Why believe the bible is inerrant?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Jackie D

New Member
Mar 15, 2008
420
1
0
57
Lunar said:
Jackie D: If the thread needs to be closed then it will be. My own opinion is that this is a forum dedicated to discussion between Christians and non-Christians, so it's only natural that they will have different views and attempt to argue their cases. I'm not sure what other sort of conversation one could expect. If I receive an answer that looks insufficient - as the answers here have been, by and large - then it is more enlightening for everyone involved if I respond accordingly.
you're right if the thread needs to be closed it will be. you are looking for insufficiencies and not looking to find God. This forum is for those who are honestly seeking answers to lead them to God. It is not a place for people such as yourself to come and attempt to discredit and malign our beliefs. with that said, I simply wanted to remind you of the fact that you are invited here as a courtesy only. And since it is our home that you have come to, the proper thing to do is to respect the home of those you have been invited into. You seem like an intelligent person, so I have to assume that you know what manners are and know how to use them. have a blessed day.
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
Lunar I would ask you please read the link Jackie D gave you in post#36 for rules to this forum We do not provide space for you to belittle our beliefs but to ask questions
 

RaddSpencer

New Member
Mar 28, 2008
285
0
0
44
Before this thread is closed... I would like to add one last thing.Lunar, you don't understand the nature of the four gospels. There are four gospels for a reason. Look at the following example (from Christiananswers.net). It discusses why each of the four gospels has a different title for Jesus's crucifixion.http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-t001.htmlJOHNAs John is the only Gospel writer who mentions Pilate, or Nazareth, or who calls the inscription a 'title' (Latin titulus), it is abundantly evident that John is quoting the Latin which read:The Latin abbreviation INRI was adopted by the early church. Painting by Matthias Grunewald. Provided by Eden Communcations. IESUS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM(Latin used 'I' and 'V' where English uses 'J' and 'U'.) That this is the Latin is further confirmed by the fact that the Early Church adopted as a symbol the Latin letters 'INRI', which are the first letters of this inscription (only), and this symbol appears in many early paintings of the crucifixion.LUKELuke was a highly educated man (a physician- Colossians 4:14) and he addressed his Gospel to a Greek nobleman (the 'most excellent Theophilus' of Luke 1:3). It is therefore very reasonable to suppose that Luke gives us the Greek inscription: OUTOS ESTIN O BASILEUS TWN IOUDAIWNMATTHEWMatthew wrote for the Jews and used many quotations from the Old Testament to show that Jesus was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah. It is therefore most likely that Matthew quotes the Hebrew inscription (see drawing below).MARKThis leaves Mark, whose Gospel is shorter than the other three, and who gives us a somewhat abbreviated account of the life of Jesus, as his purpose is to tell us more about what Jesus did than what Jesus said. For example, he omits the birth of Jesus, as well as the whole of the sermon on the mount and several other discourses. True to his style, Mark abbreviates the inscription to the words common to the three languages used, namely 'THE KING OF THE JEWS'.The four gospels are like brothers singing in a quartet. They each focus on different aspects of Jesus Christ. The first three (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are called "Narrative Gospels", the fourth (John) is different from the first three, and it is called a "Theological Gospel"-- the gospel focusing HEAVILY on Christ's deity.I suggest you take a close look at this website:[url="http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/examining_the_four_gospels]http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/r...he_four_gospels[/url]The purpose of the Gospel of Matthew is twofold. First, it is an apologetic, i.e., a defense of the proposition that Jesus is the promised Messiah of Old Testament prophecy. It was penned especially to convince the Jews of this fact.The Gospel of Mark is remarkably different from that of Matthew. A survey of the information in this book reveals that it is for a non-Jewish audience. The writer has to explain Hebrew traditions (7:2-4) and Palestinean conditions (11:13). The Latinisms within the book indicate that he was writing for Roman readers.Though the book (Luke) is addressed to “most excellent Theophilus,” with the purpose of confirming the faith of this Gentile in the matters wherein he had been taught (1:3,4), it is apparent that the intended audience was much wider. This is a treatise designed to reach the Greeks with the message of Jesus Christ. The Greeks were preoccupied with a consideration of “man.” It is not without purpose, therefore, that Luke focuses upon Christ as the perfect example of humanity.This inspired record (John) is in a class by itself. It is designed to appeal to all ethnic groups. Its basic purpose is to offer the evidence of certain signs which prove that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, which facts lead to eternal life (20:30, 31).The four gospels are four brothers singing in a quartet. The are singing about the same God, but with different tones of voice. They are all four writing about different aspects of Jesus, and they are all four written to differing audiences. IT IS OBVIOUS, that these accounts will talk about the same Person in differing ways.Just because four people see the same event and describe somewhat differently does not mean that contradictions are present. It means that they focused on different aspects of the event. I'm sure you are familiar with the blind monks and the elephant.[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant[/url]Just because one monk describes the elephant's leg (as a pillar) and the other monk describes the elephant's ear (as a fan) does not mean one is wrong. It simply means that both focused on different aspects of the same elephant.That is what is going on in the four gospels.
 

Lunar

New Member
Nov 23, 2007
358
3
0
38
Siskim;48988]Right Lunar said:
And one of the messages is that we will not figure out His messages with mortal reasoning or even have access to him or the knowledge of him this way. Yet we keep on figuring' date=' while atleast one thing he said (if he is real) is proven, which is that we cannot and have not gained access to him or his knowledge by our human reasoning. So because we havn't we say we have proof that he has proven nothing to us....he already said he wouldn't prove anything to us this way. God wins, on this point anyway. Unless you are saying that you know him by the human reasoning you've acquired?[/quote']God obviously exists because he's refused to give evidence of himself? That doesn't sound like strong reasoning to me!
Siskim]So then said:
Proof to a humble man is the love and grace of God but to the proud man the Law of God is proof...the commandments which reveal to man his sin and error...which we all are aware of because they have been written in every man's heart...and you can debate that' date=' but evidence in this world supports this claim...which evidence is that people in general do know in their hearts or conscience the Laws....thou shall not steal, or murder, or commit adultery, etc...[/quote']There is nothing uniquely Christian or theistic about these laws. Every society that has ever existed, Christian or non-Christian, has had these rules. They are of obvious practical import to a harmonious society. Why do you think they have to be from a divine lawgiver? Do you think mankind is too stupid to figure out for himself that society is better off when we don't kill and steal from each other? Do you seriously think that the Jews were routinely lying, killing and stealing and thinking it was totally okay until they made it to Mt. Sinai and then God said "Oh, oh, by the way, you'd better cut that out?"The fact that people act like decent human beings is not evidence of a God. It's evidence of common sense.
Siskim]But we say there is no evidence of God because we are judging not by his standards as a God and an immortal one but judging him by mortal intellectual standards. Millions of people have had unexplainable miracles occur and do we dismiss all them as what? If there is no God said:
Hardly. Here's the thing - why is it that these "miraculous" healings are always things that might have got better anyway? You never see any amputees spontaneously regenerating limbs. You never see anyone raised from the dead. You never see anyone miraculously cured of HIV. If there were really miracles being worked, then you should see those things happening with equal frequency, but they don't. Every "miracle" that's occurred is always some ailment that is known to be curable.
Siskim]But yet we still deny...because there is no evidence. We deny the prophetic words of God even though they have not failed at any point[/quote]I said:
To give you a free will' date=' choices must be present....primarly a choice to believe the love that loves you or deny it. To accept it or judge it and refute it, etc...[/quote']You've boiled this down to something so much simpler than it actually is, Siskim. You've made it sound as though this embodiment of love is obvious to everyone and there are some who just stubbornly refuse to accept it because...well, who knows. It would be utter madness not to accept it if it was obvious to one. The point is that it isn't obvious to me.Basically the argument is: I've had Muslims tell me that Allah is pure love. What has the Christian got to persuade me that they're right and not him? Because neither of them strike me as obviously true statements.
Siskim]No evidence of God? Brother...it said:
Why do you think Muslims say man's great wisdom is foolishness to Allah?Simple, because whichever man or men wrote their texts didn't want to be questioned on their theology.
Siskim] He knows everything except where he came from said:
Actually, man can know all of those things without God. Except the last one, I suppose, but it's kind of an ad hoc question.
Siskim said:
Yet a child can see.
Only children that are raised by Christians, apparently.Children will believe whatever they're told.
 

tim_from_pa

New Member
Jul 11, 2007
1,656
12
0
65
The four gospels are four brothers singing in a quartet. The are singing about the same God, but with different tones of voice. They are all four writing about different aspects of Jesus, and they are all four written to differing audiences. IT IS OBVIOUS, that these accounts will talk about the same Person in differing ways.
Good point, Radd. And from my many years of bible study, one can see a code therein that goes beyond the face value of the text. Not to say that the text cannot be taken at face value, but that there are deeper meanings.For example, based on the 4 gospels, there were 4 colors to the curtains in the tabernacle. One example of several is this verse:Moreover thou shalt make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet: with cherubims of cunning work shalt thou make them.The blue represents Christ's eternal side (God)--- John's gospelThe purple His royal, Kingly side as shown in a genealogy---- Matthew's gospelScarlet is for blood, the suffering servant--- Mark's gospel,And "fine twined linen" (white) is the perfect man, Luke's gospel.In Matthew a King must have a genealogy, in Luke a man ought to have a genealogy. A servant needs none and neither does the eternal God which is another coded reason why they do not have genealogies.There are myriads and myriads of such information in the Law of Moses pointing to Christ, His work and the results of His work for His people Israel, not to mention the great promises that Israel would attain and Israel becoming many mighty nations (and this is to take place before Christ comes back). This is why Jesus could say "Moses wrote of me" to which the Jews were blinded. I believe this is why the Jews never attained greatness or became a nation until recently in history, and even then are weak because they rejected Christ. And time is running out, as I believe Christ could come back any day now. In addition, such information pointing to Christ and the things I just mentioned can be found all over the bible written by authors that spanned great lengths of time, and yet the unity of thought is remarkable. Being a person who once scored a perfect score in my statistics test final, I find the odds of this being an "accident" phenomenally small.Keep in mind, Radd, that this thread is merely discussing the existence of God which is Judaism 101 or Christianity 101. These are Judaism and Christianity 436 concepts I pointed out.
 

RaddSpencer

New Member
Mar 28, 2008
285
0
0
44
(tim_from_pa;49086)
For example, based on the 4 gospels, there were 4 colors to the curtains in the tabernacle. One example of several is this verse:Moreover thou shalt make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet: with cherubims of cunning work shalt thou make them.The blue represents Christ's eternal side (God)--- John's gospelThe purple His royal, Kingly side as shown in a genealogy---- Matthew's gospelScarlet is for blood, the suffering servant--- Mark's gospel,And "fine twined linen" (white) is the perfect man, Luke's gospel.
Fascinating eh?I find it really interesting that God reached out to everyone right off the bat. He wrote a gospel which appealed to the Jewish people (Matthew) -- proving that Jesus was the Messiah via multiple quotations from the old testament.Jesus cared about the Romans -- and people in positions of power. He kept Mark short, sweet, and to the point (just the way the CEO's like it
biggrin.gif
).God also reached out to the philosophical Greeks. Luke, a physician, made sure to mention all the nitty, gritty details, and emphasize that Jesus was just as much man, as He was God. However, I didn't remember the curtains in the temple. That comparison is interesting.
 

tim_from_pa

New Member
Jul 11, 2007
1,656
12
0
65
However, I didn't remember the curtains in the temple. That comparison is interesting.
Yes, everything in the OT, and even in all of Genesis lays the groundwork for the whole theology in the NT. Nothing is new under the sun as Solomon wisely stated. For example, it's sad that many Christians believe that Pentecost is the birthday of the church as if it was a new holiday. No. It was a Jewish feast day looooooong before the Spirit came, and as such shows that God did nothing "off the cuff" but laid the foundation long before anything happened. That is true prophecy in which the chance of it happening by chance is nil. Again, there are oodles of scripture that foreshadow the New Testament and even if there was no NT, everything that the Lord did and said can be extrapolated and created by the OT alone. The NT is not really new per se, but the start of another covenant already prophesied in the OT.I wish that more Christians would study the OT in detail. Then, they would see a logical, established plan that God had from the start that fits logically into every detail. Again, nothing is off the cuff, but predestined from the start.Christianity is just the logical and prophesied extension of Judaism. As for other religions such as Buddhism and Islam, all I can say is the leaders are dead and I can direct one to sites that show their graves. Who would want to believe in a rotting, stinkin' founder? With Jesus, there is no body, and nobody can show a grave with a body. Praise God! (Says this scientific/mathematical believer well loved by professors)
 

RaddSpencer

New Member
Mar 28, 2008
285
0
0
44
(tim_from_pa;49102)
Christianity is just the logical and prophesied extension of Judaism. As for other religions such as Buddhism and Islam, all I can say is the leaders are dead and I can direct one to sites that show their graves. Who would want to believe in a rotting, stinkin' founder? With Jesus, there is no body, and nobody can show a grave with a body. Praise God! (Says this scientific/mathematical believer well loved by professors)
I'm very happy that Mark and Luke are in the Bible as gospels. Its first hand proof that God cares about everyone, and that He is not a respecter of persons. Jesus cared not only about the Jewish people, but He cared also about the gentiles (a category which I reside
biggrin.gif
). 26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.Galatians 3:26-29Look at how amazing Jesus is: 5When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6"Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering." 7Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him." 8The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." 10When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour. Matthew 8:5-13Thats just amazing to me. It gets me every time. Jesus could have had an attitude of "You clowns are occupying Palestine, why should I care anything about you?" But Jesus actually complemented this man on his faith and humility --> a man who was a high ranking officer of an army occupying Israel. However, Jesus didn't see a Roman Centurion; He saw a man who had faith in Him. Somehow the Centurion was able to see Jesus's aura of authority, even though He was a Nazarene. I wonder why the Pharisees were blind to it.[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion[/url]Here is yet ANOTHER centurion who had faith in God!1Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually. 3About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in and said to him, "Cornelius!" 4And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, "What is it, Lord?" And he said to him, "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God. Acts 10:1-4... 34 Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.... 42"And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. 43"Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." 44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47"Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" 48And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days. Acts 10:34-48
 

Jackie D

New Member
Mar 15, 2008
420
1
0
57
(tim_from_pa;49102)
Yes, everything in the OT, and even in all of Genesis lays the groundwork for the whole theology in the NT. Nothing is new under the sun as Solomon wisely stated. For example, it's sad that many Christians believe that Pentecost is the birthday of the church as if it was a new holiday. No. It was a Jewish feast day looooooong before the Spirit came, and as such shows that God did nothing "off the cuff" but laid the foundation long before anything happened. That is true prophecy in which the chance of it happening by chance is nil. Again, there are oodles of scripture that foreshadow the New Testament and even if there was no NT, everything that the Lord did and said can be extrapolated and created by the OT alone. The NT is not really new per se, but the start of another covenant already prophesied in the OT.I wish that more Christians would study the OT in detail. Then, they would see a logical, established plan that God had from the start that fits logically into every detail. Again, nothing is off the cuff, but predestined from the start.Christianity is just the logical and prophesied extension of Judaism. As for other religions such as Buddhism and Islam, all I can say is the leaders are dead and I can direct one to sites that show their graves. Who would want to believe in a rotting, stinkin' founder? With Jesus, there is no body, and nobody can show a grave with a body. Praise God! (Says this scientific/mathematical believer well loved by professors)
nice post tim...
smile.gif
 

BondiHarry

New Member
Apr 2, 2008
6
0
0
68
Lunar, I hope you appreciate the limitations of man's understanding. It is fine to seek an intellectual understanding of the reality around us but our intellect is insufficient to grasp all that is going on just as our senses of hearing, sight and smell are woefully insufficient to grasp all that is occuring around us. Our unaided senses reveal only a small portion of the things that are really happening ... as tools like microscopes and telescopes reveal. Do you really believe human intellect is any more revealing? Human intellect CANNOT reconcile the miracles of Christ (stilling stormy waters, walking on water, feeding the multitude, raising the dead etc.) because our intellect 'sees' only a dim reflection of reality but to deny the reality of something we don't understand is silly. Christ did live. He did 'miracles' that were witnessed by many, He died on the cross (trust me, the Romans were no slouches in making sure someone had died) and He was seen alive afterwards by hundreds. I don't know about you, but after being scourged, crucified and receiving a spear thrust that by itself would almost certainly cause death, even if I survived, there is no way I'd be up for travelling like Christ did after His resurrection.God has given us more than enough proof of His existence for us to believe and to take on faith that the other things He teaches are also true. Or we can be doubting Thomases and disbelieve anything we cannot see for our own ... which means we will forever be walking in darkness. Looking at the recorded history of mankind, I don't think this latter approach is particularly appealing.
 

Alpha and Omega

New Member
May 11, 2008
250
0
0
38
Lunar, I hope I can satisfy your questions......Firstly, Thessalonians is not talking about when the second coming will happen it is talking about what will happen to those that are saved. Now for Mark 13:30-31 the words “this generation”. What is meant by “this generation” looking from afar it certainly seems as though it has failed but what does “generation” mean? The Greek word used was genea (ge-ne-ä'). Which can have the following meanings 1) fathered, birth, nativity2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a familya) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
cool.gif
metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 yearsSince this did not happen 30-33 years after this was said Jesus cannot be talking about #4. It is obvious he is talking about “the successive members of a genealogy” or in other words the Jewish people. Furthermore if we take the root word of genea which is genos (ge'-nos) it means…1) kindreda) offspring
cool.gif
familyc) stock, tribe, nation1) i.e. nationality or descent from a particular peopled) the aggregate of many individuals of the same nature, kind, sortSo as you can see Jesus was not talking about the generation present at the time when he said ”this generation”. He was referring to a people (Jews).Here is a verse where Jesus uses “this generation” in a different context. Mark 8:11-1211 And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. 12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.For Mark 9:1 let us take a look at a couple of verses before this one. Mark 8:35-3735 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. 36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? 37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?If we read just Mark 9:1 and not before there is an apparent mistake. Obviously all those that stood there are dead. There is not denying that. But Jesus wasn’t talking about death as we know it. In the verses just before this one he is speaking of the soul. In Mark 9 he was speaking of the death of the soul not the body.These are just some of the questions you asked. I will try to answer the others shortly.
 

Siskim

New Member
Jan 29, 2008
58
0
0
62
Pure love Lunar again, does not deny any man, but has offerred every man eternal life. But pure love also means free will, and perfect love does not intimidate or threaten or force. It does though freely love and forgive and embrace by love alone, any man who desires this love and forgiveness and the eternal life this love is and freely offers. Does Allah offer such love? Does he promise his love to any who serve him or choose him, or does he offer chance that maybe you might be found worthy by human effort to come one step closer to hope? I don't agree that it's common sense that man should know or embrace the Lawgiver's Laws if He had not made them known. It is easy to assume it's common sense since the knowledge is present so thoroughly today, but have men throughout time considered and embraced these laws as we do? Moreso, the knowledge of these laws points man to his error, yet to the laws of love, to show him his weakness and also his need, and also to the Lawegiver who can answer his need...for complete redemption and eternal life. Do you have such a promise or guarantee? And if you truly feel a guarantee, what is the reward? Can you please describe it?This is not an angry tone I speak with if it may seem. There's no use in anyone vehimently defending anything, why? Because the True God will ultimately prove himself in the end so he does not need our defense. And according to our God, love is not interested in rebuking you; love is only interested in loving you. But is allah a God of love?And I know you don't always see this love in those who claim they possess it; but man is not God; he is man, and imperfect, yet he may find in himself a perfect heart of love. but is love the ultimate truth or not? That is a question.We define according to our present human knowledge and perseption from one place in time, while we all are only one culture in one place in time. How can we possibly judge a God by such standards as one man in this place could only do? It's true, Jesus did not heal everyone, and often healed in order to show his power to forgive sins. Eternal life in you is more important than a broken leg, and more desirable, but man looks on the exterior while his greater need is interior. And the greater need of the Muslims is also interior, and who has offered them assurance of the hope of eternal life freely by love? Pride gained by duty is not love but pride, and does any God favor a man's pride to be able to conquer his laws? Yet perfect love will set a man free from laws that he cannot perfectly fullfill. Again though, is love the ultimate truth is the question.I saw with my eyes my husband healed in a matter of minutes, from lying, dying, and I am a Nurse and am adept at recognizing the dying condition. Supposing I am telling truth and really did see this...there was an EKG that showed evidence of failing heart and I saw a man disoriented and as weak as a man near death in minutes standing to never again have chest pains and heart trouble which he had for 10 years. Suppose I really di witness this just as I say, and brother I did...if I did, then it did not occur by chance or a quick recovery...the man was obvioulsy dying...in the house, no doctors, only me. Does Allah heal? I don't know what they say of this, but I know what they say of Jesus, whom they dying man claimed he saw during his half out of mind experience. And I saw the man's eyes and face glow and love in his eyes like I have never seen on earth as he saw him, and I knew he was seeing someone; it was clear to see. Pride is what fortifies a man's heart in disbelief, yet Allah, does he ask for a man's heart? And if he does is he a god of love? there is evidence that he compels his people toward violence. what is greater...to have pride over men, or the assurance of the eternal life? Gaining victory or pride over some person like me, what gain in it? It's not pride or victory I seek over you, but that you may know that the god of this age has blinded the minds of them that believe not...and that god is not allah but satan...peradventure the glorious gospel of Chirst might shine unto them and reveal the light that my husband saw, that raised him from his death bed.Man will always fail you, God never will; and He will never fail you to prove to you individually his power and grace and perfect salvation...if you ever desire it and simply ask...but I know...Allah has you convinced that you must fight to earn what he does not assure you of. love siskim
 

Lunar

New Member
Nov 23, 2007
358
3
0
38
You'll have to forgive me if I don't respond to your posts; I've got an entire page of them accumulated since my finals. Fortunately, most of them are the same arguments I've already responded to many times over, like fideism or quoting the bible to prove the bible, so there's no need.(Alpha and Omega)
When you say the clergy do you mean the Roman Catholic Church priesthood?
I didn't use the word clergy, but if you're referring to my statement that people didn't want others to challenge their religious authority, then no, the Roman Catholic Church is not what I was referring to (though they have a history of being guilty of that crime as well). I was referring to the first and second-century writers who wrote the books of the New Testament.(Siskim)
Does Allah offer such love? Does he promise his love to any who serve him or choose him, or does he offer chance that maybe you might be found worthy by human effort to come one step closer to hope?
Clearly Muslims think he does, just as clearly as you think it's obvious that the Christian god does. I don't see what your point is.(Siskim)
I don't agree that it's common sense that man should know or embrace the Lawgiver's Laws if He had not made them known. It is easy to assume it's common sense since the knowledge is present so thoroughly today, but have men throughout time considered and embraced these laws as we do?
Are you joking? Just how long do you think it would take mankind to figure out that society is more harmonious when we don't kill and steal from each other? Do you hold that low an opinion of humanity?Like I said before - if these rules weren't present prior to God's giving them officially, the Jews would have never made it to Mt. Sinai. They would have destroyed themselves first. Moreover, there were countless other civilizations that didn't have the privilege of receiving the Ten Commandments that were able to figure these moral standards out. How do you account for the morality of gentiles? Yes, there have been breaches of these laws - just like there are today, even among Christians - but if you think any society existed for longer than a couple of weeks thinking that killing one another was great fun then I don't know what to tell you. That's not a matter of cultural relativism, that is just simple pragmatism.(Siskim)
Do you have such a promise or guarantee? And if you truly feel a guarantee, what is the reward? Can you please describe it?
No, I don't have such a promise. However, I don't need one, because unlike you, I don't feel a pathological desire for eternal life. Look at traditional Buddhist teachings - they desire the exact opposite. They desire to be free of an eternal cycle of life. Frankly, that goal seems more sane to me, but the point is this:Truth is not a matter of the best offer. Truth is not a matter of accepting the rosiest picture. Truth is not acknowledging that I want something and then believing the first thing that hypothetically grants your wish. Even if you feel as though you have a fundamental need for eternal life - which, frankly, strikes me as more than a little strange - that doesn't justify the Christian worldview any more than a strong desire to pass your test without studying justifies the belief that you can pass your test without studying.(Siskim)
We define according to our present human knowledge and perseption from one place in time, while we all are only one culture in one place in time. How can we possibly judge a God by such standards as one man in this place could only do?
Again, this is an argument from fideism. Even if you think mankind's reason is powerless before the reason of God, you have no way of knowing which God's reason to submit to. So when you say that I should defer my reason to the Christian God's reason, I can just as soon reply that you ought to defer your reason to Allah's reason.(Siskim)
I saw with my eyes my husband healed in a matter of minutes, from lying, dying, and I am a Nurse and am adept at recognizing the dying condition. Supposing I am telling truth and really did see this...there was an EKG that showed evidence of failing heart and I saw a man disoriented and as weak as a man near death in minutes standing to never again have chest pains and heart trouble which he had for 10 years. Suppose I really di witness this just as I say, and brother I did...if I did, then it did not occur by chance or a quick recovery...the man was obvioulsy dying...in the house, no doctors, only me.
First, I'm very glad that your husband recovered.Second, I can but reiterate the point I made before - if God heals, why does he only heal things that might have got better anyway? Why have we never once seen an amputee "miraculously" healed? And why do these "miraculous" healings happen to Christians and non-Christians with equal frequency (of course, when they happen to Muslims, the "miracle" is attributed to Allah)?(Siskim)
Does Allah heal? I don't know what they say of this, but I know what they say of Jesus
That pretty much sums up your argument in a nutshell - passing blanket judgments about other religions without knowing anything about them.(Siskim)
whom they dying man claimed he saw during his half out of mind experience.
Okay, let's be reasonable here. The man was dying. In any other scenario, if the man was dying and his mind was failing, we would not consider his testimony credible. We would say just that - that he was on the brink of death, his mind was failing, he was probably not coherent or rational or thinking clearly because, you know, he was dying. Yet somehow when it comes to seeing God, he becomes the most credible source in the universe. It's a classic case of looking only for confirmatory evidence.I'll put it this way, again: When a dying man sees the face of Allah and then recovers, is he being delusional? When a dying man doesn't see any sort of God and then recovers (as 99.9% of all recovered once-nearly-dead men have), is he being delusional? But then you think the one case in which they're not being delusional, the one case in which their near-death and incoherence does not ruin their credibility, is when they see the Christian God?(Siskim)
what is greater...to have pride over men, or the assurance of the eternal life?
Once again: The fact that you want eternal life doesn't mean you can get it any more than the fact that I want to snap my fingers and achieve world peace means that I can. It makes Christianity a pleasant fantasy, but not a truth.Lastly, I'd like to clear one thing up: I'm not a Muslim. I've simply been using Islam as an example because it makes it clear how universal these theistic arguments are, in spite of the fact that everyone who uses them thinks they only support their religion.
 

Siskim

New Member
Jan 29, 2008
58
0
0
62
Ok Lunar, you are not a Muslim, whatever you are, you seem to be an argumentist. I can sense your arrogance or anger or definace, whatever it truly is, and am not so astounded by your articulation or ability to use human reasoning to explain away anything and everything, as this is a common trait. What would really be impressive is not that you can point out the flaws in everyone else's understanding or ability to express things that can be better perceived with some spirit, but if you ever came down from the high horse and recognized that no man's power of intellect is going to sustain him or save him or reward him with anything except the perishable passing false pleasures of pride in the eyes of men, then you might display a heart that has some attraction and in your own realized weakness may discover some wisdom that becomes a source of light and life in you and also for others to see in you.You can't conquer love; you can't hurt it because it willingly died for you already. You follow? Or are we on differring levels? Is there a spirit in man, or is he all flesh and mind? No interest in eternity? This makes you an uncommon man from all ages. Even ancient men were obsessed with immortality, yet not Lunar? Are you sure your inward soul agrees with your earthly mind? Many men never know that truth until they stand at deaths door. I anticipated your point...very good! I'll give you that, your rebuttle...can a man seek and choose which god or religion suits him and then assume him or it to be the one truth? Yet in today's modern culture that's exactly what not only people do, but what they prefer to do, regardless if there is or must be One Truth. This one does show either stupidity "or" a state of spiritual blindness, you agree?Arguing/debating is so pointless, yet we humans love it! But there is a fine line between the one who debates for his pride and the one who debates with the motive of love for you, but then who says love is the highest/the character of the highest Truth? If it is not, then the laws we generally know as a people of this world were not creted out of love necessarily. And if Love is not the highest power, evil does not necessarily exist. And if neither of these are main powers, then what can Truth possibly be? Don't tell me Truth can be anything; don't sink to that level...Will you atleast admit that if there is a "Truth" is must be a perfect one? If a god is said to be the highest Truth, and he is changable, what Truth can there be? Only the Truth that nothing is True?If I were to be so naive as to choose a god based on my preferences, I wouldn't choose one who can change from day to day based on him whims. What assurance in such a god? he gives me no direction to surely trust in and no sure promises; he sounds more like a man!How in the world do you know that no limbs have been restored? And can mortal man assume that any god thinks like a mortal man? I'm sure any god would not. it's the mind of man that thinks it must be logical that a god prove himself to man by man's standards, yet a god would surely have higher standards than a man may even have access to perceiving. Any god does not have to and likely would not give man "access" to all his knowledge and wisdom in a mortal state. Yet thousands of men today say, where is the proof of God? he has not shown us according to our reasoning the proof that we "think" will convince us, if peradventure there is a real God. thomas saw the Lord perform miracles yet doubted his re-appearing in a new body, until he touched and felt the risen Christ. Even if this is a story only it shows how unbelieving and doubtful man is...even if God did give him the material evidence that he claims would be proof to him.Perhaps the proof is all around us but in all our earthly wisdom we can only see with mortal eyes. You said, what if it was Allah who healed my husband. And why are some supposedly healed who are not claiming Christians "or" who are claiming Muslims? The God who is unchangable has answered all things; not until the end will the wheat be separated from the tares, or not until the fullness of time will we know as we are known. We judge by outward appearance, being mortal, and that includes men's verbal and visual claims. You know a tree by the fruit it bears, says the unchanging God who looks at the heart and not the exterior. Men clearly so often judge others by earthly standards. For example...sin has been viewed in your life therefore you have not served your god properly therefore you are not a pure follower, therefore your claims are false. Again, man's standards. Does proof of God have to be man's own excellence? There is a god who says that man cannot be excellent in this body, yet he can still have righteousness abiding in his soul. that makes no sense to man.Well, the dying man claimed to see Christ, not Allah or another. But then, maybe all he knew was Christ so he could not tell that it was really allah. Or maybe when any man sees beyond mortality, which a dying state logically might allow him, he is sure to see the Truth and reality of what really lies beyond this mortality, but let's not take his word for it. We can find a number of reasons to refute him; we can find a number of reasons to refute anything and everything. And thus God has told us this also...the wisdom of man makes the word of God of no effect. But a child can understand.My brother, you know what? There is far more pleasure in the knowledge of God than in the knowledge of man. And far more pleasure in recognizing our weakness than our pride. Pride is the greatest obstacle to man; it's what sent satan falling from the heavens, after he said I will exalt myself above the throne of God. And man continues to attempt to exalt himself by his intellect above the wisdom of God. I lose nothing if you grind me intellectually into the dust, but what do you gain? Pride? And when you walk away with your pride is your room full of life and your heart whole and full of joy and peace? No! I didn't say your mind! I said your heart. Tell me that you are a whole man with complete peace and that you have found in this life full wholeness and joy, even in the pains and trials we all face in this life. And you might say, I don't need those things and what do they prove? Ok man, you don't need or want those things; again you are a rarity. Most all feel and admit and are known to want most of all interior joy and peace, do you? I say I have them, and what do you say? If you say you don't but don't care for them, then clearly I possess some things that you don't and the majority of the world would be more interested in the things I claim to possess that your claim to not possess them, as if the world's opinions count anyway, yet they do provide us "some" information. If you say you do possess them, the god I serve claims that evidence will show up in you; is this claim right or wrong whether this God is true or not? If a man possesses lasting and genuine interior peace about his life and eternal future, or feeling about it, and Joy interior regardless of any exterior conditions, such as Paul who claimed high Joy even on barren prison floors, what gives you this great peace and Joy? People may want to know. Are peace and Joy as I describe wanted by most people; is it possible in this life? Have you found it? If they are not necessary or possible, why do some claim to have them and even show fruit of peace and Joy even in awful conditions? Is it not intriguing that this occurs? Do we not want to know how this can be and how a person has found such a state or do we just settle with not having them and believing they are not possible? In other words, will people prefer to not have them in order to believe there is no God who offers them? So Lunar, are you interiorly truly possessed with Joy and peace that doesn't fade regardless of life situations? It's just one question. I don't really see evidence of them between the lines of your messages where spirit shows up. It's a human think, to love the debate, but it's a Christ thing to love you more. And I would rather lose all the debates and see you come to know the Love of the God who claims to be Love itself; it's a marvelous experience, and a wonderful hope, that I may not prove to every man, but know the proof in places where mortal man cannot access himself alone. Man! I saw the man "see" the Lord...it was the most amazing of all things I've ever seen. I've never in my life see such a glow of love on any face or in any eyes. the man was different after, not only in body, but in words and spirit. The glow on his face was almost literal, and the love in his eyes greater than any love you might see in a man's eyes for a woman. And once a person sees such, no one can convince him by any human intellect that there is no God or eternal spirit or that Love is the spirit that lies beyond this mortality. But you would rather debate the beliefs of your pride than hear about such an awesome thing? Not me; I would choose even if I didn't know God to want to know what a person saw who saw what I saw and seen a man healed miraculously. Oh well, to each his own. Good day Lunar, onto the next debate, and going nowhere. In the love of the God of love, hope that you will one day find him and sometime have or feel a need to find him...........Kim
 

tim_from_pa

New Member
Jul 11, 2007
1,656
12
0
65
I'm just curious, to Lunar or anyone claiming to be an atheist. What does it take to prove there's a God to you (if God exists)? Most, if not virtually all atheists, lay heavy credence on empirical evidence. However, whatever evidence if presented, it can always be argued that such evidence is not God. In that case, speaking philosophically, nothing could be proven without a reasonable doubt, including an atheist's friend next to him or her could not be sure they exist, or to put it another way, the person next to oneself can be something altogether different entity by this reasoning.However, atheists do assert that people exist, even though this cannot be proven, which only goes to show that everyone has faith in something, it's just a matter of what one puts their faith in.In mathematics, this is called a postulate, such as a straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points. This is taken as true on faith without proof, and without such axioms the whole of geometry falls apart. Yet, I do not see too many people, if anyone question such presuppositions.God is the same way. The axiom is faith, but there is tangible evidence of faith such as fulfilled prophecy, answered prayer, manifestations and so forth which are taken on the axiom that there is a God, and beings beyond ourselves exist which make themselves known this way.
 

Siskim

New Member
Jan 29, 2008
58
0
0
62
It's a clear point tim from PA, goes right along with how man can make the Word of God or anything of no effect...but only in his own life and mind and heart. Fearless is this generation toward God, yet trembling at the same time at the calamities we see increasing in occurrence and strength on this world, which clearly have been foretold, yet continuing to deny endless signs, saying where are the signs? And even this has been foretold, that men will be lovers of themselves more than lovers of God, boasters, prideful, recognizing no need in themselves, as if they have no fear of death or what lies beyond it, as if the life we have today will not be required of us. And while many really do cry at night for them, they laugh, saying you are a fool to cry for what's only in your mind...your heart is weak; you believe like a naive child who has not reached a level of intellectual maturity to be able to dissect all knowledge to nothing, but back to man who in his foolish pride believes the power of intellect God has given him is capable of doing exactly what Lucifer attempted...In a perspective we say the same thing today, "I will exalt myself (with my knowledge) above the throne of God, and God says in return, the wisdom of man is foolishness to God, afterall...the knowledge we have access to is only what we have been given access to, and we think that with this very small portion we can overcome the knowledge of God. We may think we escape for a season; laughing at God..."where is the promise of his coming because all things continue as they have," until like the flood, (which there is historical evidence of) we are swept away, hurled into the doom of the promises foretold unto those who chose darkness rather than light and denied the Lord of Glory. Just as we cannot choose a god and then have him be the true God, there is only One God and it stands to reason that in the end He will bring all things unto his judgement, and let men see what they could not or would not see when the times to accept him are gone and the times for judgement come.We did not choose him for the promise of a comfortable flight did we Tim? But to escape the horror and destruction of not choosing him. If man made the Law that God said he himself gave unto man, then man ought to have within himself power to uphold that law to a tee, and he cannot, and if he says he can he is a liar and trespasses the law. Why is it that man cannot please the Laws he himself made...if he made them? Why in the world would man create Laws he could not keep!!! Man would not! he would not condemn himself. It is not characteristic of him to do so. Amen. In the Love of the God of Grace who also is the God of the Law, by which men condemn themselves. kim
 

RaddSpencer

New Member
Mar 28, 2008
285
0
0
44
(tim_from_pa;49540)
I'm just curious, to Lunar or anyone claiming to be an atheist. What does it take to prove there's a God to you (if God exists)? Most, if not virtually all atheists, lay heavy credence on empirical evidence. However, whatever evidence if presented, it can always be argued that such evidence is not God. In that case, speaking philosophically, nothing could be proven without a reasonable doubt, including an atheist's friend next to him or her could not be sure they exist, or to put it another way, the person next to oneself can be something altogether different entity by this reasoning.However, atheists do assert that people exist, even though this cannot be proven, which only goes to show that everyone has faith in something, it's just a matter of what one puts their faith in.In mathematics, this is called a postulate, such as a straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points. This is taken as true on faith without proof, and without such axioms the whole of geometry falls apart. Yet, I do not see too many people, if anyone question such presuppositions.God is the same way. The axiom is faith, but there is tangible evidence of faith such as fulfilled prophecy, answered prayer, manifestations and so forth which are taken on the axiom that there is a God, and beings beyond ourselves exist which make themselves known this way.
You are touching on a concept called "solipsism"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolipsismIt is very possible that the world that we perceive is, in fact, a lie. It may be rather low on the probability scale, but it is indeed possible.This means that NO ONE has absolute certainty of anything. Even if you perceive something, it may, in fact, not be there. This means that everyone, no matter what their belief system, has to have faith.btw, Tim, you may want to read this article about solipsism and Christian Apologetics.http://tgdarkly.com/blog/?p=344
 

Lunar

New Member
Nov 23, 2007
358
3
0
38
First off, I'm quite certain that I made a response this afternoon. Where'd it go?(tim_from_pa;49540)
I'm just curious, to Lunar or anyone claiming to be an atheist. What does it take to prove there's a God to you (if God exists)? Most, if not virtually all atheists, lay heavy credence on empirical evidence. However, whatever evidence if presented, it can always be argued that such evidence is not God. In that case, speaking philosophically, nothing could be proven without a reasonable doubt, including an atheist's friend next to him or her could not be sure they exist, or to put it another way, the person next to oneself can be something altogether different entity by this reasoning.However, atheists do assert that people exist, even though this cannot be proven, which only goes to show that everyone has faith in something, it's just a matter of what one puts their faith in.
I'm quite familiar with all the concepts you're referring to. I made a post on precisely that subject a while back. http://www.christianityboard.com/christian...logy-t4589.htmlIf one wants to assume a particular faith as axiomatic in his epistemological system, nothing's stopping him. Nor is anything stopping him from axiomatically believing in Santa Claus. But frankly, I think this is a tremendously unsatisfying justification for most people. It takes little imagination to think of reasons why we would like to keep our axiomatic beliefs to a minimum.(tim_from_pa)
God is the same way. The axiom is faith, but there is tangible evidence of faith such as fulfilled prophecy, answered prayer, manifestations and so forth which are taken on the axiom that there is a God, and beings beyond ourselves exist which make themselves known this way.
Well, I think we both agree that belief in God requires faith. It is either axiomatic, or unjustified.So if it's axiomatic, you don't need evidence to support it. That's entirely irrelevant; it is implicitly assumed. It seems, though, as though you don't actually want your belief in God to be axiomatic - you want it to be contingent upon other beliefs, like the "evidence" you proposed. I think it pretty easily falls apart when you examine the evidence, which we've already examined earlier in this thread and I don't particularly care to repeat.Now, if what you are saying is that Biblical accounts of fulfilled prophecy are consistent with the God hypothesis, then that's almost tautologically true. If we believe in Christianity then we believe that the bible is infallible; if we believe the bible is infallible we believe that prophecies have been fulfilled, if we believe that the prophecies have been fulfilled then this serves as evidence for Christianity. It's circular, but it's internally consistent, at least.The problem is that internal consistency doesn't mean anything when you look at the Christianity hypothesis with respect to other hypotheses? Why? Because it only tells you about the probability of the evidence given the hypothesis, P(E/H). It does not tell you about the probability of the hypothesis given the evidence, P(H/E). And we simply cannot infer the probability of a hypothesis from P(E/H).The reason for this is simple. Every internally consistent hypothesis will give us a P(E/H) of 1. Any one that I can think of that accounts for this evidence in some way! The Islam hypothesis, the Hindu hypothesis, the Spaghetti Monster hypothesis, all them are capable of accounting for the evidence - but that doesn't mean that the evidence supports them. How could it support all of those mutually exclusive hypotheses at once?My assertion is that the P(H/E) for the God hypothesis, with respect to other hypotheses like the Islam hypothesis and the Spaghetti Monster hypothesis, is very low. It also gives rise to a whole host of new theological problems that, if we were to look at this from a pragmatic explanatory standpoint, undermine its usefulness.Now, you can say that the biblical prophecies and miracles all make sense in the context of a Christian axiom. Sure they can! But they can also be made sense of in the context of the Islam axiom, the Spaghetti Monster axiom, and whatever else. There's nothing to differentiate those views from each other, and if that's your only justification then you have to be content with the knowledge that you have no rational means of convincing someone one way or the other. You'd be forced to say "Well, that's the game I chose to play, I can't blame you if you chose differently. Well, except when my God damns you to hell for all eternity."As an atheist, I simply try to accept as few axioms as possible, to minimize arbitrariness. The things I accept as axiomatic are those which I consider to epistemologically inescapable - things like the "common sense view of reality" (the axiom that we aren't in the Matrix and can trust our senses), standards of logical coherence, and basic rules of inductive and deductive reasoning. There's an obvious sense in which God is completely ad hoc with respect to those sorts of categories. God is clearly epistemologically escapable.I hope this made things clear. If not, I'll be happy to elaborate, I really enjoy talking about this sort of thing.
 

tim_from_pa

New Member
Jul 11, 2007
1,656
12
0
65
Well, Lunar, I read that other thread and whether one or several axioms, it's a matter of where one wants to draw the line. Actually, we assume a whole lot of axioms. The person next to you existing for example. It's like that bird analogy. However, the bottom line is that you yourself never felt that person's soul and know not whether you are the only one in the universe because only you perceive consciousness. The same goes for the definition of "left" and "right" and other such spacial concepts. I still think that an absolute statement that "there is no God' is limiting oneself.Actually, unless I missed it, I still did not get an answer to the original question as to what evidence, even if some basic axioms were accepted, an atheist would need to believe there's a God.As for internal and circular reasoning of the bible, that touches on a lot of subjects there, but I simply do not believe that believing in God "because the bible says so" is the only source.