can do no harm
nor can they do any good."

There is an old story, that once Abraham was in his father's shop, who was a craftsman. The shop was full of the gods that were worshipped at the time and were commissioned to be made. Abraham's father warned him explicitly not to touch or come near them as they were holy and powerful gods.
But Abraham went in and destroyed the idols. When his father came in and saw the wreckage he was furious. "What happened here!?" he asked. "The gods had a disagreement and fought among each other," Abraham replied. "But that's ridiculous! They're just dead wood and metal - they can't fight!"

and I would have said "Touché"

Jenyar:
Those events that you mention are so distant that they almost become metaphors - like parables. But even though their meaning is more important than their truth, their meaning does not diminish their truth, but enhances it. Tell me, Xev, when you have a child someday - will it be more important that he or she knows every last detail of your psychology and motives for your action, or that she knows, feels and sees that you love her?

I'm not going to have children.

You don't believe the Bible or it's message, so stop using it to refute the very thing it testifies about.

I'm proving the Bible to be contradictory. This is simple logic.

If you say "A giant purple elephant lives on my roof" and I say "how can there be an elephant on your roof", am I thus believing in giant purple elephants?

Oh, and don't tell me what to do and what not to do, because you sound like a real twit when you do.

Exactly. The way to knowing God comes from Him, not from yourself. Do you think God wants or permits only people with an IQ over 200 to believe in Him?

So children go to hell, just 'cause they died at an inoppertune time.

That's, ah, really great.
Have I mentioned that your God is a sadist?

I wonder, did you even read

Yup! Fourth grade level!

the rest of the Jer.10?

Kinda. It's pretty boring and I got distracted by a - OOH! A BRIGHT SHINEY OBJECT!

Okay, I'll concede the "multiple Gods" thingy, because, you know, I still have about 150 contradictions left. :)

I'm sorry but I don't see any evidence of contradiction from the Bible in your post. You are being *very* selective with the verses you do cite. Here is an experiment I like to do and you might find productive: Try proving yourself wrong from the same source and by the same measures as you use to prove yourself right.

I'd would like to see on which you base the assumption that children go to hell.

God is love. Not a dead truth that can be manipulated by perspective or perception. Love acts. Otherwise it is just a word. Truth in science can at best only be a theory that has not been refuted for the time being. When you hold anything as being absolutely true, you are moving out of the realm of science.

God is a sadist? Kills for pleasure or without reason? The Bible is written on the premise that God created life, therefore you must either prove the premise wrong, or argue about the Bible within that frame of reference.

What would you like to achieve by pointing out contradictions in the Bible? Both the words "love" and "hate" occur in the Bible, that doesn't imply contradiction. Since when does one side of a coin contradict the other?

"I'm not going to have children". By that I deduce you are going to have an abortion or are infertile. You cannot exclude the possibility of being raped, and you cannot exclude the possibility of meeting someone and wanting kids someday. Does that mean you might contradict yourself in the future and cease to exist?

Jenyar, this is typical of most atheists. They ask for explanations/evidence and (after oftentimes much research and subsequent typing by the Christian) when they are presented with answers and refutations, they dismiss it, explain it away, etc. Eventually, when they have nothing rational to offer, the atheists' conversations degenerate into condescension, personal insults, profanity and character attacks. However, having fulfilled our obligations of 1 Peter 3:15, we just simply move along to the next one. Jen, as you certainly know, our words cannot save anyone, only Jesus can do that. BTW, keep up the good work and contact me via PM if you just want to chat. See ya.

><>

based on and derived from valid evidence supporting the existence of God. You simply choose to dismiss the evidence because it clashes with your presuppositions.

Man, you always seem to go off topic. We are not debating the existence of God. I am very open to the idea of "God". I have not dismissed any evidence. And once again I don't have a presupposition, I just have a clear opened mind.

***because there are over 24,000 original manuscripts that support the textual accuracy of the Bible. ***

Really, have you seen any of these original text? How do you know they are the original text? Did you examine them or do you accept them becuase of your presupposition :D :bugeye: I've learned not to take people's word for it.


Research my posts on other threads.

If I missed some type of hard evidence that Jesus is God.....Please repost it.

And what is this standard? Define this standard you use to evaluate all things.

As long as your standard is the same and constant then the standard does not need to be defined. You hold the Bible to a higher authority then anything else and your reason for this can be used equally for any other Holy Book. You are Bias.

Jenyar:
I'd would like to see on which you base the assumption that children go to hell.

You're either saved or damned.
Don't accept Jesus, you're damned.
If you're too young to know Jesus before you die, you're damned.
Ergo, children are damned.

God is a sadist? Kills for pleasure or without reason? The Bible is written on the premise that God created life, therefore you must either prove the premise wrong, or argue about the Bible within that frame of reference.

I'd read the OT if I were you. The slaughter and rape of the Amakalites, the murder of the Egyptian firstborn, the various plauges he sent to Isreal....

What would you like to achieve by pointing out contradictions in the Bible?

Inspector said:

"By your quote I could simply write off Christianity due to the contradiction that exists inside the Bible."
--------------------

What contradictions? I possibly have an explanation for any biblical passages which you might find contradictory. Can you provide a specific example?

I obliged.

I did not claim that the Bible was false, or that God does not exist. I simply pointed to some thing regarded as contradictions.

Your response is unwarrented.

Both the words "love" and "hate" occur in the Bible, that doesn't imply contradiction. Since when does one side of a coin contradict the other?

Yes, but "God loves you" and "God hates you, sinner" is a contradiction.

"I'm not going to have children". By that I deduce you are going to have an abortion or are infertile. You cannot exclude the possibility of being raped, and you cannot exclude the possibility of meeting someone and wanting kids someday. Does that mean you might contradict yourself in the future and cease to exist?

Explain why I would cease to exist if I contradict myself?

"I am very open to the idea of "God"
---------------------

Yeah, this is obvious the way you attempt to destroy theistic evidences.



"How do you know they are the original text?"
-----------------------

Ask the archaeologists who discovered them.




"If I missed some type of hard evidence that Jesus is God.....Please repost it."
-------------------------

Look them up yourself. You can search my posts. Since you are so 'open' to the existence of God, you won't mind taking the time to do this menial task.




"As long as your standard is the same and constant then the standard does not need to be defined."
---------------------------

Huh? Can you say 'circular reasoning'?

><>

Yeah, this is obvious the way you attempt to destroy theistic evidences.

Umm no. Just because I disagree with your religion should not indicate to you that I do not believe in God. You made a few attempts to call me an athiest in the past. Premature. Religion does not equal "God"

Ask the archaeologists who discovered them.

Did you go as far as to ask them or did you just accept them?

Look them up yourself. You can search my posts. Since you are so 'open' to the existence of God, you won't mind taking the time to do this menial task.

I have read plenty of your posts and in no way did they conclude evidence of God. If you are so sure of yourself why not repost one or two of them ;) . Yes....I am open to the existence of God but I'm sure you will keep trying your best to convince me and the readers that I'm not. I don't get you :confused:

Huh? Can you say 'circular reasoning'?

How is it circular reasoning? By setting everything(meaning religion) to same same standard in order to determine your decision? By using the same pattern on each and every religion? How is it circular reasoning? Seems like a very legitamite way to come to a clear and unbias conclusion, no?

"Yeah, this is obvious the way you attempt to destroy theistic evidences. "

It's not destroying so much as testing. In science, all evidence is criticized until it is either proven right or wrong. If you submit evidence for God, expect it to be criticized... heavily. Science holds the same standard for religious evidence as it does for any other evidence. Actually, the standard is a bit higher, since the claim of a omniscient being creating the universe for no apparent reason other than his own amusement is a bit of an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"Ask the archaeologists who discovered them."

Even they do not know if the texts changed before they discovered them.

OMG my 1000th post! w000!!

Religion is ultimate, unyielding, and selfassured. Science always changes and corrects itself. Guess who makes more achievements, can explain more of the world, and makes more sense. If you say religion then ... you're deluded. Or religious. Or both.

Scientific theories (now, now, no bickering about how theories are only theories...that's the realm of little kids) always change, and are open to disproof (did I get that right???) by experimental evidence. Religious doctrines, once said, stay rooted more tightly than a rat's behind in a sack of cheese. The difference lies there.

Religion is simply filling the void left by many unanswered questions. The only things they are willing to answer with "I don't know" is the things they don't care about. The reasonable will answer with "I don't know" when they don't know. Wether they like it or not.

Jenyar, this is typical of most atheists. They ask for explanations/evidence and (after oftentimes much research and subsequent typing by the Christian) when they are presented with answers and refutations, they dismiss it, explain it away, etc. Eventually, when they have nothing rational to offer, the atheists' conversations degenerate into condescension, personal insults, profanity and character attacks. However, having fulfilled our obligations of 1 Peter 3:15, we just simply move along to the next one. Jen, as you certainly know, our words cannot save anyone, only Jesus can do that. BTW, keep up the good work and contact me via PM if you just want to chat. See ya.

Where did I insult anyone without being insulted first?

Moron. ;)

So how come there is a geneology offered for Mary, when the geneologies for women were rarely kept?

Not only this, but even if one was offered for Mary and one for Joseph, there is still an error in your inerrent book.

I also note that neither you nor Jenyar can, for all of your snide comments, explain to me whether God wants children to live or die.

Dumbass.

Nor can you explain the whole "by searching, canst thou find out God?" thing.

Twit.

However, regarding the Flood, there is secular, scientific evidence supporting a massive flood consistent with the biblical timeline

A world wide flood? Could you point me in the direction of this evidence?

Where did the water come from? And where has it gone since the world wide flood?

In the first book of genesis, the earth is described as being covered with water. God moves his face across the water and creates the earth from there. I dont know if anybody noticed that the water was already there. This makes me conclude that God didnt create the water. So where did the water come from? What does it symbolize?

"So where did the water come from? What does it symbolize?"

Where did the water come from? And where has it gone since the world wide flood?

A world wide flood? Could you point me in the direction of this evidence?
-------------------------------


According to Xev, I am a moron. Ask her/him/it.

><>

Xev would say: "You Moron, a global flood is impossible because it would destroy all life in several different ways. Dumbass, the geologic column contradicts this idea. Twit"

"You Moron, a global flood is impossible because it would destroy all life in several different ways. Dumbass, the geologic column contradicts this idea. Twit"

LOL!

More like;

"There's no evidence for anything but a large, local "flood" occuring some 12,500 years ago. Fuckwit, that's where the stories in Genesis and Gilgamesh come from, not from a global flood, and nobody but a dumbass like you would believe in such an absurd fairy tale, especially one that is clearly disproven by the geological record."

Oh, and for the record, I am a her.

A worldwide flood as described in the Bible is simply impossible. Such a flood has no scientific merit and would undoubtably boil the surface of the Earth killing Noah and all the other animals in his boat. Know what creationists are saying happened? A giant canopy of water surrounded the Earth until one day God made it all fall onto Earth for 40 days. ROFL. Not only would such a water canopy raise the atmospheric pressure at sea level to over 900 times what it is now, but it would block out a hefy percentage of the Sun's light, thereby freezing the surface of the Earth and killing off all life before it even started raining.

It's amazing what some creation "scientists" will come up with just to try and prove their hypothesis.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Fucktard. :p

You're either saved or damned.
Don't accept Jesus, you're damned.
If you're too young to know Jesus before you die, you're damned.
Ergo, children are damned.


It is not up to you or a child to be saved. It is up to God. But God demands justice, like the justice you so self-righteously condemn from the OT. Therefore Jesus came inbetween, to bear the verdict. To die for us. Everybody after Jesus have no right to condemn themselves - or anyone - to "eternal damnation". No right because they have no reason.

Luke 10
21At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
22"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Because you have heard the good news, you cannot escape the choice. You can't send babies to hell, Xev.

"By your quote I could simply write off Christianity due to the contradiction that exists inside the Bible."
"By your quote I could simply write you off by contradictions in your posts." It doesn't work that way. If you say you won't ever have any children, by what authority except your own can it hold true? If you contradict yourself in the future, does that mean you don't have authority over yourself or your actions? You can justify yourself (be right) either in your authority or in your actions.

God is just in both His authority and actions. While you live by your own laws ("that you cannot sin because you don't know God") you will die under that law - death. That is the worst either you or other people can do. I submit to God, who can save me from more than death.

I have a question, how can you base your Truth on a "Holy Book" that has contradictions in it? Would you hold anything else to such a high authority that consists of many contradictions? IMO, Truth could never derive from contradictions. That goes for anything, not just religion. Why is your religion graded with a "curve"? I don't think you would tolerate the same if it was regarding something other then religion. Why don't you hold everything to the same standard?

Jenyar,

I submit to God, who can save me from more than death.
Wow. So, you won't die? Hmmm, that's interesting.

While you live by your own laws ("that you cannot sin because you don't know God") you will die under that law - death

So, only sinners and atheists die? I would like to find some examples of this. Could you please provide a list of people who have not died because of their belief in God? I can't seem to find this information anywhere. It must be a very elite, secretive group of people.

"I have a question, how can you base your Truth on a "Holy Book" that has contradictions in it?"
--------------------------


Perhaps, all of these things that you call 'contradictions' are not contradictory at all. Perhaps, you simply have not yet been given valid explanations (and there are valid explanations) for these apparent contradictions. If you want some valid answers, contact me via PM. Or, why don't you ask xev? 'She' seems to have all of the answers, and delivers them with such eloquent vernacular.

><>

Perhaps, all of these things that you call 'contradictions' are not contradictory at all.

And perhaps they are.....

Perhaps, you simply have not yet been given valid explanations

Perhaps, you haven't.....

If you want some valid answers, contact me via PM.

no thanks.

I dont share a belief in a worldwide flood either. I believe
that there was some localized flood in that area long ago.
I see Genesis as something to be interpreted symbolically not lyrical.

The Flood myth is based on from an earlier culture.

Jenyar:
It is not up to you or a child to be saved. It is up to God. But God demands justice, like the justice you so self-righteously condemn from the OT.

Murdering little kids is justice?

Dear heavens.

Because you have heard the good news, you cannot escape the choice. You can't send babies to hell, Xev.

Nor would I want to. Your God, on the other hand, allegedly does. Must I keep going over this?

"By your quote I could simply write off Christianity due to the contradiction that exists inside the Bible."

This is dishonest, Jenyar. I can't blame you for disliking me, but I don't think attributing to me something another poster says is fair.

LIGHTBEING
441 posts

quote:The problem is that they cannot all be true since truth does not contradict itself.
It is also possible that not a single one of them are true. By your quote I could simply write off Christianity due to the contradiction that exists inside the Bible.

And every religion must be held to the same standard. Knowing this, you should be open-minded enough to realize that your religion could not be TRUE.

report | quote | edit | 12-04-02 at 01:15 PM

My bold.

As you can see, Lightbeing said that, not me.

"By your quote I could simply write you off by contradictions in your posts." It doesn't work that way. If you say you won't ever have any children, by what authority except your own can it hold true? If you contradict yourself in the future, does that mean you don't have authority over yourself or your actions? You can justify yourself (be right) either in your authority or in your actions.

A straw man based on something I did not even say deserves no further response.

God is just in both His authority and actions. While you live by your own laws ("that you cannot sin because you don't know God") you will die under that law - death.

I'll die whether I submit to God, my master's whip, or nothing at all.

So will you. Unless I'm talking to a vampire, which would be so fucking cool! :)

I wasn't talking about physical death. Of course my body will return to the dust it was made of. There are instances in the Bible where people have been taken up directly to heaven, but that is not important, or the point. We should not fear people who can only deliver death, but God who delivers beyond death.

Xev. Christians do not believe babies go to hell because they haven't heard about Jesus, or had a chance to repent from sins they have inherited and not committed themselves.

We believe in God's mercy. You believe in God's hatred and injustice. As I said before: you project your own misconception of God onto yourself and onto people. What would justice be, according to you?

And when ever did it sound like I didn't like you, Xev? Didn't I remember your birthday on the 10th of November, when you turned 17? Have I ever condemned you or anybody else to hell out of my own ignorance?

I'm sorry I misquoted you. Serves me right for writing more than I read.

I have one more thing to add: If the truth is greater than that which describes it, apparent contradictions can lead to the same conclusion. You can never have the complete truth, there will always be parts you cannot see or comprehend until you learn more. Maia describes religion as "unyielding and selfassured". It is people who act that way, whether justified or not. All through the Bible God has shown both flexibility and firmness. Like a Father who knows what He is has to do, while showing patience and mercy to his children. It is because God's purpose and intent has remained the same while the people and culture of the time vary that we get different perspectives, accounts and testimonies. But they all indicate the same God.

Is there any contradictory dogma in the Bible that is contra-gospel? That will be a true contradiction.

Prov. 8:12 "I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence;
I possess knowledge and discretion.
13 To fear the LORD is to hate evil;
I hate pride and arrogance,
evil behavior and perverse speech.

Jenyar:
Xev. Christians do not believe babies go to hell because they haven't heard about Jesus, or had a chance to repent from sins they have inherited and not committed themselves.

But what happens to them, then? They haven't "accepted Jesus". I thought that anyone who hasn't goes to hell?

We believe in God's mercy. You believe in God's hatred and injustice. As I said before: you project your own misconception of God onto yourself and onto people. What would justice be, according to you?

Justice is perfectly applied revenge. Punishing the guilty as they

I'm sorry I misquoted you. Serves me right for writing more than I read.

NP.

"Justice is perfectly applied revenge."

I like that. God says revenge is His. He also said it is not for us to take revenge. But revenge is not the intention of justice - it is not blind retaliation. It is measured to have fairness. We cannot judge who goes to hell or to heaven - that decision is left up to God. But because we do not know, we have the responsibility to let people know that Jesus has died for us. Jesus also died for children, so that they do not have to die for the sins of their parents.

Life comes from God. It is an act of love and mercy from God. He gives life and has the authority to take it away. But he wants us to live. Just growing up is a sign of His mercy. Jesus would probably have said: if children who die can experience God's mercy, how much more blessed are those who have had the chance to live and experience it.

Jenyar:
"Justice is perfectly applied revenge."

I like that. God says revenge is His. He also said it is not for us to take revenge. But revenge is not the intention of justice - it is not blind retaliation. It is measured to have fairness. We cannot judge who goes to hell or to heaven - that decision is left up to God. But because we do not know, we have the responsibility to let people know that Jesus has died for us. Jesus also died for children, so that they do not have to die for the sins of their parents.

But Jesus didn't die for me, thus I don't have any responsibility to let anyone know anything...unless I hold information that their lives depend on....right...

So what you're saying is that children are free of origional sin?

Makes sense enough.

Life comes from God. It is an act of love and mercy from God. He gives life and has the authority to take it away. But he wants us to live. Just growing up is a sign of His mercy.

Disagree. It'd be much nicer to have died while a child.

Romans 5:15
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man (Adam), how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

Matthew 9:13
But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.

Matthew 12:7
If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.

We are all sinners. The Bible explains how and why, but you don't even need the Bible to figure out that you don't always do the right thing, not even when you seriously want to. You know your country has laws which you don't always obey. The most amazing thing that Christ teaches is that with the realisation that you are guilty, a sinner, comes the realisation that Jesus took the punishment in your place.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

It is not belief in God that saves you, therefore even doubt is no excuse. It is accepting that Jesus died and arose again. Our condemnation does not come from God, but from the rejection of the law by which we are saved (Rom.8). Think about it hypothetically: Legally, if a law is passed and you do not obey it, it is by the law that you are guilty and not by the authority that passed it.

Romans 8
33Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died--more than that, who was raised to life--is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?

Jesus came to fulfill the laws passed by God, under which we are all guilty. By admitting guilt of sin (repentance), you voluntarily submit to the law under which sin is defined - God's law. And Jesus gave us the Holy Spirit to be our councillor. If you deny the authority of the law, you also deny the authority by which you are justified.

Rom.8:22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
26In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.

My point is: what is more powerful: justice, or mercy? The gospel is one of mercy - by repentance and forgiveness. You don't have to be a Christian to accept that.

Jenyar:

How can I be condemned under a law I never benefitted from the protection of nor accepted?

Seems a bit unfair to me.

My point is: what is more powerful: justice, or mercy?

Mercy is degrading for the person who recieves it and unfair to the victim of the one who is "spared".

I much prefer justice.

Xev,

It seems I misquoted :rolleyes:

James 2:12___So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.
13___For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.

You said yourself that you are completely free. You are benefitting from that freedom, right? Therefore you are being judged under the law that makes you free. You just don't realise the extent of your freedom. Freedom has a price - the price paid by Jesus.

Romans 8
2___For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

Of course, all concepts of freedom fall flat if you don't believe in sin or death, because then there is no 'outside' to the law, and no 'after' to death.

Jenyar:
You said yourself that you are completely free. You are benefitting from that freedom, right? Therefore you are being judged under the law that makes you free. You just don't realise the extent of your freedom. Freedom has a price - the price paid by Jesus.

No, my Will is free. My heart is not. But that's beside the point.

I was not given freedom. I was born with it and I maintain it as best I can. Thus, I have not recieved my freedom at all. I have taken it.

I do not benefit from the law. It has done nothing for me and I never consented to be ruled by it. Thus, it does not bind me.

Of course, all concepts of freedom fall flat if you don't believe in sin or death, because then there is no 'outside' to the law, and no 'after' to death.

The law is a human invention that can be broken and changed at will. Thus, there is an 'outside' to the law.

Death, of course one must believe in death.

Can you see your own death? Yet you believe in it. Humans can sentence other people to death, why not themselves? Could the people in the World Trade Centre escape the judgment of those who sentenced them to death? The law I'm talking about is the one which frees us from death. You argue that you were born free, that is the fallacy: God gave you life. Just as He gave your parents life, and so on and so on. You inherited life, you didn't claim it or earn it. You don't know where it came from, how can you be so sure where it is going?

What if you inherited it from God and not from a single-cell organism that appeared out of nowhere? Death is also inherited, but from denying the giver of life - what the Bible calls 'sin'. By making yourself the author of your life, you accept authorship of your death. That's some responsibility. That is what Jesus makes us free from - from being responsible for our death. Jesus is responsible for your life.

I assume your heart belongs to someone else. You have given it to someone and you trust them with it. You might even expect to be hurt, because you know people are fallible, but you can love them nontheless. If you can give that kind of love, you can also receive it. Can you demand that they return that love? It has to be given freely. Your will is free - so is theirs. Love binds your will to their freedom, don't you see? Why not bind your life to One who can also free it?

You say mercy is degrading. What is mercy other than something given that cannot be earned, like freedom, or forgiveness? Or love? Do you deserve the kind of love you expect? Do they deserve the love you give them? Why would the Bible describe such a love in 1 Cor. 13 if it didn't mean we are allowed to receive it? That is the way God loves you. He knows He can't expect you to love him back, because then it wouldn't be love anymore.

But He does let us know that love is what He expects:
Luke 10
26What is written in the Law? he replied. How do you read it?
27He answered: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbour as yourself.'
28You have answered correctly, Jesus replied. Do this and you will live.