Posted:
#3201
Funny how Rostos is asking hitler to do the same thing we are asking of Rostos. "if he believes in god, he has to give evidence why his god exists." ironic isn't it. Double standard much?
If Christ died on the cross for all of humanity
Posted:
#3204
Quote Originally Posted by SirJohnDrake:
No hitler didn't believe in God...not the Christian God anyway.
No, you are lost, where did I say only people who believe don't do bad things? How many times do I have to tell you that we are all sinners?
Given the scope of the atrocities that the nazi regime are guilty of committing (exp. killing 8 million innocent Jewish people and countless others), they definitely didn't believe in God...I rest my case!
You just did it again!!! You said because of the shot they dis they don't believe in god!!! You just said that!!!
Posted:
#3206
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
Another F if you attempted to answer this question in a philosophy exam.
funny how you quote aristotle, he is the main proponant of "from nothing, comes nothing"....
You simple failure to answer a basic dihotomy indicates your strike out.
As i expected....
You definitely lead the universe in "points missed"
Posted:
#3207
I think it's great that my opponents are allowing me to quote almost every single logical fallacy I've ever heard of LOL... also, I STILL have some questions, and I STILL want some answers:
1) Ex4Life, Rostos, Smoothd have ALL admitted that the Bible has been edited, changed, rewritten, parts lost, etc. By comparison, if I showed you an old history book and said: "Out of 20 chapters, 8 of them are historically inaccurate because of rewrites or missing pieces," you wouldn't give the book a second look. In Ex4Life's masterpiece composition of idiocy (where he uses lines from the BIBLE to prove that the BIBLE is true, a method that would get him laughed out of even special education classes), even he admits that it's a book that's been written by 50+ authors over 1000+, not to mention we have NO IDEA what's supposed to be "metaphor" and what's "real." So:
a) How can you trust a single word in that book when you ACCEPT that parts of it are changed from its original state?
b) How can you use any shred of it as evidence for anything when you know parts of the book are incorrect as they were originally intended, AND that "supposively" (as SirJohnDrake might say) some of it is to be taken metaphorically?
2) How do you justify Christianity over any other religion? How is it any more valid than say Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, Magicology, Santaology, TheWorldSprangFromAdam'sErectPenisOlogy, etc...?
3) If you REALLY believe the world is 6,000 years old, how do you explain dinosaurs? Or ancient Egyptians? Or Mesopotamians?
4) Why, if Christianity such a peaceful religion (and if we are all "God's children," does the Bible condone killing (a) homosexuals, (b) non-virgins, (c) for hitting one's parents, among other things?
a) "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
b) But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
c) Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
5) Why do we have a "spiritual void" if we don't believe in Christianity? Since a huge majority of the world ISN'T Christian, are they spiritually blind as well? Are only Christians correct? This refers to question two as well.
AND IF ANYBODY TRIES TO REFERENCE THE BIBLE FOR ANY ANSWERS, YOU'RE A MORON. YOU CAN'T USE THE BIBLE AS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
1) Ex4Life, Rostos, Smoothd have ALL admitted that the Bible has been edited, changed, rewritten, parts lost, etc. By comparison, if I showed you an old history book and said: "Out of 20 chapters, 8 of them are historically inaccurate because of rewrites or missing pieces," you wouldn't give the book a second look. In Ex4Life's masterpiece composition of idiocy (where he uses lines from the BIBLE to prove that the BIBLE is true, a method that would get him laughed out of even special education classes), even he admits that it's a book that's been written by 50+ authors over 1000+, not to mention we have NO IDEA what's supposed to be "metaphor" and what's "real." So:
a) How can you trust a single word in that book when you ACCEPT that parts of it are changed from its original state?
b) How can you use any shred of it as evidence for anything when you know parts of the book are incorrect as they were originally intended, AND that "supposively" (as SirJohnDrake might say) some of it is to be taken metaphorically?
2) How do you justify Christianity over any other religion? How is it any more valid than say Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, Magicology, Santaology, TheWorldSprangFromAdam'sErectPenisOlogy, etc...?
3) If you REALLY believe the world is 6,000 years old, how do you explain dinosaurs? Or ancient Egyptians? Or Mesopotamians?
4) Why, if Christianity such a peaceful religion (and if we are all "God's children," does the Bible condone killing (a) homosexuals, (b) non-virgins, (c) for hitting one's parents, among other things?
a) "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
b) But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
c) Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
5) Why do we have a "spiritual void" if we don't believe in Christianity? Since a huge majority of the world ISN'T Christian, are they spiritually blind as well? Are only Christians correct? This refers to question two as well.
AND IF ANYBODY TRIES TO REFERENCE THE BIBLE FOR ANY ANSWERS, YOU'RE A MORON. YOU CAN'T USE THE BIBLE AS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
Posted:
#3208
Like I have said you atheist wouldn't even bother to reply or look at the "evidence" that was presented for your inspection. Basically you have become so comfortable in your pious ignorance that it is truly laughable. Merry Christmas even though you don't believe. This is the holiest of seasons where we acknowledge that the Savior was born. Jesus Christ! I'm sorry that hurts your feeble atheists minds but that's TRUTH! Get a grip atheist and wake up from the lies that is atheism!
Posted:
#3211
Quote Originally Posted by tmstr929:
one simple question (and i'm catholic) adam and eve bore 2 sons, kane and able, where did kanes wife come from?
one simple question (and i'm catholic) adam and eve bore 2 sons, kane and able, where did kanes wife come from?
The Bible does not specifically say who Cain’s wife was.
The only possible answer is that Cain's wife was his sister or niece or great-niece, etc. The Bible does not say how old Cain was when he killed Abel (Genesis 4:8). Since they were both farmers, they were likely both full-grown adults, possibly with families of their own.
Adam and Eve surely had given birth to more children than just Cain and Abel at the time Abel was killed.
They definitely had many more children later (Genesis 5:4). The fact that Cain was scared for his own life after he killed Abel (Genesis 4:14) indicates that there were likely many other children and perhaps even grandchildren of Adam and Eve already living at that time. Cain's wife (Genesis 4:17) was a daughter or granddaughter of Adam and Eve.
Since Adam and Eve were the first (and only) human beings, their children would have no other choice than to intermarry.
God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18).
The reason that incest today often results in genetic abnormalities is that when two people of similar genetics (i.e., a brother and sister) have children together, there is a high risk of their recessive characteristics becoming dominant. When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits. The human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries as genetic defects are multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation. Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now. Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects. As a result, it was safe for them to intermarry.
Posted:
#3213
Quote Originally Posted by Sugarbear19:
I have some questions, and I want some answers:
1) Ex4Life, Rostos, Smoothd have ALL admitted that the Bible has been edited, changed, rewritten, parts lost, etc. By comparison, if I showed you an old history book and said: "Out of 20 chapters, 8 of them are historically inaccurate because of rewrites or missing pieces," you wouldn't give the book a second look. In Ex4Life's masterpiece composition of idiocy (where he uses lines from the BIBLE to prove that the BIBLE is true, a method that would get him laughed out of even special education classes), even he admits that it's a book that's been written by 50+ authors over 1000+, not to mention we have NO IDEA what's supposed to be "metaphor" and what's "real." So:
a) How can you trust a single word in that book when you ACCEPT that parts of it are changed from its original state?
b) How can you use any shred of it as evidence for anything when you know parts of the book are incorrect as they were originally intended, AND that "supposively" (as SirJohnDrake might say) some of it is to be taken metaphorically?
2) How do you justify Christianity over any other religion? How is it any more valid than say Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, Magicology, Santaology, TheWorldSprangFromAdam'sErectPenisOlogy, etc...?
3) If you REALLY believe the world is 6,000 years old, how do you explain dinosaurs? Or ancient Egyptians? Or Mesopotamians?
4) Why, if Christianity such a peaceful religion (and if we are all "God's children," does the Bible condone killing (a) homosexuals, (b) non-virgins, (c) for hitting one's parents, among other things?
a) "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
b) But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
c) Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
5) Why do we have a "spiritual void" if we don't believe in Christianity? Since a huge majority of the world ISN'T Christian, are they spiritually blind as well? Are only Christians correct? This refers to question two as well.
AND IF ANYBODY TRIES TO REFERENCE THE BIBLE FOR ANY ANSWERS, YOU'RE A MORON. YOU CAN'T USE THE BIBLE AS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
I have some questions, and I want some answers:
1) Ex4Life, Rostos, Smoothd have ALL admitted that the Bible has been edited, changed, rewritten, parts lost, etc. By comparison, if I showed you an old history book and said: "Out of 20 chapters, 8 of them are historically inaccurate because of rewrites or missing pieces," you wouldn't give the book a second look. In Ex4Life's masterpiece composition of idiocy (where he uses lines from the BIBLE to prove that the BIBLE is true, a method that would get him laughed out of even special education classes), even he admits that it's a book that's been written by 50+ authors over 1000+, not to mention we have NO IDEA what's supposed to be "metaphor" and what's "real." So:
a) How can you trust a single word in that book when you ACCEPT that parts of it are changed from its original state?
b) How can you use any shred of it as evidence for anything when you know parts of the book are incorrect as they were originally intended, AND that "supposively" (as SirJohnDrake might say) some of it is to be taken metaphorically?
2) How do you justify Christianity over any other religion? How is it any more valid than say Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, Magicology, Santaology, TheWorldSprangFromAdam'sErectPenisOlogy, etc...?
3) If you REALLY believe the world is 6,000 years old, how do you explain dinosaurs? Or ancient Egyptians? Or Mesopotamians?
4) Why, if Christianity such a peaceful religion (and if we are all "God's children," does the Bible condone killing (a) homosexuals, (b) non-virgins, (c) for hitting one's parents, among other things?
a) "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
b) But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
c) Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
5) Why do we have a "spiritual void" if we don't believe in Christianity? Since a huge majority of the world ISN'T Christian, are they spiritually blind as well? Are only Christians correct? This refers to question two as well.
AND IF ANYBODY TRIES TO REFERENCE THE BIBLE FOR ANY ANSWERS, YOU'RE A MORON. YOU CAN'T USE THE BIBLE AS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
I will answer your 1st question...
Posted:
#3214
Sugarbear19,
The books of the Old Testament were written from approximately 1400 B.C. to 400 B.C. The books of the New Testament were written from approximately A.D. 40 to A.D. 90. So, anywhere between 3400 to 1900 years have passed since a book of the Bible was written. In this time, the original manuscripts have been lost.
They very likely no longer exist. Also during this time, the books of the Bible have been copied again and again. Copies of copies of copies have been made. In view of this, can we still trust the Bible?
When God originally inspired men to write His Word, it was God-breathed and inerrant (2 Timothy 3:16-17; John 17:17).
The Bible nowhere applies this to copies of the original manuscripts. As meticulous as scribes were with the replication of the Scriptures, no one is perfect. As a result, minor differences arose in the various copies of the Scriptures. Of all of the thousands of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that are in existence, no two were identical until the printing press was invented in the A.D. 1500s.
However, any unbiased document scholar will agree that the Bible has been remarkably well-preserved over the centuries.
Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century A.D. are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century A.D.
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, scholars were shocked to see how similar they were to other ancient copies of the Old Testament, even though the Dead Sea Scrolls were hundreds of years older than anything previously discovered.
Even many hardened skeptics and critics of the Bible admit that the Bible has been transmitted over the centuries far more accurately than any other ancient document.
There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible has been revised, edited, or tampered with in any systematic manner. The sheer volume of biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempts to distort God’s Word. There is no major doctrine of the Bible that is put in doubt as a result of the minor differences that exist between manuscripts.
Again, the question, can we trust the Bible? Absolutely! God has preserved His Word despite the unintentional failings and intentional attacks of human beings. We can have utmost confidence that the Bible we have today is the same Bible that was originally written. The Bible is God’s Word, and we can trust it (2 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 5:18).
Posted:
#3215
Quote Originally Posted by matt4000:
Sugarbear19,
Sugarbear19,
The books of the Old Testament were written from approximately 1400 B.C. to 400 B.C. The books of the New Testament were written from approximately A.D. 40 to A.D. 90. So, anywhere between 3400 to 1900 years have passed since a book of the Bible was written. In this time, the original manuscripts have been lost.
They very likely no longer exist. Also during this time, the books of the Bible have been copied again and again. Copies of copies of copies have been made. In view of this, can we still trust the Bible?
When God originally inspired men to write His Word, it was God-breathed and inerrant (2 Timothy 3:16-17; John 17:17).
The Bible nowhere applies this to copies of the original manuscripts. As meticulous as scribes were with the replication of the Scriptures, no one is perfect. As a result, minor differences arose in the various copies of the Scriptures. Of all of the thousands of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that are in existence, no two were identical until the printing press was invented in the A.D. 1500s.
However, any unbiased document scholar will agree that the Bible has been remarkably well-preserved over the centuries.
Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century A.D. are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century A.D.
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, scholars were shocked to see how similar they were to other ancient copies of the Old Testament, even though the Dead Sea Scrolls were hundreds of years older than anything previously discovered.
Even many hardened skeptics and critics of the Bible admit that the Bible has been transmitted over the centuries far more accurately than any other ancient document.
There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible has been revised, edited, or tampered with in any systematic manner. The sheer volume of biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempts to distort God’s Word. There is no major doctrine of the Bible that is put in doubt as a result of the minor differences that exist between manuscripts.
Again, the question, can we trust the Bible? Absolutely! God has preserved His Word despite the unintentional failings and intentional attacks of human beings. We can have utmost confidence that the Bible we have today is the same Bible that was originally written. The Bible is God’s Word, and we can trust it (2 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 5:18).
I don't wanna steal Sugarbear's thunder so I'll let him address the inherent contradictions in your response. But I will thank you on behalf of all of us for at least attempting to respond. Honestly, thank you for that.
Posted:
#3216
Sugarbear,
You said... b) How can you use any shred of it as evidence for anything when you know parts of the book are incorrect as they were originally intended, AND that "supposively" (as SirJohnDrake might say) some of it is to be taken metaphorically?
It is to be taken Literally!
Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally.
This is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us. When we read any piece of literature, but especially the Bible, we must determine what the author intended to communicate.
Many today will read a verse or passage of Scripture and then give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs, ignoring the context and author’s intent. But this is not what God intended, which is why God tells us to correctly handle the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).
One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament. If God’s commands in Deuteronomy 8:3, 6:13, and 6:16 were not literal, Jesus would not have used them and they would have been powerless to stop Satan’s mouth, which they certainly did.
The disciples also took the commands of Christ (which are part of the Bible) literally. Jesus commanded the disciples to go and make more disciples in Matthew 28:19-20. In Acts 2 and following, we find that the disciples took Jesus' command literally and went throughout the known world of that time preaching the gospel of Christ and telling them to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31).
Just as the disciples took Jesus’ words literally, so must we. How else can we be sure of our salvation if we do not believe Him when He says He came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10), pay the penalty for our sin (Matthew 26:28), and provide eternal life (John 6:54)?
Although we take the Bible literally, there are still figures of speech within its pages.
An example of a figure of speech would be that if someone said "it is raining cats and dogs outside," you would know that they did not really mean that cats and dogs were falling from the sky. They would mean it is raining really hard. There are figures of speech in the Bible which are not to be taken literally, but those are obvious. (See Psalm 17:8 for example.)
Finally, when we make ourselves the final arbiters of which parts of the Bible are to be interpreted literally, we elevate ourselves above God. Who is to say, then, that one person’s interpretation of a biblical event or truth is any more or less valid than another’s? The confusion and distortions that would inevitably result from such a system would essentially render the Scriptures null and void. The Bible is God’s Word to us and He meant it to be believed—literally and completely.
Posted:
#3217
Sugarbear,
2) How do you justify Christianity over any other religion? How is it any more valid than say Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, Magicology, Santaology, TheWorldSprangFromAdam'sErectPenisOlogy, etc...?
There is no quick answer to this question. This will be very lengthy, but here it goes...
There is no doubt that the number of different religions in the world makes it a challenge to know which one is correct.
First, let’s consider some thoughts on the overall subject and then look at how one might approach the topic in a manner that can actually get to a right conclusion about God.
The challenge of different answers to a particular issue is not unique to the topic of religion. For example, you can sit 100 math students down, give them a complex problem to solve, and it is likely that many will get the answer wrong.
But does this mean that a correct answer does not exist? Not at all. Those who get the answer wrong simply need to be shown their error and know the techniques necessary to arrive at the correct answer.
How do we arrive at the truth about God?
We use a systematic methodology that is designed to separate truth from error by using various tests for truth, with the end result being a set of right conclusions. Can you imagine the end results a scientist would arrive at if he went into the lab and just started mixing things together with no rhyme or reason? Or if a physician just started treating a patient with random medicines in the hope of making him well?
Neither the scientist nor the physician takes this approach; instead, they use systematic methods that are methodical, logical, evidential, and proven to yield the right end result.
This being the case, why should theology—the study of God—be any different?
Why believe it can be approached in a haphazard and undisciplined way and still yield right conclusions?
Unfortunately, this is the approach many take, and this is one of the reasons why so many religions exist. That said, we now return to the question of how to reach truthful conclusions about God. What systematic approach should be used?
First, we need to establish a framework for testing various truth claims, and then we need a roadmap to follow to reach a right conclusion. Here is a good framework to use:
1. Logical consistency—the claims of a belief system must logically cohere to each other and not contradict in any way. As an example, the end goal of Buddhism is to rid oneself of all desires. Yet, one must have a desire to rid oneself of all desires, which is a contradictory and illogical principle.
2. Empirical adequacy—is there evidence to support the belief system (whether the evidence is rational, externally evidential, etc.)? Naturally, it is only right to want proof for important claims being made so the assertions can be verified. For example, Mormons teach that Jesus visited North America. Yet there is absolutely no proof, archaeological or otherwise, to support such a claim.
3. Existential relevancy—the belief system must conform to reality as we know it, and it must make a meaningful difference in the life of the adherent. Deism, for example, claims that God just threw the spinning world into the universe and does not interact with those who live on it. How does such a belief impact someone in a day-to-day manner? In short, it does not...
Posted:
#3218
Sugarbear,
2) How do you justify Christianity over any other religion? How is it any more valid than say Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, Magicology, Santaology, TheWorldSprangFromAdam'sErectPenisOlogy, etc...?
Continued...
The above framework, when applied to the topic of religion, will help lead one to a right view of God and will answer the four big questions of life:
1. Origin – where did we come from?
2. Ethics – how should we live?
3. Meaning – what is the purpose for life?
4. Destiny – where is mankind heading?
But how does one go about applying this framework in the pursuit of God? A step-by-step question/answer approach is one of the best tactics to employ. Narrowing the list of possible questions down produces the following:
1. Does absolute truth exist?
2. Do reason and religion mix?
3. Does God exist?
4. Can God be known?
5. Is Jesus God?
6. Does God care about me?
First we need to know if absolute truth exists. If it does not, then we really cannot be sure of anything (spiritual or not), and we end up either an agnostic, unsure if we can really know anything, or a pluralist, accepting every position because we are not sure which, if any, is right.
Absolute truth is defined as that which matches reality, that which corresponds to its object, telling it like it is. Some say there is no such thing as absolute truth, but taking such a position becomes self-defeating.
For example, the relativist says, “All truth is relative,” yet one must ask: is that statement absolutely true? If so, then absolute truth exists; if not, then why consider it? Postmodernism affirms no truth, yet it affirms at least one absolute truth: postmodernism is true. In the end, absolute truth becomes undeniable.
Further, absolute truth is naturally narrow and excludes its opposite.
Two plus two equals four, with no other answer being possible. This point becomes critical as different belief systems and worldviews are compared. If one belief system has components that are proven true, then any competing belief system with contrary claims must be false.
Also, we must keep in mind that absolute truth is not impacted by sincerity and desire. No matter how sincerely someone embraces a lie, it is still a lie. And no desire in the world can make something true that is false.
The answer of question one is that absolute truth exists. This being the case, agnosticism, postmodernism, relativism, and skepticism are all false positions.
Posted:
#3219
Sugarbear,
2) How do you justify Christianity over any other religion? How is it any more valid than say Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, Magicology, Santaology, TheWorldSprangFromAdam'sErectPenisOlogy, etc...?
Continued...
This leads us to the next question of whether reason/logic can be used in matters of religion. Some say this is not possible, but—why not?
The truth is, logic is vital when examining spiritual claims because it helps us understand why some claims should be excluded and others embraced. Logic is absolutely critical in dismantling pluralism (which says that all truth claims, even those that oppose each other, are equal and valid).
For example, Islam and Judaism claim that Jesus is not God, whereas Christianity claims He is.
One of the core laws of logic is the law of non-contradiction, which says something cannot be both “A” and “non-A” at the same time and in the same sense. Applying this law to the claims Judaism, Islam, and Christianity means that one is right and the other two are wrong. Jesus cannot be both God and not God.
Used properly, logic is a potent weapon against pluralism because it clearly demonstrates that contrary truth claims cannot both be true. This understanding topples the whole “true for you but not for me” mindset.
Logic also dispels the whole “all roads lead to the top of the mountain” analogy that pluralists use. Logic shows that each belief system has its own set of signs that point to radically different locations in the end. Logic shows that the proper illustration of a search for spiritual truth is more like a maze—one path makes it through to truth, while all others arrive at dead ends.
All faiths may have some surface similarities, but they differ in major ways in their core doctrines.
The conclusion is that you can use reason and logic in matters of religion. That being the case, pluralism (the belief that all truth claims are equally true and valid) is ruled out because it is illogical and contradictory to believe that diametrically opposing truth claims can both be right.
Posted:
#3220
Sugarbear,
2) How do you justify Christianity over any other religion? How is it any more valid than say Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, Magicology, Santaology, TheWorldSprangFromAdam'sErectPenisOlogy, etc...?
Continued...
Next comes the big question: does God exist?
Atheists and naturalists (who do not accept anything beyond this physical world and universe) say “no.” While volumes have been written and debates have raged throughout history on this question, it is actually not difficult to answer.
To give it proper attention, you must first ask this question: Why do we have something rather than nothing at all? In other words, how did you and everything around you get here? The argument for God can be presented very simply:
Something exists.
You do not get something from nothing.
Therefore, a necessary and eternal Being exists.
You cannot deny you exist because you have to exist in order to deny your own existence (which is self-defeating), so the first premise above is true.
No one believes you can get something from nothing (i.e., that ”nothing” produced the universe), so the second premise is true. Therefore, the third premise must be true—an eternal Being responsible for everything must exist.
This is a position no thinking atheist denies; they just claim that the universe is that eternal being.
However, the problem with that stance is that all scientific evidence points to the fact that the universe had a beginning (the ‘big bang’). And everything that has a beginning must have a cause; therefore, the universe had a cause and is not eternal.
Because the only two sources of eternality are an eternal universe (proven to be untrue) or an eternal Creator, the only logical conclusion is that God exists. Answering the question of God’s existence in the affirmative rules out atheism as a valid belief system.
Now, this conclusion says nothing about what kind of God exists, but amazingly enough, it does do one sweeping thing—it rules out all pantheistic religions.
All pantheistic worldviews say that the universe is God and is eternal. And this assertion is false. So, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and all other pantheistic religions are ruled out as valid belief systems.
Posted:
#3221
Sugarbear,
2) How do you justify Christianity over any other religion? How is it any more valid than say Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, Magicology, Santaology, TheWorldSprangFromAdam'sErectPenisOlogy, etc...?
Continued...
Further, we learn some interesting things about this God who created the universe. He is:
• Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation)
• Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known)
• Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space)
• Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it)
• Timeless and changeless (He created time)
• Immaterial (because He transcends space)
• Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality)
• Necessary (as everything else depends on Him)
• Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites)
• Diverse yet has unity (as nature exhibits diversity)
• Intelligent (supremely, to create everything)
• Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything)
• Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver)
• Caring (or no moral laws would have been given)
This Being exhibits characteristics very similar to the God of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, which interestingly enough, are the only core faiths left standing after atheism and pantheism have been eliminated.
Note also that one of the big questions in life (origins) is now answered: we know where we came from.
This leads to the next question: can we know God?
At this point, the need for religion is replaced by something more important—the need for revelation. If mankind is to know this God well, it is up to God to reveal Himself to His creation. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all claim to have a book that is God’s revelation to man, but the question is which (if any) is actually true?
Pushing aside minor differences, the two core areas of dispute are 1) the New Testament of the Bible 2) the person of Jesus Christ. Islam and Judaism both claim the New Testament of the Bible is untrue in what it claims, and both deny that Jesus is God incarnate, while Christianity affirms both to be true.
There is no faith on the planet that can match the mountains of evidence that exist for Christianity.
From the voluminous number of ancient manuscripts, to the very early dating of the documents written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses (some only 15 years after Christ’s death), to the multiplicity of the accounts (nine authors in 27 books of the New Testament), to the archaeological evidence—none of which has ever contradicted a single claim the New Testament makes—to the fact that the apostles went to their deaths claiming they had seen Jesus in action and that He had come back from the dead, Christianity sets the bar in terms of providing the proof to back up its claims.
The New Testament’s historical authenticity—that it conveys a truthful account of the actual events as they occurred—is the only right conclusion to reach once all the evidence has been examined.
Posted:
#3222
Sugarbear,
2) How do you justify Christianity over any other religion? How is it any more valid than say Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, Magicology, Santaology, TheWorldSprangFromAdam'sErectPenisOlogy, etc...?
Conclusion...
When it comes to Jesus, one finds a very curious thing about Him—He claimed to be God in the flesh. Jesus own words (e.g., “Before Abraham was born I AM”), His actions (e.g., forgiving sins, accepting worship), His sinless and miraculous life (which He used to prove His truth claims over opposing claims), and His resurrection all support His claims to be God.
The New Testament writers affirm this fact over and over again in their writings.
Now, if Jesus is God, then what He says must be true.
And if Jesus said that the Bible is inerrant and true in everything it says (which He did), this must mean that the Bible is true in what it proclaims.
As we have already learned, two competing truth claims cannot both be right.
So anything in the Islamic Koran or writings of Judaism that contradict the Bible cannot be true.
In fact, both Islam and Judaism fail since they both say that Jesus is not God incarnate, while the evidence says otherwise. And because we can indeed know God (because He has revealed Himself in His written Word and in Christ), all forms of agnosticism are refuted.
Lastly, another big question of life is answered—that of ethics—as the Bible contains clear instructions on how mankind ought to live.
This same Bible proclaims that God cares deeply for mankind and wishes all to know Him intimately.
In fact, He cares so much that He became a man to show His creation exactly what He is like. There are many men who have sought to be God, but only one God who sought to be man so He could save those He deeply loves from an eternity separated from Him.
This fact demonstrates the existential relevancy of Christianity and also answers that last two big questions of life—meaning and destiny.
Each person has been designed by God for a purpose, and each has a destiny that awaits him—one of eternal life with God or eternal separation from Him. This deduction (and the point of God becoming a man in Christ) also refutes Deism, which says God is not interested in the affairs of mankind.
In the end, we see that ultimate truth about God can be found and the worldview maze successfully navigated by testing various truth claims and systematically pushing aside falsehoods so that only the truth remains.
Using the tests of logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and existential relevancy, coupled with asking the right questions, yields truthful and reasonable conclusions about religion and God.
Everyone should agree that the only reason to believe something is that it is true—nothing more. Sadly, true belief is a matter of the will, and no matter how much logical evidence is presented, some will still choose to deny the God who is there and miss the one true path to harmony with Him.
Posted:
#3223
Sugarbear,
You said... 3) If you REALLY believe the world is 6,000 years old, how do you explain dinosaurs? Or ancient Egyptians? Or Mesopotamians?
The topic of dinosaurs in the Bible is part of a larger ongoing debate within the Christian community over the age of the earth, the proper interpretation of Genesis, and how to interpret the physical evidences we find all around us.
Those who believe in an older age for the earth tend to agree that the Bible does not mention dinosaurs, because, according to their paradigm, dinosaurs died out millions of years before the first man ever walked the earth. The men who wrote the Bible could not have seen living dinosaurs.
Those who believe in a younger age for the earth tend to agree that the Bible does mention dinosaurs, though it never actually uses the word “dinosaur.” Instead, it uses the Hebrew word tanniyn, which is translated a few different ways in our English Bibles.
Sometimes it’s “sea monster,” and sometimes it’s “serpent.” It is most commonly translated “dragon.” The tanniyn appear to have been some sort of giant reptile. These creatures are mentioned nearly thirty times in the Old Testament and were found both on land and in the water.
In addition to mentioning these giant reptiles, the Bible describes a couple of creatures in such a way that some scholars believe the writers may have been describing dinosaurs.
The behemoth is said to be the mightiest of all God’s creatures, a giant whose tail is likened to a cedar tree (Job 40:15).
Some scholars have tried to identify the behemoth as either an elephant or a hippopotamus. Others point out that elephants and hippopotamuses have very thin tails, nothing comparable to a cedar tree. Dinosaurs like the brachiosaurus and the diplodocus, on the other hand, had huge tails which could easily be compared to a cedar tree.
Nearly every ancient civilization has some sort of art depicting giant reptilian creatures. Petroglyphs, artifacts, and even little clay figurines found in North America resemble modern depictions of dinosaurs.
Rock carvings in South America depict men riding diplodocus-like creatures and, amazingly, bear the familiar images of triceratops-like, pterodactyl-like, and tyrannosaurus rex-like creatures. Roman mosaics, Mayan pottery, and Babylonian city walls all testify to man’s trans-cultural, geographically unbounded fascination with these creatures.
Sober accounts like those of Marco Polo’s Il Milione mingle with fantastic tales of treasure-hoarding beasts.
In addition to the substantial amount of anthropic and historical evidences for the coexistence of dinosaurs and man, there are physical evidences, like the fossilized footprints of humans and dinosaurs found together at places in North America and West-Central Asia.
So, are there dinosaurs in the Bible?
The matter is far from settled. It depends on how you interpret the available evidences and how you view the world around you. If the Bible is interpreted literally, a young earth interpretation will result, and the idea that dinosaurs and man coexisted can be accepted.
If dinosaurs and human beings coexisted, what happened to the dinosaurs?
While the Bible does not discuss the issue, dinosaurs likely died out sometime after the flood due to a combination of dramatic environmental shifts and the fact that they were relentlessly hunted to extinction by man.
Posted:
#3224
I have neither the time nor the desire to pick apart your detailed explanation, which, again, I appreciate you taking the time to do. However, you make many unsubstantiated claims as foundations for your conclusions, thus rendering the conclusions unreliable. Just to throw out a few examples: god is moral/caring (based on what?) Everyone has a purpose (even starving children in ethiopia that die at the age of 2?) furthering on that - why did god wait 13.7 billion years to create people? and this is leaving out all of the verses in the bible that contradict jesus' teachings, such as the verses regarding raping women and murder, etc. (I'm not gonna go find them, but they've been posted before, I'm sure someone as well-versed as you on the bible knows what I'm referring to).
Additionally, going back, "For example, the relativist says, “All truth is relative,” yet one must ask: is that statement absolutely true? If so, then absolute truth exists; if not, then why consider it?"
Just because absolute truth exists in the abstract, does not mean it applies to morals, because as a matter of fact (not opinion: FACT) it does not. Society is proof of this as what is important to me may not be important to you. Ex: Murder is not absolutely wrong, it is only wrong relative to the situation you are in.
And finally, your conclusion that god must have created the universe is false. Just because the universe had a beginning, doesn't mean it was god. That is "bridging the gap" and is the main flaw in the theist's argument.
I'm sorry this response is somewhat jumbled, but I fully expect Sugarbear to give you a much better and more organized answer.
And since I just saw your next answer: I will pose this additional question: What about the meteor that destroyed virtually all life on earth? How did that kill dinosaurs and not humans?
Posted:
#3225
Sugarbear,
You said...4) Why, if Christianity such a peaceful religion (and if we are all "God's children," does the Bible condone killing (a) homosexuals, (b) non-virgins, (c) for hitting one's parents, among other things?
I will use slavery as an example, if I am understanding your theological controversial question. And of course, slavery is another hard question to deal with, but hopefully I will answer your question within my answer.
There is a tendency to look at slavery as something of the past. But it is estimated that there are today over 12 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc.
As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today.
The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery?
The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether.
Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world.
The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin.
In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families.
In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.
The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings.
The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrews were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11).
So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.
In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms.
This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10).
Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society.
The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts.
A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.
Hot Forum Topics
