Evoken

You mean the Protestants? The Bible in Protestant hands is stolen property. Like I have pointed before, the distorted notion of "The Bible and me" is a protestant novelty, it is not authoritative.

Try asking the protestants who rejoice so much atatcking The Church why they accept The Bible as God's word, why do they accept that cannon and not any other? Because The Church determined it, if it were not for that the'll be accepting the Gnostic Gospels as well and would most likely be Arians or Gnostics too.

mirage

This is one of the more egregious pieces of ad hoc apologetic bullshit out there.

Firstly, it makes no sense. Knowledge of existence in know way violates our freewill, it just gives us better information and makes our choices informed. I don't recall the sure knowledge of God of Adam and Eve interfering with their abilities to make moral choices.

Secondly, god routinely violates the wills of various people in the Bible by providing some evidence of his existence.

The plain theological fact is that god is hiding and Christians have no idea why. This defence is just horribly, horribly bad. I don't know how any Christian can say it with a straight face.

Evoken

Yes, I agree, it is a bad defence.

GoodLittleAtheist

The old testament, in the Church's hands, is stolen property as well.

rexrex4

I don't understand. What do you mean it is a bad defense?It's your defence.

Evoken

I am simply admiting my error in that post.

rexrex4

I'm stuned! Really. Are you saying that it's a false defence of christianity to claim :
I have been hearing pastors use this for years. It was cited with respect to the deciples asking Jesus why he spoke in parables and Jesus answering" that hearing they will not hear etc.The pastor said that ment god would be raping the hearer otherwise and God is too much of a gentleman to do that. Raping meaning that if Jesus just spoke openly people would be 'forced' to believe.

Evoken

Sigh, so much for a drop of humilty..

God is not obligued to reveal himself to any other than those he chooses to reveal himself to. Like he said "I will have mercy of whom I have mercy" God is not obligued to do any of our demands. Like Jesus said "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it"

Those to whom he reveals himself to are there there serve as a testimony of his presence on earth and by hearing those testimonies God wants us to put our confidence in him. "Blessed is he that has not seen, but believes anyway"

VoodooChild

IAsimisI

The problem is that there are a lot of people who claim a revelation from god. Mohammed, Zoroaster, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Bahaulla etc., how do you know which one to believe?

Evoken

Abraham and Moses helped shape the way towards the fullness of revelation in Christ. Just like Zoroatrianism influenced Judaism as well as Hellenism from which Christianiy emerged. As far as I know, Mohammed set forth a revelation contrary to the one of Christianity and thus self-refuted itself. So like Peter said: "Even if an angel comes ot you and preaches a Gospel different from ours, do not listen to him" That's what I did.

I have no problem with nor do I deny that people can experience God thru different religions. All goodness comes thru The Church and Christ who is the fullness of truth. This however does not means that the other religions are on equal ground with The Church. They are prone to admixture of error.