Existence of a god or gos

Because irrationality is a dangerous thing, especially when people try to blend government and religion.

You ignored my question. What is the evidence? The Bible could be easily be completely wrong. The New Testament was written decades after Jesus' death and the book as a whole has gone through tons of revisions and rewrites at the hand of the Church.

 

Point out something in the Bible that is incorrect, please be specific.

Why do millions of people raised in areas that the Bible is forbidden or relegated to the underground accept it as Truth and live a life for Jesus?

What evidence is there that any of it is not true?

Observation and logic have many times led people to the wrong conclusions resulting in error and calamity, mind you.

I'll give you that man wrote it, but on what basis do you deny their writing is anything but the truth of the matter?

My thinking can be wrong, I can perhaps have some misunderstanding of the Word, however the Word itself is of God for there is too much evidence based on archeology, original scripture, first hand accounting, miracles, the telling of future events, the lives and testimony of our ancestors as well as the experience we as Christians have had, both past and present. This cannot be denied. What other book has had so much criticism yet continues to change peoples lives in a positive way?

It's a matter of Faith, not sight. For sight is one of the 5 senses we live by but does not take into consideration the spiritual nature around us.

 

I did not ignore your question, you obviously did not like my response. For nothing I write will convince you otherwise. I am only human, but a spiritual human at that not relying just on my 5 senses as does the carnal world.

I don't follow the "blend government and religion". Aside from the government intervening into the affairs of religion I'm not aware of this so called blending in America. Perhaps you were referring to countries overseas and religions such as Islam?

"The Bible could be easily be completely wrong"? Now, that's a stretch. I'm not sure any work of nonfiction can be totally wrong. I mean, give it some credit where credit is due.

I assume you are referring to the New Testament having been written a few decades after Jesus's death (and let's not forget his resurrection). The writers all lived during the time that Jesus walked this earth and have direct or indirect knowledge of Him and His teachings. Even Paul (formerly Saul) knew of Jesus and encountered Him after His D&R. What other historical book on anyone's life can this be said of?

"...the book as a whole has gone through tons of revisions and rewrites at the hand of the Church." Are you referring to the English translations or the original Greek and Hebrew? When you write "Church", are you referring to the Roman Catholic Church? Are you aware of the history of how the Bible was put together, how the scripture was in use by Christians long before this was so? There are many good sources on this subject. Below is a link to one of them. Perhaps it will answer some of your questions for I am no Scholar nor Theologian, I am just a humble man who seeks the guidance and comfort of my Redeemer.

http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html

 

The Bible claims that the Earth is immobile.

... The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (Psalms 93:1)
... The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30)
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (Psalms 104:5)

Same passages that were used to convict Galileo of heresy.

"What evidence is there that it isn't true?" What evidence is there that it is true? Claims are meaningless without evidence, and there is no God to be seen or observed anywhere?

I imagine they're Christians for the same reasons that there are billions of Muslims.

The Bible has never predicted anything. Any examples I've seen of this are extremely vague passages that can mean anything.

The Bible has been edited and rewritten multiple times, and many books, like the Gospel of Thomas, are regularly discarded because people don't like what they have to say even though they're just as valid as the other books.

 

Let's see...gay marriage, prayer in schools, creationism over evolution, the general "anti science" sentiment.

Yes, I'm referring to the RCC, and yes I'm familiar with how the book is put together. There is no evidence for the Resurrection other than the Bible. You can't support the Bible with the Bible, that's circular reasoning.

 

There are many things that are incorrect.

Take the flood story for example. If you go by the geneologies the flood ended somewhere between roughly 2100-2400 BC.

1) How did the spectacled bear get from South America to Noah and then get back home.

2) Where did all the water come from. There is not that much water on the earth

3) Why does the Geology of the earth not record a global flood in such recent history

4) Where did all the races come from ? We have continuous civilization in China, South America, Europe, Africa, Egypt Sumeria, and numerous other places throughout this time period.

Where did these continuous cultures come from if our current population started with only 4 men and their wives.

5) Many of these early cutures recorded their history during this time period.. the stories of where they came from.

If these people came from Noah and Sons, and Noah and sons lived for 400 years after the flood ended (taking us really really close to present), why did none of these cultures mention Noah or anything in relation to these folks who lived centuries.

This flood story never happened as recorded.

In addition, there are contradictions between the NT and the OT.

Divorce is fine in the OT .. not ok in the NT
Adultery gets the death pentalty in the OT .. gets a pardon on the NT

Some of the stories of Jesus life contradict each other and/or are not historically or geographically accurate.

We have different version of the Bible. The oldest Bibles do not contain the long ending of Mark for example.

There have been numerous changes to the text of the Bible, "interpolation" over the years. Any minister who has been to a proper (8 years or more, learning Latin, Hebrew and Greek, a proper seminary such as the Missouri Synod or equivalent) is taught this. It is not a secret.

 

Correct? True? What evidence for either? My personal experience dealing with God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus. Because that experience is a spiritual experience, you cannot prove my assertions to be false. You can only attempt to ridicule which I fully expect from such as yourself.

Perhaps you should check your OWN SOURCE OF THINKING? Which is an interesting subject for another thread..... What is your source of thinking? Are you a slave to drugs (chemical reactions), or are you an autonomous free thinking person, or are your thoughts delivered to you from an outside source?

 

Apparently you give little credence to the Holy Bible. That's understandable for you and many like you will never understand nor accept it short of a divine revelation by Jesus Himself. God offers Grace, we accept by Faith.

What do you think the "earth cannot be moved" means both in terms of general scientific vs. scripture? Could you possibly be thinking that both have the same meaning? I think not.

Galileo was convicted by the Roman Catholic Church, not all that too surprising considering the time he lived in and the erroneous teachings of the Catholic Church at that time and even today there remain unbiblical teachings. I cannot nor will not defend their actions. This Church has changed it's doctrine before and continues to do so yet the Holy Bible has not changed in meaning, but perhaps in the words used. You are aware that the Catholic Church was not the only Christian Church at that time?

Muslims vs. Christians and their reasons for belief in their scripture? Well, considering the Quran was written hundreds of years after Mohammed's death, that his word was his own and the Bible had over 40 authors who maintained a consistent message over 1500 years and backed by their writings, considering that you cannot force a person to become a Christian yet this is not true of Islam. There are too numerous of reasons to try and explain why the concept and reasonings for both Faiths are in contrast to one another, both the scripture and the God they Serve.

"The Bible has never predicted anything. Any examples I've seen of this are extremely vague passages that can mean anything." Wow, you can say that with a straight face or keyboard? How can you state such rubbish when it counters all known facts proven in both historical terms and current events? Now, I could understand if you were responding to the distorted beliefs of those who constantly point out the vague writings of Nostradamus as relevant to future happenings. I could then agree with your statement.

The Gospel of Thomas, Mary and others were written hundreds of years later, not decades and they did not meet the criteria for inspired writings as they weren't consistent with the writings of the OT nor NT. In essence they were not valid in any sense of the Word (word).

 

Well, first of all you glean over the fact that the NT is first hand accounting of the events that took place during that period. It is not a work of fiction as many believe. For other writers of the times did have works that supported the evidence of Jesus and what transpired. It may be true that no other works presents evidence of this and for good reason. They were not present nor did they believe in the divinity of Christ. It was only to Jewish believers and soon to be Christians that he revealed Himself. Again, first hand accounting unless you consider it all lies. Please treat other historical works with the same standard please.

 

I overlooked responding to this. Unless you are of the mind that America was not formed on the basis of Christian influence and a freedom of religion from government influence then what I write will mean nothing to you. Your points are well taken, however they are inaccurate.

Until recent times, the acceptance of gay anything was that it was an abomination, a perversion, a lifestyle of an emotionally ill people who lived lives counter to normalcy. Not by any normal standards of decency or law did this become the norm. It's the result of liberal thinking and a generation and more of 'anything goes' mentality and now unfortunately acceptable by the Government and a peoples that do not accept the Holy Bible as God's Word and dismiss it as a source of provacation. It's not about religion, it's about what is right and wrong.

Prayer in school was the norm until that same liberal thinking non-believer had their way, again government intervention into the freedom of religion both in private and public. They may have taken God and the Bible out of school, but not in the minds of millions of righteous people who know what they know and aren't so easily persuaded otherwise.

It's not about creationism over evolution, it's about the right to offer both and other similar matters of understanding and reasoning in both a public and private setting. The Law and liberal academia would have you believe both do not have a place in a classroom setting. This again, is government intervention in the freedom of religion.

I personally do not know of any Christian that is anti-science. That is a myth, perpertrated by people that do not want people to think for themselves but become attuned to world thinking and not be open to what's behind the science. A Creator.

 

1) The spectacled bear was not onboard. Noah was to bring aboard two of each kind, not two of each species. Your knowledge of evolution can figure it out from there.

2) Perhaps the following link might offer some insight. On a lighter note, why is everyone so concerned about the glaciers melting?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html

3) Due you consider 2100-2400 BC recent history? Have you not seen seashells on mountain tops. Check out the following link:

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

4) Are you not familiar with the Tower of Babel. The following link provides information on the origins of races.

http://bible-truth.org/race.htm

5) See answer to #4.

I don't have the time to follow up on all your supposed contradictions. I do have a life and a wife. But I will say more knowledgeable people than me (biblical scholars, theologians and yes, even scientists) have already addressed these issues and you're welcome to check out what they have to say on the matters, although I suspect you already have and are just trying to get my goat.

I will suggest your questions are taken out of biblical context which doesn't surprise me in the least.

 

I ridicule nothing, but I will point out that you've experienced that same thing countless Muslims, Buddhists, and other religious followers have experienced.

The human brain is a product of electrochemistry.

Can you provide specific examples of the Bible predicting things?

I'm glad you don't defend the RCC, but their activities are condoned by God. Peter was made the first Pope, after all, and was told that anything he said or did would be honored in heaven. So every Pope afterwards has done legitimate things in God's eyes. According to the Bible.

Our government was not remotely founded on Christian principles, and its secular nature is enshrined in the First Amendment.

And until recently, women and blacks were considered inferior. You aren't seriously arguing that just because something is traditional, it's morally right, are you?

If by liberal thinking you mean "following the Constitution", then yes. Private observance of religion has not been remotely affected. Students can pray in school. They can even form groups and publicly pray in school if they wish. What can't happen, however, is teachers or administrators sponsoring this, which is perfectly fair. You wouldn't want a Muslim teacher leading your children in prayer any more than I want a Christian teacher leading my kids in prayer. So let the children do as they wish and keep the school out of it.

Creationism is not a scientific theory by any standard. Even you can agree with that; you've said yourself that religion cannot be verified by scientific means. So creationism has no place in a science classroom. You want to teach it in a comparative religions class? Fine, go for it. But don't pretend it's science. It is not.

Christians are by definition anti-science if they reject scientific evidence in favor of their own beliefs, no matter how much evidence stands in favor of science. Not believing in evolution, thinking that homosexuality is an abomination when it's found all throughout nature, etc etc. This is anti-science.

 

Evolution does not occur quickly enough to result in this much diversity in only four thousand years. It has taken hundreds of millions for significant changes, a timeline that the Bible doesn't even support.

 

Only because you cannot make your numerological processes coincide with one another. The Bible doesn't support those fictitious numbers, because it is not necessary to support those imaginary numbers.

 

Young Earth Theory: Earth is about 6,000 years old. I assume you're an Old Earth Creationist?

 

I trust in what the Bible says and what the Holy Spirit tells me... I don't trust anything any modern day man says... why? Because the Bible clearly says that there is none that is good, no not one (speaking of man).

 

LOL Either you stand by your own assertion that gods are outside the bounds of science or you don't. You can't say that God is outside of science and then assert that you can come to the conclusion of God through science.

Heck, just a page after you made the post above you engage enthusiatically in trying to assert that your god can be demonstrated with science; "NASA supports Christianity!" and what have you.

There's not much integrity in that, RevAnarchist. Not much at all.

 

Where is his post about NASA..?? I could not find it.

 

The correct quote was "NASA supporting Christianity!" in post .. heck, I lost the window now, go to Search this thread in the bar above and search for yourself, please. RevAnarchist mentioned it in relation to "PhD Christian apologists" using science (hence the PhD I guess?! ) as a support for creationism.

 

You quoted something and yet you don't know where you quoted it from? My of my. Are you then sure that the quote was more accurate than what your memory seems to allow?

 

What?

Slow trolling today, is it?

 

No trolling. I asked you a question, you give me a quote from an alleged location then you suddenly don't remember where you obtained that quote from. Why accuse me of trolling when it is your memory that seems to be failing?

 

You did not specify that in the OP. However since you have now specified the type of evidence (thanks) that you want, and that you want it in an exclusive manner no less, I can tell you that in my opinion there is no empirical evidence that is testable and falsifiable to help prove the existence of God. The reason for that is the same reasons that some theories of secular science do not meet the criteria that you ask for. For example the latest darling of science (that tries to eliminate God from the universe) is multidimensional parallel universes. However the theory can not be tested nor falsified etc. So I must say that you are using a double standard. But its your thread and its your right to be unfair.

What in the world does that have quantum theory have to do with standard big bang physics (QFM are called on in some variations of the BB theory). IC was also correct in that everything that begins to exist has a cause of that existence, even in the quantum physics world! I dearly hope you are not claiming that quantum events and processes do not have a cause for their existence, because I have heard that so many times from lay members (at least when it comes to that subject).

There is much overwhelming evidence to support the existence of God or GID, unless you are calling on your double standard again. Didn’t you even read my comment, or links about the atheists hero, David Hume who said that the Big Bang has clear theological implications? I think you are confusing some shaky recent theories of how the universe began to exist with the standard (hot) big bang model. What is your understanding of the different theories of the universes emergence, which do you like and why? The reason I ask you this is to determine your level of education and knowledge in the subject so I will be better address your comments.

To summarize;

I feel you can not support your orginal post claims unless you use a double standard. And if that same criteria was extended to me I could win any debate, even that the earth is flat.

Rev A

 

Ha ha rich indeed. Freeware ridicules my sources as a habit, or as a hobby (actually its neither, it comes from a web site called ‘how to debate theist‘s and the site lays out fair as well as malicious ways to decrepit theists by character assassination etc and deceive to win a debate). I would like to see the location as well….ahhh I would post the addy but I seem to have slipped my mind!

Rev A

 

What does my failing memory have to do with the subject? Perhaps it'll be of service to you to know if I knees hurt as well? Hey, perhaps I'm even impotent, - would that benefit you in steering the thread into an abyss of your liking?