Doug Shaver

You say so. Is it possible for you to be mistaken, or are you infallible when you discuss the Bible?

Helpmabob

I think that is likely to go off-topic. Let me just say that where science provides the much of the answer to how much of the world and universe works, the Bible provides much of the reasoning and purpose behind the workings.Not generally. By and large I have great respect for eminent engineers and scientists. Some of them have a hidden agenda though.

I choose the one I think is right, same as most people.I obviously cannot defend other gospels here. For me, I want to know the truth. The christian gospel provides verifiable truth from God.This seems to be massively hypothetical and conjectural, not to mention illogical, slightly ridiculous and plain wrong.

But what and why do you believe it’s all about? I’ll accept a website link summarising your views of how and why man is on earth.Read any of dear Johnny’s posts above here for ratification.

Yes, but my point is that universal morals are not defined by what man considers to be right, but rather by what God has instituted. It so happens that in western societies, these things generally coincide.Yes, I agree with this particular example, but if you are going to extrapolate that too far it is not necessarily correct. In other words, there are moral boundaries, which should not be crossed. There by implication must be externally set boundaries (i.e. we do not individually choose) otherwise there would be misunderstandings and chaos not to mention much juvenile sniggering.

The Bible is not a science book though. God doesn’t change, so why should the Bible? If the Bible is correct (even though not universally recognised as such) why should it change? Should it be edited to suit the majority view?

Be honest. You have the evidence of Jesus life, but you disbelieve. You’re not the first to want visual proof. You can have the Holy Spirit if you repent and turn to God. But Jesus will not return until the appointed time when it will be too late to repent. This is all as prophesied in the Bible.Think of me as a sinner saved by grace.

Dear me, no. Jesus will indeed purify the Levites, along with many others. He does this through His sacrifice on the cross. Otherwise they would not be pure even by their own rigorous standards.

The important thing here to note is that prophecy does not depend on scientific proof for authenticity. It comes with authority from God to perform the purposes of God.

Jesus had both a human and a divine nature. He suffered and died and rose again. The Father did not die.I think Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac at one time, but God stepped in. Otherwise animal sacrifice was de rigeur. Jesus’ sacrifice was a supreme and unusual event. It had to be for what was achieved.So, can we assume that you are trusting in Allah now?

spin

My question was how do you choose. What methodology was involved in preferring one from the other? Did you go through the literature of islam and reject it for some reason? Why?

You'd make a good muslim, Jew or Hindu.

I seem to remember you clinging to the shreds of biblical prophecy for this issue, ie verifiable truth. If I remember correctly, haven't the threads about various so-called prophecies to be found in the archives here made you wonder about those verifiable truths? No? Well, I didn't think your faith was based on such "verifiable truths".

The threads have attempted to pull these prophecies apart to see if they really contained anything that could be identified as prescience, rather than guesswork or error. The christian defending such a "prophecy" tended to go to linguistic distortions and cling to slimmest possibilities in order not to admit that the "prophecies" don't in fact reflect verification of anything.

Actually, it's quite clear. All you need to do is realise that the vastest majority of religious people born in a muslim country profess islam. The vastest majority of religious people born into hinduism profess hinduism. The vastest majority of religious people born in a christian country profess christianity. Get it? It's not too difficult. Why you should think it "massively hypothetical and conjectural, not to mention illogical, slightly ridiculous and plain wrong" only goes to show your resilience to logic.

It is plainly observable that people born into religious environments tend to reflect the prevalent religion. Hence there is a high probability that if you had been born under another prevalent religion you would be saying similar things about the local gospel. Your adherence to one religion rather than another may be merely one of where you were born, ie the luck of the draw at birth.


I see also that, as you cannot separate yourself from the schizophrenic regarding your non-objectively verifiable perceptions (in your case about your god person), you must accept that you are no different from the schizophrenic.


spin

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Helpmabob: No rational being who wants to reveal himself to people would go out of his way to make it appear that he does not exist. Today, while tangible benefits are frequently DISTRIBUTED to those who ARE NOT in greatest need, they are frequently WITHHELD from those who ARE in greatest need. This indicates that tangible benefits are distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics regardless of a person's worldview. No loving, caring God would act like that. He would not be able to derive any possible benefits from such behavior.

Some Christians say that miracle healings are evidence that God is tangibly active in the world today. If that is true, what does God have against amputees? What particular tangible benefit can you, meaning Helpmabob, ask God for and expect to receive?

Will you please tell us why God kills some of his most devout and faithful followers with hurricanes, makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11, punishes people for sins that that their grandparents committed, killed Ananias and Saphira over money, refused to clearly tell early Christians that slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women is wrong, and refuses to reveal himself to some people who would accept him if they knew that he (supposedly) exists. Some skeptics find the gospel message to be appealing. It is just that they are not reasonably certain that God exists. No man can fairly be held accountable for refusing to accept a message from a being whose message he would accept if he knew that the being who delivered the message (supposedly) exists.

Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. (KJV)

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. (KJV)

John 10:37-38 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." (NIV)

Lest you claim that today, we have the Holy Spirit as evidence, Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders. (NIV)

It is quite odd that with the thousands of eyewitnesses who were still around who saw Jesus perform many miracles, and many of the 500 eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead, AND the presence of the Holy Sprit, that there would have been a need for further confirmations. What happened to faith? If faith is what belief is all about, there would have been no need for any tangible evidence at all. God could have told everyone in the world about the message himself. As it was, hundreds of millions of people died without hearing the Gospel message because God did not want them to hear it, so one wonders why Christians make it a priority to spread a message that God does not have any interest in spreading himself. If a limited amount of tangible evidence was beneficial, then surely additional tangible evidence would have been beneficial too. If 500 eyewitnesses in only one place in the entire world was a good thing, then surely 5,000 eyewitnesses in many locations around the world most certainly would not have been counterproductive, that is, IF God's goal is to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. We know that that IS NOT God's goal.

Gullwind

But "Universal Morals instituted by God" are simply an assertion. And they coincide because of the influence the Catholic Church had on western societies, not because of any inherent "rightness" of the moral system.

Sure there are moral boundaries. Those boundaries are established by the culture. Murder, rape and incest are recognized as being bad for any society, so they are "universal," not because they were established supernaturally, but because people recognize that allowing members of a society to behave like that is detrimental to the society as a whole.

I also noticed you didn't respond to the bit about slavery in my last post. I'd be interested in your opinion on that. Is slavery moral or not? If not, what do you use to justify that position?

Helpmabob

Right and righteousness, like morality is not chosen, it just is. Once you find it (or it finds you) you stop looking for it, and start looking at it and marvelling.I don’t agree. It is not the prophecies alone that will convince anyone. I have given several examples of the prophetic nature of the Bible. They are personally verifiable to any that cares to check. Remember that it is possible to ignore or dispute the prophecies, but they are there none the less for those that look: You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. [Matthew 16:3]We don’t choose where we are born – God does. It is planned - there is no luck involved. Why on earth should I be interested in following a strict rulebook set by man when I can have the Holy Spirit’s assurance of salvation through faith? I’m not being argumentative for the sake of it; I simply honestly cannot see any heavenly reward arising from such excessive religiosity. The aims and rewards are purely earthly.

I can just imagine the fun and games I would have trying to use this ‘birthplace defines faith’ rhetoric with the religious groups you have mentioned above as a reason why they should consider Christianity. No, if they come to Christ it is by the word and Spirit of God illuminating their soul.

More topically, the prophetic fulfilments are sufficient to show God's activity. What particular tangible benefit can you, meaning Helpmabob, ask God for and expect to receive? You discuss the existence of God who created the universe, then go on to offer Him advice. There is a God, but as your creator, He is necessarily smarter than you. It follows that there is really no foundation to your assumptions about God and little or no consistency to the postulations you build on top. I realise that you are unwilling (or unable?) to neither face this plain fact nor comprehend the seriousness of its nature.

Not sure – it doesn’t crop up much these days. I guess it could provide bed and board to someone who would otherwise have no-where to stay, so that would be positive. Evaluate each situation on its own merits I say and ensure that we act with love of God foremost, followed by love of others as ourselves. If we cannot meet these criteria, then we should investigate what changes can be made.

spin

To sum up, it seems you have no way of choosing between gospels, and that seems to be on your own admission.

You have no means of deciding that the course you have happened on has any objective value. You seem no different from the schizophrenic.

Schizophrenic's argument. The simple shift from objective verification to subjective verification, ie no meaningful verification at all.

When you take things out of context you can make them mean very different things. What can one expect?

Oh, of course, you can't choose the place of birth: you have no choice in the matter, but your culture can choose your religion for you and does so for very many people. You were probably born in a christian country, then, if you are religious, you are probable christian. Born in a muslim country, then, if you are religious, you are probable muslim. Etc.

Another assertion you cannot demonstrate.

Spoken like someone who doesn't need objective verification of such claims. See, no difference between your position and the schizophrenic.

I can see no reward for giving away the few tools you have to operate with. Give away your possibility to understand the world through objective means and you are adrift in fantasy.

The problem is, you get a glimmer of the problem it poses. :wave:

So you shut the door quick smart. You don't want to make the obvious connection between muslim country full of muslims and christian country full of christians. Oh, and hindu country full of hindus. They wouldn't like it either: at most only one can be correct. Perhaps none, right?

Seems this christ person predominantly comes to christian countries and Khrisha only comes to people in India.

All these different countries ought to cut the waste of their individual currencies and turn to Euros.


spin

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Helpmabob: Will you please tell us why God kills some of his most devout and faithful followers with hurricanes, makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11, punishes people for sins that that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5, endorsed slavery, killed Ananias and Saphira over money, refused to clearly tell early Christians that slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women is wrong, and refuses to reveal himself to some people who would accept him if they knew that he (supposedly) exists. Some skeptics find the gospel message to be appealing. It is just that they are not reasonably certain that God exists. No man can fairly be held accountable for refusing to accept a message from a being whose message he would accept if he knew that the being who delivered the message (supposedly) exists.

Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. (KJV)

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. (KJV)

John 10:37-38 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." (NIV)

Lest you claim that today, we have the Holy Spirit as evidence, Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders. (NIV)

It is quite odd that with the thousands of eyewitnesses who were still around who saw Jesus perform many miracles, and many of the 500 eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead, AND the presence of the Holy Sprit, that there would have been a need for further confirmations. What happened to faith? If faith is what belief is all about, there would have been no need for any tangible evidence at all. God could have told everyone in the world about the message himself. As it was, hundreds of millions of people died without hearing the Gospel message because God did not want them to hear it, so one wonders why Christians make it a priority to spread a message that God does not have any interest in spreading himself. If a limited amount of tangible evidence was beneficial, then surely additional tangible evidence would have been beneficial too. If 500 eyewitnesses in only one place in the entire world was a good thing, then surely 5,000 eyewitnesses in many locations around the world most certainly would not have been counterproductive, that is, IF God's goal is to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. We know that that IS NOT God's goal.

How do you account for the fact that today, tangible blessings are frequently DISTRIBUTED to those who ARE NOT in greatest need, and frequently WITHHELD from those who ARE in greatest need. This gives many people the impression that tangible benefits are distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics, and without any regard whatsoever for person's worldview. Galations 6:10 says "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." Obviously, God is a hypocrite.

Gullwind

Do you not see the implications of what you just said? You aren't sure whether slavery is moral or not. What happened to that objective morality? "Evaluate each situation on its own merits" seems awfully subjective to me.

Doug Shaver

Wrong. They can only be verified by people whose minds are already made up and therefore don't really need verification.