PDA

View Full Version : How To Get To Heaven When You Die



Paddington
03-19-2012, 01:07 PM
ARE YOU 100% SURE THAT IF YOU DIED TODAY THAT YOU WOULD GO TO HEAVEN?

There are some things that you should know:

1. Realize that you are a sinner and in need of a Savior:

Ro 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

Ro 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"

This all began with the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. God created them perfect, there was no death or sorrow. God told them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They disobeyed God and as a result, sin entered into the world. The pain which this world sees is the result of sin.

2. Because of our sins, we die both spiritually and physically, but God sent His Son to die so that you can have a chance not to have to go to hell by accepting what He did on the cross for you:

Ro 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Ro 5:8 "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. for us."

Every person who has ever lived is a sinner and is not righteous because we do bad things. A sin is a crime against God, just as if you steal something at the store, it is punishable by going to jail. It's the same thing with sin. Even if we lie one time, the punishment is hell, which is a prison for those who commit crimes against God. That’s because you must be perfect in order to get to heaven. No matter how well you live your life from then on, you have already committed a sin which will be punished if you are not pardoned. If you commit a crime, and then live as a good citizen you still will go to jail for the crime you committed. Right? Just as the president can pardon a crime so you won't go to jail, Jesus can pardon your sins so that you do not go to hell, and can go to heaven when you die.

3. If you will Admit to Jesus Christ that you are a sinner and in need of a Savior, Believe in your heart that He died on the cross and rose from the dead and Accept Him as your Lord and Savior and you will be forgiven and taken to heaven to be with Him when you die.

Joh 1:12 “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name”

Ro 10:9,10 "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.."

You cannot get to heaven by being a good person, going to church, baptism or any other way other than by turning to Jesus and asking Him to forgive you for your sins and save you. While these are good things to do, some people believe that they will get to heaven if they do these things, but the bible says that there is only one way to heaven and that is through receiving what Jesus Christ did on the cross for you.

Will you do that today? If you will, you can be 100% sure that you will go to heaven when you die.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST DIED ON THE CROSS AND ROSE FROM THE DEAD FOR YOUR SINS?

ARE YOU WILLING TO TURN TO JESUS CHRIST FOR SALVATION?

4. If you are willing to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior please humble yourself before God and pray this prayer to Him from your heart:

"Dear Lord Jesus, I believe that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead for my sins. I ask you to come into my heart and forgive me for my sins, save me, take me to be with You when I die. I now receive You as my Lord and Savior. Thank You for saving me. In Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you prayed that prayer to God, and meant it with all of your heart, you are now a child of God and will go to heaven when you die.

Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing church and follow in baptism.

habsheaven
03-19-2012, 02:07 PM
Prayers are for the weak.

mrveggieman
03-19-2012, 02:16 PM
Prayers are for the weak.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that my friend. We all turn to something in our times of need. Some drugs, some alcohol, some religon, some gambling, some of us even collect cards when we are down. (go figure) That being said even if one dosen't believe in God at all which you have every right not to there is no one on earth who is perfect and never experienced a storm in their life and had to turn to something for strength in their time of need. That being said we all have weaknesses.

shrewsbury
03-19-2012, 02:24 PM
Prayers are for the weak

Really? not that i agree with all that is in the post, but it takes a stronger person to believe than not to believe. anyone can say, "that is not worth my time", and everyone does in some form or another.

mrveggieman
03-19-2012, 02:30 PM
Really? not that i agree with all that is in the post, but it takes a stronger person to believe than not to believe. anyone can say, "that is not worth my time", and everyone does in some form or another.


OMG. Somebody call the mods. Once again we actually agree on something. :kiss:

shrewsbury
03-19-2012, 02:49 PM
getting scary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

habsheaven
03-19-2012, 03:31 PM
Really? not that i agree with all that is in the post, but it takes a stronger person to believe than not to believe. anyone can say, "that is not worth my time", and everyone does in some form or another.

How so? Just as anyone can say, "that is not worth my time" so too can a believer say, "I believe, because I believe". Both are weak positions, strength is apparent when both the believer and the non-believer take the time to question the subject matter before reaching their own conclusions. Regardless, I wasn't speaking about belief. I was speaking about prayer. There are believers that do not believe in prayer.

mrveggieman
03-19-2012, 03:36 PM
How so? Just as anyone can say, "that is not worth my time" so too can a believer say, "I believe, because I believe". Both are weak positions, strength is apparent when both the believer and the non-believer take the time to question the subject matter before reaching their own conclusions. Regardless, I wasn't speaking about belief. I was speaking about prayer. There are believers that do not believe in prayer.


Let me ask you or any other atheist this. When you are going through a storm in your life who/what do you turn to for strenght?

habsheaven
03-19-2012, 03:51 PM
Let me ask you or any other atheist this. When you are going through a storm in your life who/what do you turn to for strenght?

I turn to myself, my inner strength, my perspective that regardless of my circumstances there are others in the world much more unfortunate than I. The last thing I would do is drop to my knees and pray for some divine intervention that I do not think exists.

mrveggieman
03-19-2012, 04:00 PM
I turn to myself, my inner strength, my perspective that regardless of my circumstances there are others in the world much more unfortunate than I. The last thing I would do is drop to my knees and pray for some divine intervention that I do not think exists.


I agree that no matter what the storm is there is always somebody worse off than you but that being said there are always issues in life greater than you that you alone as a man cannot handle by yourself.

Triple Peanut
03-19-2012, 04:17 PM
no offense, but surely there's got to be other message boards for post this...preachy. if praying helps you get out of bed in the morning or find a direction in life that's great, more power to you, but this post is really pushing a one sided adjenda.

shrewsbury
03-19-2012, 04:44 PM
all kinds of posts push one sided agenda.

and i guess if prayer has to be done on your knees then i don't pray. but the last time i checked, God listens to me from any position i am in, but that's just me.

ensbergcollector
03-19-2012, 04:49 PM
i will post more when i have time but triple peanut, pretty much everything in the politics and religion forum is one sided.

Triple Peanut
03-19-2012, 05:03 PM
i understand...just kind of like, where do we go from here if there's not going to be a discussion. it's a bit more enjoyable to have a dialogue than just make statements. i'm open to hear both sides of things, of course this requires there being more than one side to the topic. i won't go further at risk of offending anyone. carry on :)

Wickabee
03-19-2012, 06:10 PM
all kinds of posts push one sided agenda.

and i guess if prayer has to be done on your knees then i don't pray. but the last time i checked, God listens to me from any position i am in, but that's just me.
Amen.

pspstatus
03-19-2012, 08:00 PM
I voted no because I can't support people or gods who support slavery, discrimination, and brutal acts of violence/vengeance.

shrewsbury
03-19-2012, 08:32 PM
I voted no because I can't support people or gods who support slavery, discrimination, and brutal acts of violence/vengeance.


can't argue with the reasoning, but i don't think all religions or sects within a religion support any of those things.

ensbergcollector
03-19-2012, 08:59 PM
as a christian, my question is about the significance and purpose of the "sinner's prayer." I can't find anything in scripture that says belief in jesus leads one to a certain prayer. Scripture tells me that belief in Jesus leads one to baptism. So, i feel confident in my salvation but i have never prayed the prayer listed in the opening post.

shrewsbury
03-19-2012, 09:04 PM
Scripture tells me that belief in Jesus leads one to baptism.

i would be curious to here more about this, my opinion differs slightly, and i would, respectively, love to here more about yours

ensbergcollector
03-19-2012, 09:23 PM
i would be curious to here more about this, my opinion differs slightly, and i would, respectively, love to here more about yours

cool, will do.

almost every instance we see in the book of acts has someone acknowledging belief and immediately being baptized (thousands in acts 2, philippian jailer, paul, ethiopian eunach, etc.)

1 Peter in making a comparison to the waters of the flood says "this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God."

The first half of Romans 6 discusses our baptism in terms of dying to christ and being born again through his resurrection.

Jesus' final command at the end of matthew is to go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit.


i have never heard any debate in defense of the sinners prayer that made sense to me. Or a debate the spoke against the need for baptism.

thanks man, would love to hear your opinion as well.

pspstatus
03-19-2012, 09:32 PM
can't argue with the reasoning, but i don't think all religions or sects within a religion support any of those things.

I agree, but the religion he's talking about in its most basic form includes those things.

Paddington
03-19-2012, 11:16 PM
Really? not that i agree with all that is in the post, but it takes a stronger person to believe than not to believe. anyone can say, "that is not worth my time", and everyone does in some form or another.

Thank you

Paddington
03-19-2012, 11:18 PM
cool, will do.

almost every instance we see in the book of acts has someone acknowledging belief and immediately being baptized (thousands in acts 2, philippian jailer, paul, ethiopian eunach, etc.)

1 Peter in making a comparison to the waters of the flood says "this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God."

The first half of Romans 6 discusses our baptism in terms of dying to christ and being born again through his resurrection.

Jesus' final command at the end of matthew is to go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit.


i have never heard any debate in defense of the sinners prayer that made sense to me. Or a debate the spoke against the need for baptism.

thanks man, would love to hear your opinion as well.



Baptism isn't for salvation. It is a believer's first act of obedience. Believers are commanded to be baptized, but it's not for salavation. It's a public profession of faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.

Paddington
03-19-2012, 11:20 PM
as a christian, my question is about the significance and purpose of the "sinner's prayer." I can't find anything in scripture that says belief in jesus leads one to a certain prayer. Scripture tells me that belief in Jesus leads one to baptism. So, i feel confident in my salvation but i have never prayed the prayer listed in the opening post.

It's not about a certain prayer, it's about admitting you are a sinner, believing that Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead for our sins and confessing Him as your Savior and Lord. The prayer just sums this all up. That's all.

habsheaven
03-20-2012, 07:59 AM
I agree that no matter what the storm is there is always somebody worse off than you but that being said there are always issues in life greater than you that you alone as a man cannot handle by yourself.

That's a very defeatist attitude. An attitude I do not possess. I know that there is no issue in life that I cannot handle.

mrveggieman
03-20-2012, 08:22 AM
That's a very defeatist attitude. An attitude I do not possess. I know that there is no issue in life that I cannot handle.


So if you were terminally ill how would you be able to defeat that all by yourself?

habsheaven
03-20-2012, 08:46 AM
So if you were terminally ill how would you be able to defeat that all by yourself?

I would not have to "defeat" it. I would just have to accept it. Are you suggesting that you would be praying for a cure, or praying for the strength to accept your fate?

duane1969
03-20-2012, 08:47 AM
A lot of interesting perspectives here. Good discussion.

A few thoughts...

habs - I see where you are coming from. The human element tells us that we should find inner strength to deal with issues. There are some people that do not have that same fortitude. Some people say a prayer to deal with things, some crack open a beer at the end of a long day, some kick the dog...in the end we all find strength through whatever meets our personal needs. Finding strength through prayer doesn't make you weak, it makes you finding that strength in your own way.

Would you consider a person who deals with stress by going to the gym and working out to be a weak person? What about someone who deals with a bad day by going bowling? Are they weak too? Using your logic, anyone who can not deal with personal issues internally and has to turn to an outside source is weak.

shrewsbury and veggie - any more agreement on issues between you two will result in infractions. I don't know where you guys get off being agreeable, but it has to stop. This is the P&R section after all... :fighting0056:

ensbergcollector - interesting read. I must investigate more.

habsheaven
03-20-2012, 08:53 AM
A lot of interesting perspectives here. Good discussion.

A few thoughts...

habs - I see where you are coming from. The human element tells us that we should find inner strength to deal with issues. There are some people that do not have that same fortitude. Some people say a prayer to deal with things, some crack open a beer at the end of a long day, some kick the dog...in the end we all find strength through whatever meets our personal needs. Finding strength through prayer doesn't make you weak, it makes you finding that strength in your own way.

Would you consider a person who deals with stress by going to the gym and working out to be a weak person? What about someone who deals with a bad day by going bowling? Are they weak too? Using your logic, anyone who can not deal with personal issues internally and has to turn to an outside source is weak.

shrewsbury and veggie - any more agreement on issues between you two will result in infractions. I don't know where you guys get off being agreeable, but it has to stop. This is the P&R section after all... :fighting0056:

ensbergcollector - interesting read. I must investigate more.

Duane, perhaps I did not explain that clearly enough. I have no problem with people who pray seeking strength in coping with life. My issue is with people who pray as a means of curing/fixing whatever is causing them distress.

mrveggieman
03-20-2012, 08:54 AM
I would not have to "defeat" it. I would just have to accept it. Are you suggesting that you would be praying for a cure, or praying for the strength to accept your fate?


Both. I can't speak for anyone else but I believe that with God all things are possible. That's what works for me if someone dosen't agree with that then that is their right.

mrveggieman
03-20-2012, 08:59 AM
Duane, perhaps I did not explain that clearly enough. I have no problem with people who pray seeking strength in coping with life. My issue is with people who pray as a means of curing/fixing whatever is causing them distress.


What is wrong with that? Let's say for the sake of argument that their is no God and they are praying in vain. Even if that is the case if it gives someone comfort to pray for a cure during their last days what is the problem with it?

Paddington
03-20-2012, 09:04 AM
I would not have to "defeat" it. I would just have to accept it. Are you suggesting that you would be praying for a cure, or praying for the strength to accept your fate?

We're supposed to pray for all of our concerns. We can pray for a cure and the strenght to accept His will. The key is to pray that His will would be done ultimately.

1Jo 5:14 ¶ And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: {in: or, concerning}
And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

Jesus prayed that the cross would be taken from Him, but He ultimately wanted God's will. This is how we should pray:

Mt 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Star_Cards
03-20-2012, 09:20 AM
Really? not that i agree with all that is in the post, but it takes a stronger person to believe than not to believe. anyone can say, "that is not worth my time", and everyone does in some form or another.

how does it take a stronger person to believe than not to believe? I will have to disagree. If you want to simplify not believing to "that is not worth my time" I will then do the same for believers and say... Anyone can say "someone told me this as I grew up so I will accept it as true."

not believing in a god is way more than just saying it is not worth my time.

Believers are the majority and some believers are fairly harsh towards non believers so I think it's fair to say that being a non believer and actually expressing that view could be considered strong if you know that you are going to get defensive believers attacking your belief. I'm in no way saying that it's tough to be a nonbeliever but it is a view that isn't of the norm and weak people (as you claimed nonbelievers were weaker than believers) don;t tend to go against the norm. they tend to follow the numbers.

Star_Cards
03-20-2012, 09:24 AM
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that my friend. We all turn to something in our times of need. Some drugs, some alcohol, some religon, some gambling, some of us even collect cards when we are down. (go figure) That being said even if one dosen't believe in God at all which you have every right not to there is no one on earth who is perfect and never experienced a storm in their life and had to turn to something for strength in their time of need. That being said we all have weaknesses.

I find it odd that you compare praying to people who look towards gambling, drugs, and alcohol for escape of comfort. Most of the list you chose are terribly poor ways to deal with things and escape. I do get what you are saying but think most of your examples are poor comparisons. As a person that doesn't pray I usually turn to friends and family to get through tough times when I can't work through them on my own.

mrveggieman
03-20-2012, 09:26 AM
shrewsbury and veggie - any more agreement on issues between you two will result in infractions. I don't know where you guys get off being agreeable, but it has to stop. This is the P&R section after all... :fighting0056:




Lol Duane I'm sure that they will be plenty for us to disagree on. :winking0071:

habsheaven
03-20-2012, 09:26 AM
What is wrong with that? Let's say for the sake of argument that their is no God and they are praying in vain. Even if that is the case if it gives someone comfort to pray for a cure during their last days what is the problem with it?

Nothing wrong with it. To each his own.

Star_Cards
03-20-2012, 09:28 AM
Let me ask you or any other atheist this. When you are going through a storm in your life who/what do you turn to for strenght?

just answered this in my post above, but will expand. For me I go to friends and family. People who I have an actual trusting relationship with. People who I know I can rely on due to past experiences. I'm a big believer in using personal experience to gauge my decisions on who to look to in tough times.

mrveggieman
03-20-2012, 09:30 AM
I find it odd that you compare praying to people who look towards gambling, drugs, and alcohol for escape of comfort. Most of the list you chose are terribly poor ways to deal with things and escape. I do get what you are saying but think most of your examples are poor comparisons. As a person that doesn't pray I usually turn to friends and family to get through tough times when I can't work through them on my own.


Yeah those were the first few things off the top of my head. I also mentioned cards (some people may also say that is a bad habit too) someone else mentioned going to the gym for comfort which I would think most of us feel is something positive. Ultimately you have to do what works best for you. Yes it can be good at times to discuss some of your problems with family and friends but as for me I know that my family and friends are human just like me and there is only so much that they can do. I take comfort in believing that no matter what happens in life there is something out there that is greater than us.

Star_Cards
03-20-2012, 09:33 AM
That's a very defeatist attitude. An attitude I do not possess. I know that there is no issue in life that I cannot handle.

I agree with this 100%. My life hasn't been tough compared to many people I know, but I have gone through some very tough events and I'm confident that I can tackle most issues on my own and if I need help I look to the people I trust in life.

mrveggieman
03-20-2012, 09:36 AM
I agree with this 100%. My life hasn't been tough compared to many people I know, but I have gone through some very tough events and I'm confident that I can tackle most issues on my own and if I need help I look to the people I trust in life.


Let me ask you the same thing I ask Habs. God forbid if you became terminally ill where would you get your strength?

Star_Cards
03-20-2012, 09:45 AM
Yeah those were the first few things off the top of my head. I also mentioned cards (some people may also say that is a bad habit too) someone else mentioned going to the gym for comfort which I would think most of us feel is something positive. Ultimately you have to do what works best for you. Yes it can be good at times to discuss some of your problems with family and friends but as for me I know that my family and friends are human just like me and there is only so much that they can do. I take comfort in believing that no matter what happens in life there is something out there that is greater than us.

I was just saying that while I don't pray, I feel it's something that's more positive than someone escaping to drugs or alcohol. I like the comparison to the gym etc, but get where you were coming. just thought you'd use more positive "escapes". :)

Star_Cards
03-20-2012, 09:54 AM
Let me ask you the same thing I ask Habs. God forbid if you became terminally ill where would you get your strength?

If I became terminally ill, it would be tough, but I would deal with it through my inner strength and with the help of the people around me and their support. It's actually something that I've thought about a lot the last year and a half as my sister in law had terminal cancer for about a year and passed away last fall. I found myself thinking about how must she feel knowing that she's not going to be around much longer. Honestly I think it would be completely heartbreaking and surreal to have to deal with that. However for my personal beliefs, prayer would do nothing for me.

That said I don't have an issue with people finding comfort in that, but I just don't think prayer changes things. Having that belief I'd find zero comfort from praying.

shrewsbury
03-20-2012, 10:05 AM
how does it take a stronger person to believe than not to believe? I will have to disagree. If you want to simplify not believing to "that is not worth my time" I will then do the same for believers and say... Anyone can say "someone told me this as I grew up so I will accept it as true."

so most who do not believe have taken the time to research, study, and participate? i am saying no, most who do not believe think it is not worth their time.


Anyone can say "someone told me this as I grew up so I will accept it as true."this is true, but this is not a believer, but a follower, you see it in many things, not just religion.


but I have gone through some very tough events and I'm confident that I can tackle most issues on my own and if I need help I look to the people I trust in life. and to some, this is what believing is about, not blind faith, but doing what YOU can, but the outcome may differ from your desires.


Believers are the majority and some believers are fairly harsh towards non believers history has proven that believers of any religion have it harder than most.

shrewsbury
03-20-2012, 10:11 AM
Or a debate the spoke against the need for baptism.

thanks man, would love to hear your opinion as well.

remember, this is just my opinion.


all must come by water and spirit, all humans are born of water (the womb) and all are born of spirit (or there would be no life).

so everyone can enter heaven, it now just depends upon YOU and YOUR actions, God gave you the only 2 requirements He has, the moment you are born, the rest is on you.

John, baptized to fullfil prophecy and find christ so he could announce his coming.

it is not something needed, though there is nothing wrong with the gesture.

Star_Cards
03-20-2012, 10:34 AM
so most who do not believe have taken the time to research, study, and participate? i am saying no, most who do not believe think it is not worth their time.

for me it's not simply about my time value. It's about my experiences and knowledge and belief. I find zero value in religion and especially organized religion for me. I also don't agree with a lot issues that religions seem to put forefront these days when it comes to legislation and such. Also, I do not have a belief in the supernatural aspects that religions typically seem to be based on as far as the lore states.

as far as the "followers" statement. I'll say that odds are there are far more followers in organized religion than not. That's not said to offend anyone. I think it's just a product of people growing up in a certain religion.

ensbergcollector
03-20-2012, 10:57 AM
remember, this is just my opinion.


all must come by water and spirit, all humans are born of water (the womb) and all are born of spirit (or there would be no life).

so everyone can enter heaven, it now just depends upon YOU and YOUR actions, God gave you the only 2 requirements He has, the moment you are born, the rest is on you.

John, baptized to fullfil prophecy and find christ so he could announce his coming.

it is not something needed, though there is nothing wrong with the gesture.

i can see that. for me, there is just too much evidence in the new testament that the disciples clearly taught baptism. Add to that jesus' words at the end of matthew. But like I said, i understand there are a lot out there who feel otherwise. thank you for sharing

Star_Cards
03-20-2012, 01:20 PM
history has proven that believers of any religion have it harder than most.

like I said I'm not even comparing persecutions of religious people (jews for example) to anything going on these days. I'm simply stating that non belief in America is not the norm. It's a fact that christianity, in it's many different forms, is the majority in America. For you to say that nonbelievers are weaker is something I don't see as a whole definition. I guess the bottom line is there are weak people that belief all sorts of things :)

boba
03-20-2012, 02:24 PM
cool, will do.

almost every instance we see in the book of acts has someone acknowledging belief and immediately being baptized (thousands in acts 2, philippian jailer, paul, ethiopian eunach, etc.)

1 Peter in making a comparison to the waters of the flood says "this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God."

The first half of Romans 6 discusses our baptism in terms of dying to christ and being born again through his resurrection.

Jesus' final command at the end of matthew is to go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit.


i have never heard any debate in defense of the sinners prayer that made sense to me. Or a debate the spoke against the need for baptism.

thanks man, would love to hear your opinion as well.

+1, I agree with everything you say here.

pspstatus
03-20-2012, 02:39 PM
I don't believe there is anything wrong with prayer, though I don't believe in its value myself. Likewise if a child has an illness and the parents try to pray for a cure instead of seeking medical care, if that child dies I believe the parents are responsible for a negligent death. I think the God's will argument is a cop out.

Paddington
03-21-2012, 04:43 PM
What would you do if God spoke to you and you KNEW that it was God? Would you obey Him? What if God sent an angel into your family to save a loved one and you knew that there was no other explanation other than that God is real? What would you do if you saw God working in your life repeatedly in different situations and at different times? Would you believe in Him? Would you accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?

shrewsbury
03-21-2012, 04:51 PM
What would you do if God spoke to you and you KNEW that it was God? Would you obey Him? What if God sent an angel into your family to save a loved one and you knew that there was no other explanation other than that God is real? What would you do if you saw God working in your life repeatedly in different situations and at different times? Would you believe in Him? Would you accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?

but the catch is, God will not let Him be known like this. this would take away our free will. though God wants the best for us, He allows us to do our own thing, make our own mistakes, and live our own life.

If God spoke to us, we would have little choice but to obey, and though He is the ultimate ruler, He does not rule with an iron hand, more like iron wrapped in silk.

Paddington
03-22-2012, 12:48 PM
God spoke to me. God sent an angel to my 3 year old cousin who almost died in a house fire and told her where to go to get rescued. An off duty fireman happened to be driving by and found her under...

shrewsbury
03-22-2012, 01:10 PM
a loving, understanding, and forgiving one

habsheaven
03-22-2012, 02:45 PM
What EXACTLY did God say to you? Or did your biased mind interpret the circumstances surrounding this fire as God speaking to you? <br />
<br />
Where was God and his angels when the family 1,000 miles away,...

Star_Cards
03-22-2012, 03:27 PM
I don't see that as proof of a god or that he's looking out for people who follow him. There are lots of people who pray for their loved ones all the time and families get wiped out in fire, car...

Star_Cards
03-22-2012, 03:35 PM
What EXACTLY did God say to you? Or did your biased mind interpret the circumstances surrounding this fire as God speaking to you?

Where was God and his angels when the family 1,000 miles away, who attended church faithfully, all perished in a house fire?

It's convenient that God's plan for the foreseeable future included your cousin. Same can't be said for many other "good" christians who die young every day.


My big thing with "God's plan" is it's used in all situations whether great or terrible. It's simply a coping mechanism that people us to help explain lives events. Some people feel they need an answer to help them cope, which is ironic because "god's plan" seems like an anti-answer to me.

mrveggieman
03-22-2012, 03:40 PM
I don't know what happened with this gentleman's cousin because I wasn't there. If it were my cousin I would be thanking God for saving her. That being said some will believe some will not. Whatever floats your boat. We can agree however that this young girl's life being spared was indeed a miracle.

shrewsbury
03-22-2012, 03:57 PM
We can agree however that this young girl's life being spared was indeed a miracle.

no we can't

i would like to, but we have only one side of the story, we know little facts, and no one was there to witness it.

i am sorry the fire happened and things were lost and am relieved nobody was hurt, but god speaking to someone and angles is some pretty big things to claim.

i could pick the story apart and give other explanations, but maybe god did speak and send angles, and if someone believes that, then great. i just hope this feeling does not fade for you and your whole life is benefited by this experience.

i would wonder why god chose to speak to me and my loved ones, if you allow your ego to assume it is because you are better christians then i would say you are already lost to the real reason.

mrveggieman
03-22-2012, 04:05 PM
no we can't

i would like to, but we have only one side of the story, we know little facts, and no one was there to witness it.

i am sorry the fire happened and things were lost and am relieved nobody was hurt, but god speaking to someone and angles is some pretty big things to claim.

i could pick the story apart and give other explanations, but maybe god did speak and send angles, and if someone believes that, then great. i just hope this feeling does not fade for you and your whole life is benefited by this experience.

i would wonder why god chose to speak to me and my loved ones, if you allow your ego to assume it is because you are better christians then i would say you are already lost to the real reason.

Not just in a religious sense but it is still a miracle that this little girl's life was saved. I'm sure that if the little girl's mother was an atheist but he daughter survived she would call it a miracle.

Wickabee
03-22-2012, 04:09 PM
"miracle" is one of those words like "hero".

It's often used incorrectly, but often there isn't another word for it.

shrewsbury
03-22-2012, 04:53 PM
i would agree it was a wonderful event and a great thing

Wickabee
03-22-2012, 07:11 PM
i would agree it was a wonderful event and a great thing
Some would say that equates a miracle.
By dictionary definition, they'd be wrong, but in spirit of the point they're trying to get across, they wouldn't be.

pspstatus
03-22-2012, 07:31 PM
What would you do if God spoke to you and you KNEW that it was God? Would you obey Him? What if God sent an angel into your family to save a loved one and you knew that there was no other explanation other than that God is real? What would you do if you saw God working in your life repeatedly in different situations and at different times? Would you believe in Him? Would you accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?


If you're talking about a God based in Christianity I wouldn't obey him necessarily because I disagree with some major beliefs in the Christian faith but sure I would believe in him. I also don't believe that a truly loving God would demand so much obedience though. Which is one of the biggest problems I have with these things. The Bible was written in a time when rulers of the people demanded the same obedience. There are so many parallels between the most powerful kings and clergy and the idea of God in the Bible.

duwal
03-22-2012, 07:45 PM
some people really should be put on meds

ensbergcollector
03-22-2012, 07:56 PM
some people really should be put on meds

gotta love that liberal tolerance and acceptance. oh wait, unless it is something i disagree with and don't believe in, and in that case the person is obviously crazy. smh

shrewsbury
03-22-2012, 08:33 PM
Some would say that equates a miracle.

i have no problem with that, but I, myself, would not use the word in this case.


I wouldn't obey him necessarily because I disagree with some major beliefs in the Christian faith but sure I would believe in him.

i would bet you would obey him, the choice no longer would be yours, but i get what you are saying and can respect that


I also don't believe that a truly loving God would demand so much obedience though. Which is one of the biggest problems I have with these things. The Bible was written in a time when rulers of the people demanded the same obedience. There are so many parallels between the most powerful kings and clergy and the idea of God in the Bible.

some of us christians believe the old testament is just history, that when were were given our 3rd and final chance, the rules changed quite a bit. god allowed jesus (if you will) to change things up, to help us humans get things in a different manner, instead of a angry father with an iron hand approach, he took us to a more loving and understanding approach.

but i completely understand how people do not believe in jesus or any god, or even a different god. it is one of the most important decisions in your life to make, and should be a true personal one, not something forced upon you or whispered in your ear. it is your path to choose and that is the best thing about it.

Wickabee
03-22-2012, 08:46 PM
i have no problem with that, but I, myself, would not use the word in this case.
and my answer to that would be:


By dictionary definition, they'd be wrong, but in spirit of the point they're trying to get across, they wouldn't be.

Paddington
03-22-2012, 08:51 PM
a loving, understanding, and forgiving one

He IS loving, understanding and forgiving to those who allow Him to extend it to them. He won't force it on anyone. Freewill.

All He is asking for you to trust in Him. I don't think that's too much to ask. How shall He rule a Kingdom full of people who won't obey and don't care about Him or doing the right thing? It would be chaos and pain, like we see on this earth. Heaven is very different. It's incredibly orderly and beautiful because everyone there is fully submitted to God's will.

Paddington
03-22-2012, 08:59 PM
What EXACTLY did God say to you? Or did your biased mind interpret the circumstances surrounding this fire as God speaking to you?

I was a Christian who had turned away from going to church and doing God's will for a long time. I was the most miserable person on earth I felt. I decided to go back to church and had visited one. They came and visited on me and I prayed and asked God if it was His will to let me know. That night as I laid in bed, I made up my mind that I wouldn't go back to that church. At that moment, I felt God's spirit go through my wall and hover over my chest. I felt Him look directly into my eyes and then He spoke straight into my mind "I want you to go back to that church" in a very clear way. I was 100% sure that God was right in front of me. I cried and told Him I was sorry for my sins and that I would serve Him from now on. The next morning, I heard an evil voice that woke me up "I'm going to get your kids" It was satan. I believe that part of what God was doing was calling me to do what I am doing on here sharing God's plan of salvation with the world. He desires that everyone here would accept His free gift of salvation.

Where was God and his angels when the family 1,000 miles away, who attended church faithfully, all perished in a house fire?

I can't answer for God, but what I can say is that sometimes bad things happen to good people. God has a plan for everything that happens.

Ro 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

It's convenient that God's plan for the foreseeable future included your cousin. Same can't be said for many other "good" christians who die young every day.

I believe that had my Grandmother not prayed for the family as she did, my cousin would have died in that fire. He spoke to my Grandmother to let her know that her prayer had been answered.




My responses are in bold above.

Wickabee
03-22-2012, 09:01 PM
I fully believe in God, but the God of any one religion? Not a chance. <br />
How could I possibly trust in a God who has people who've done the things that have been done in charge of his word and...

Paddington
03-22-2012, 09:01 PM
I don't see that as proof of a god or that he's looking out for people who follow him. There are lots of people who pray for their loved ones all the time and families get wiped out in fire, car accidents, tornados, and lot of other ways. That fact leads me to be of the opinion that prayers don't get answered by a god. It's more that sometimes things just work out due to having made the right choices or certain things happening.


It is true that many times, God chooses to deny our petitions before Him. He has a time and a purpose for all that He does. As long as sin endures in this world, it will be full of pain. That's why Jesus came to die for us to destroy that curse. When He returns to the earth, He is going to end the suffering here. He is currently teaching mankind that we need Him.

Paddington
03-22-2012, 09:06 PM
Here's the Miracle of the story. Had that angel not told my cousin to not be afraid and go over to the window and hunch down, the fireman woudn't have found her and she would have died. She lived as a result of a supernatural being, therefore, it classifies as a miracle. Secondly,the fact that my grandmother heard the voice that told her about the fire before the phone call is another miracle. She couldn't have known otherwise. God confirmed the fact that it was a true miracle, but speaking to my Grandma. I believe He also intended for me to tell others about it that they may believe in Him for salvation.

Wickabee
03-22-2012, 09:06 PM
It is true that many times, God chooses to deny our petitions before Him. He has a time and a purpose for all that He does. As long as sin endures in this world, it will be full of pain. That's why Jesus came to die for us to destroy that curse. When He returns to the earth, He is going to end the suffering here. He is currently teaching mankind that we need Him.
There's an episode of M*A*S*H where a patient thinks he's Jesus Christ. Radar asks him if God answers all prayers. The answer is one of the best things I've ever heard, whether you follow a particular religion or just believe in God.
Question: Does God really answer all prayers?
Answer: Yes, but sometimes the answer is 'no'.

pspstatus
03-22-2012, 10:31 PM
He IS loving, understanding and forgiving to those who allow Him to extend it to them. He won't force it on anyone. Freewill.

All He is asking for you to trust in Him. I don't think that's too much to ask. How shall He rule a Kingdom full of people who won't obey and don't care about Him or doing the right thing? It would be chaos and pain, like we see on this earth. Heaven is very different. It's incredibly orderly and beautiful because everyone there is fully submitted to God's will.

From what I've read in the Bible he certainly DEMANDS more than trust. Do you follow the Bible?

duwal
03-23-2012, 03:17 AM
gotta love that liberal tolerance and acceptance. oh wait, unless it is something i disagree with and don't believe in, and in that case the person is obviously crazy. smh


what do liberals have to do with this?

mrveggieman
03-23-2012, 08:32 AM
but i completely understand how people do not believe in jesus or any god, or even a different god. it is one of the most important decisions in your life to make, and should be a true personal one, not something forced upon you or whispered in your ear. it is your path to choose and that is the best thing about it.




CHURCH!! :love0030:

habsheaven
03-23-2012, 08:36 AM
Here's the Miracle of the story. Had that angel not told my cousin to not be afraid and go over to the window and hunch down, the fireman woudn't have found her and she would have died. She lived as a result of a supernatural being, therefore, it classifies as a miracle. Secondly,the fact that my grandmother heard the voice that told her about the fire before the phone call is another miracle. She couldn't have known otherwise. God confirmed the fact that it was a true miracle, but speaking to my Grandma. I believe He also intended for me to tell others about it that they may believe in Him for salvation.

You cannot just make things up to confirm your belief something is a miracle. Your 3 year old cousin told you an angel spoke to them? Why did God have to tell your grandmother anything? Wasn't a phone call from her family enough? Glad to see God is devoting a whole evening to your family while he lets little girls like Tori Stafford endure unspeakable acts.

"God has a plan." You know what HIS plan sucks! How people can believe this garbage is mind-boggling.

ensbergcollector
03-23-2012, 10:26 AM
You cannot just make things up to confirm your belief something is a miracle. Your 3 year old cousin told you an angel spoke to them? Why did God have to tell your grandmother anything? Wasn't a phone call from her family enough? Glad to see God is devoting a whole evening to your family while he lets little girls like Tori Stafford endure unspeakable acts.

"God has a plan." You know what HIS plan sucks! How people can believe this garbage is mind-boggling.

i typically avoid the God has a plan issue because, ultimately we don't know. People say "everything happens for a reason" but that isn't the case. Everything that goes on in this world is not the will of God. However, I do believe that God can find ways to work in all circumstances.
However, I love those who are opposed to God and the argument that if God doesn't save everyone, he isn't allowed to save anyone.

shrewsbury
03-23-2012, 10:38 AM
God doesn't have a plan, why would He need one?

God knows what is going to happen, well because that is the nature of God, but he has no plans for us, that is what free will is about.

He could have stopped eve from eating the apple, david from bethshiba, jesus from the cross, but why would he need to stop or help anyone?

Not that i don't believe miracles can happen, but it is not the act of God, if he wanted to save a little girl from a fire, he would have never allowed the fire to start.

Just like a father who is always there to help his child, there is a point we need to let them fail, to fall, to stumble, to be on their own, it doesn't mean we do not love them, but that we love them enough to let them go.

habsheaven
03-23-2012, 11:20 AM
i typically avoid the God has a plan issue because, ultimately we don't know. People say "everything happens for a reason" but that isn't the case. Everything that goes on in this world is not the will of God. However, I do believe that God can find ways to work in all circumstances.
However, I love those who are opposed to God and the argument that if God doesn't save everyone, he isn't allowed to save anyone.

That's not the argument at all. He can save whomever He pleases. However, it is appalling to believe that He continually makes the cruelest of choices on whom He decides to save and some believers are gullible enough to rationalize it under the guise of, "God works in mysterious ways." or "God has a plan.", or worst, "God saved me because I truly believe."

ensbergcollector
03-23-2012, 11:27 AM
That's not the argument at all. He can save whomever He pleases. However, it is appalling to believe that He continually makes the cruelest of choices on whom He decides to save and some believers are gullible enough to rationalize it under the guise of, "God works in mysterious ways." or "God has a plan.", or worst, "God saved me because I truly believe."

i hear you, it just seems that if someone says they were saved by God, the response is "well if God can save you he can save everyone" thus implying that if God doesn't save everyone, he is wrong for saving anyone.


agree wholeheartedly with the bolded part. When I was in school, my ministry professor had a list of things that you often hear at funerals which are supposed to be comforting that are both incorrect, and damaging. They included things like:

"It is all part of God's plan"
"God just wanted your loved one to be in heaven"
etc

mrveggieman
03-23-2012, 11:35 AM
When I was in school, my ministry professor had a list of things that you often hear at funerals which are supposed to be comforting that are both incorrect, and damaging. They included things like:

"It is all part of God's plan"
"God just wanted your loved one to be in heaven"
etc


Why do you believe that using those statements be incorrect?

ensbergcollector
03-23-2012, 11:50 AM
Why do you believe that using those statements be incorrect?

the statement of "it was all God's plan" is very often just plain wrong. If someone murders your child, or if a child gets cancer and die, was that really God's plan? Was that God's desire?

and the idea that "God just wanted your loved one to be in heaven" says basically that God took your loved one from you. We aren't talking about saying someone is with god. we are talking about saying God took them.

mrveggieman
03-23-2012, 11:57 AM
the statement of "it was all God's plan" is very often just plain wrong. If someone murders your child, or if a child gets cancer and die, was that really God's plan? Was that God's desire?

and the idea that "God just wanted your loved one to be in heaven" says basically that God took your loved one from you. We aren't talking about saying someone is with god. we are talking about saying God took them.


That's an interesting prespective. What would be a more appropriate choice of words for the situation?

ensbergcollector
03-23-2012, 12:09 PM
That's an interesting prespective. What would be a more appropriate choice of words for the situation?

I have had opportunity to preach a couple of funerals that were under horrible circumstances (7 year old murdered by his mothers boyfriend, 18 year old killed in a car accident). I think the problem a lot of preachers make is feeling like we have to have the answers or explanation for why things happened. Ultimately, i have said in both cases "I don't know why this horrible thing happened." I think we are able to give comfort by saying your loved ones are in Heaven and with God without saying this was God's plan and that he wanted this. I think it is ok for loved ones to have questions and even be angry with God for letting it happen. the Psalms are full of instances where David was angry with God. But in all instances, in his anger, he ended up at a place of "but yet will I trust you."
Depending on the situation, you can talk briefly about the consequences of free will but not dwell on it. I guess it is about focusing on the fact that God welcomes us home instead of "taking" us home. (not sure if any of that rambling made sense)

Wickabee
03-23-2012, 12:40 PM
Perfect sense, actually.

mrveggieman
03-23-2012, 12:49 PM
I have had opportunity to preach a couple of funerals that were under horrible circumstances (7 year old murdered by his mothers boyfriend, 18 year old killed in a car accident). I think the problem a lot of preachers make is feeling like we have to have the answers or explanation for why things happened. Ultimately, i have said in both cases "I don't know why this horrible thing happened." I think we are able to give comfort by saying your loved ones are in Heaven and with God without saying this was God's plan and that he wanted this. I think it is ok for loved ones to have questions and even be angry with God for letting it happen. the Psalms are full of instances where David was angry with God. But in all instances, in his anger, he ended up at a place of "but yet will I trust you."
Depending on the situation, you can talk briefly about the consequences of free will but not dwell on it. I guess it is about focusing on the fact that God welcomes us home instead of "taking" us home. (not sure if any of that rambling made sense)


No I get what you are saying and have no problems with it.

pspstatus
03-23-2012, 10:37 PM
the statement of "it was all God's plan" is very often just plain wrong. If someone murders your child, or if a child gets cancer and die, was that really God's plan? Was that God's desire?

and the idea that "God just wanted your loved one to be in heaven" says basically that God took your loved one from you. We aren't talking about saying someone is with god. we are talking about saying God took them.

Very well said. That makes a lot more sense.

Paddington
03-24-2012, 02:24 PM
There's an episode of M*A*S*H where a patient thinks he's Jesus Christ. Radar asks him if God answers all prayers. The answer is one of the best things I've ever heard, whether you follow a particular religion or just believe in God.
Question: Does God really answer all prayers?
Answer: Yes, but sometimes the answer is 'no'.

That's true.

Paddington
03-24-2012, 02:25 PM
From what I've read in the Bible he certainly DEMANDS more than trust. Do you follow the Bible?

Not only do I follow the bible, but it is my source for what I believe about God, salvation, ect. I believe it to be God's word. It trumps the church's opinion, man's opinion, ect.

The Bible says that we need to trust and obey God.

Ac 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Paddington
03-24-2012, 02:26 PM
what do liberals have to do with this?

Liberals generally and visciously attack Christians and Conservatives when they express their views. It happens to me constantly from them.

Paddington
03-24-2012, 02:30 PM
[quote=habsheaven;11271997]You cannot just make things up to confirm your belief something is a miracle. Your 3 year old cousin told you an angel spoke to them? Why did God have to tell your grandmother anything? Wasn't a phone call from her family enough? Glad to see God is devoting a whole evening to your family while he lets little girls like Tori Stafford endure unspeakable acts.

[quote]


I can't speak for God, but I believe there are a few reasons that He spoke to my grandma. First, it was to confirm that it was a true miracle. Second, He was telling her that it was because of Her prayers. Third, God is omnipresent, meaning that He can devote as much time to as many people as He wants and still hold the world together and all things that exist. God exists in all places at once. He is not limited in what He can do.

Wickabee
03-24-2012, 03:42 PM
Liberals generally and visciously attack Christians and Conservatives when they express their views. It happens to me constantly from them.
Trust me, it goes both ways. To say otherwise is either ignorant or arrogant.

pspstatus
03-24-2012, 05:13 PM
Not only do I follow the bible, but it is my source for what I believe about God, salvation, ect. I believe it to be God's word. It trumps the church's opinion, man's opinion, ect.

The Bible says that we need to trust and obey God.

Ac 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.


Ok cool. A few weeks ago I started a thread asking some questions about Christianity and the Bible. Unfortunately nobody really gave me any answers. If you don't mind I'd like to pose them to you here as I believe they are related to the overall conversation.

When I was younger I believed pretty firmly in the presence of God and Jesus. I wouldn't have called myself devout but I believed and prayed. As I got older I began to have questions. Some things just didn't make sense and I couldn't reconcile these things with how I felt in my heart.

1. Why is slavery not deemed to be completely unacceptable? Why is it even at times divinely sanctioned?

2. Why are women not treated equally to men? Why are men allowed to "take" wives? Why are women considered unclean during menstruation, which I imagine is a natural process created by God? Why is the kidnapping and rape of women at times divinely sanctioned? How does it make sense to consider a baby impure because it came from a woman?

3. Why is the Bible so violent? Is it directly related to a desire to control? Is that why God insists on being feared?

4. Why does God say to honor your mother and father, then ask you to forsake them and anyone else for him?

5. Why does God need to be constantly worshipped and glorified? Why does he demand such intense devotion? Why would he let Satan destroy Job's life just to prove how devoted he was to him? Why did he feel it was so important to prove Satan wrong? Why was God so easily tempted?

6. If the only way to reach God is through Jesus what happened to the souls of people born before Jesus?

7. Why are some of the stories and persons from the Bible so similar to the stories and persons from other ancient civilizations?

8. Why does God seem so concerned with human sexuality? If I believe that homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle through the experience of having a gay friend and knowing him since he was very young how can I reconcile that with what the Bible says?

9. Why do so many of the views and messages conveyed in the Bible seem to directly reflect widely held human views of the time it was written? That is to say why do views on things such as slavery, women, sexuality seem as though they are period specific and not timeless?

10. Is it possible that the Bible is a collection of some factual evidence, stories, and beliefs of its writers produced as a tool to gain control of the masses? Why are there so many versions of the Bible? Why were people or institutions such as the Church of England able to produce new translations that seemed to fit beliefs more akin to their religious structure?

11. If I disagree with one of God's views on something because of what I truly believe in my heart what does that mean?

These are questions that I have posed to myself over the years. These are things that just don't make complete sense to me, and for which reasons such as having faith, because it's in the Bible, and it's just the truth are not satisfying answers.

sublime420
03-24-2012, 05:36 PM
Liberals generally and visciously attack Christians and Conservatives when they express their views. It happens to me constantly from them.

May i say why many liberals attack you? Because religion makes politicians make irrational decisions based simply on their "faith", like abortion and gay marriage for example. That is why. If religion didn't affect the way you thought, then it wouldn't be a problem. But it brainwashes people into not thinking for themselves, and you can see this fully demonstrated in the South....

white_rabbit
03-25-2012, 09:55 AM
the statement of "it was all God's plan" is very often just plain wrong.

"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord"
Jeremiah 29:11


and the idea that "God just wanted your loved one to be in heaven" says basically that God took your loved one from you. We aren't talking about saying someone is with god. we are talking about saying God took them.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
John 3:16

theonedru
03-25-2012, 11:45 AM
Ok cool. A few weeks ago I started a thread asking some questions about Christianity and the Bible. Unfortunately nobody really gave me any answers. If you don't mind I'd like to pose them to you here as I believe they are related to the overall conversation.

When I was younger I believed pretty firmly in the presence of God and Jesus. I wouldn't have called myself devout but I believed and prayed. As I got older I began to have questions. Some things just didn't make sense and I couldn't reconcile these things with how I felt in my heart.

1. Why is slavery not deemed to be completely unacceptable? Why is it even at times divinely sanctioned?

2. Why are women not treated equally to men? Why are men allowed to "take" wives? Why are women considered unclean during menstruation, which I imagine is a natural process created by God? Why is the kidnapping and rape of women at times divinely sanctioned? How does it make sense to consider a baby impure because it came from a woman?

3. Why is the Bible so violent? Is it directly related to a desire to control? Is that why God insists on being feared?

4. Why does God say to honor your mother and father, then ask you to forsake them and anyone else for him?

5. Why does God need to be constantly worshipped and glorified? Why does he demand such intense devotion? Why would he let Satan destroy Job's life just to prove how devoted he was to him? Why did he feel it was so important to prove Satan wrong? Why was God so easily tempted?

6. If the only way to reach God is through Jesus what happened to the souls of people born before Jesus?

7. Why are some of the stories and persons from the Bible so similar to the stories and persons from other ancient civilizations?

8. Why does God seem so concerned with human sexuality? If I believe that homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle through the experience of having a gay friend and knowing him since he was very young how can I reconcile that with what the Bible says?

9. Why do so many of the views and messages conveyed in the Bible seem to directly reflect widely held human views of the time it was written? That is to say why do views on things such as slavery, women, sexuality seem as though they are period specific and not timeless?

10. Is it possible that the Bible is a collection of some factual evidence, stories, and beliefs of its writers produced as a tool to gain control of the masses? Why are there so many versions of the Bible? Why were people or institutions such as the Church of England able to produce new translations that seemed to fit beliefs more akin to their religious structure?

11. If I disagree with one of God's views on something because of what I truly believe in my heart what does that mean?

These are questions that I have posed to myself over the years. These are things that just don't make complete sense to me, and for which reasons such as having faith, because it's in the Bible, and it's just the truth are not satisfying answers.

Plain and simply put, the bible was INSPIRED by God but WRITTEN by man. Hence the hogwash mumble jumbo of inadequacies. The bible does not make sense because of this the bible is far from perfect because it was written by a creature that was far from perfect.

ensbergcollector
03-25-2012, 03:10 PM
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord"
Jeremiah 29:11



"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
John 3:16

i definitely believe God has plans for us. doesn't mean those plans come to fruition. if I sin, the actions are my own, not Gods.

God desires for us to be in heaven with him. he sent his son to make that possible. that doesn't mean he causes people to die on earth so they will come to heaven.

shrewsbury
03-25-2012, 06:01 PM
the bible itself is completely man made. the books in the "bible" can be associated with god and his inspiration, but not the bible.

there are many more books that never made it into the bible and the books themselves predate the bible by hundreds and some thousands of years.

Paddington
03-25-2012, 10:47 PM
Trust me, it goes both ways. To say otherwise is either ignorant or arrogant.


That may be true that it happens on both sides, however, for the most part, it happens way, way more often from Liberals than with conservatives.

Paddington
03-25-2012, 10:49 PM
the bible itself is completely man made. the books in the "bible" can be associated with god and his inspiration, but not the bible.

there are many more books that never made it into the bible and the books themselves predate the bible by hundreds and some thousands of years.


The bible is God breathed. There is a good reason why those books didn't make it into the bible. They didn't meet the criteria. The weren't written by the eyewitnesses. They weren't writtin in the lifetime of the writer. Many of them contradict the rest of scritpture.

hawk2618
03-25-2012, 10:54 PM
I wonder if God collects cards?

mrveggieman
03-26-2012, 08:27 AM
The bible is God breathed. There is a good reason why those books didn't make it into the bible. They didn't meet the criteria. The weren't written by the eyewitnesses. They weren't writtin in the lifetime of the writer. Many of them contradict the rest of scritpture.


You realized that the books that did make it to the bible often contradict each other don't you?

shrewsbury
03-26-2012, 09:02 AM
[QUOTE]The bible is God breathed. There is a good reason why those books didn't make it into the bible. They didn't meet the criteria. The weren't written by the eyewitnesses. They weren't writtin in the lifetime of the writer. Many of them contradict the rest of scritpture.[/QUOTE

maybe you should look at who put the "bible together" had little to do with eyewitness' and some of the ones left out contradict what the "church" deemed as god's rules, ways, and desires. god had very little to nothing to do with the book we call the old and new testamnts

ensbergcollector
03-26-2012, 10:17 AM
[QUOTE]The bible is God breathed. There is a good reason why those books didn't make it into the bible. They didn't meet the criteria. The weren't written by the eyewitnesses. They weren't writtin in the lifetime of the writer. Many of them contradict the rest of scritpture.[/QUOTE

maybe you should look at who put the "bible together" had little to do with eyewitness' and some of the ones left out contradict what the "church" deemed as god's rules, ways, and desires. god had very little to nothing to do with the book we call the old and new testamnts

anyone who has actually studied what got in and why, instead of reading the da vinci code or read a blog would understand how incorrect that statement is.

first of all, the old testament never had debates about inclusion. the old testament has been the old testament for over 2000 years.

the books excluded from the new testament were excluded for actual reasons, not controversial ones. the only controversy involved is caused by people who want to accuse the church of something so they throw out vague statements and generalities.

white_rabbit
03-26-2012, 10:25 AM
I wonder if God collects cards?

I'd love to see him break a box!

mrveggieman
03-26-2012, 10:43 AM
I wonder if God collects cards?


Everyone would accuse him of being a pack searcher if he get's any hits. :sign0020:

Wickabee
03-26-2012, 11:51 AM
[quote=shrewsbury;11286405]

anyone who has actually studied what got in and why, instead of reading the da vinci code or read a blog would understand how incorrect that statement is.

first of all, the old testament never had debates about inclusion. the old testament has been the old testament for over 2000 years.

the books excluded from the new testament were excluded for actual reasons, not controversial ones. the only controversy involved is caused by people who want to accuse the church of something so they throw out vague statements and generalities.
If you want vague, look at your post.

Care to tell us what those reason are?

AUTaxMan
03-26-2012, 12:30 PM
[quote=ensbergcollector;11286628]
If you want vague, look at your post.

Care to tell us what those reason are?

You can read all about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

Wickabee
03-26-2012, 12:53 PM
I trust Wikipedia for information about as much as I trust the courts for justice or priests for spirituality.

AUTaxMan
03-26-2012, 01:00 PM
I trust Wikipedia for information about as much as I trust the courts for justice or priests for spirituality.

It's better than nothing, and it's way too much information to put in a message board post. Use it as a guide until you find some sources you consider legitimate.

Wickabee
03-26-2012, 01:01 PM
An actual explanation would be better. Preferably from the person I asked...

AUTaxMan
03-26-2012, 01:49 PM
An actual explanation would be better. Preferably from the person I asked...

I don't think your question can be answered in enough detail to be to your satisfaction in a short message board post. I was just trying to be helpful. If you are truly interested in the information, it is out there, and it isn't difficult to find. It is, however, voluminous.

shrewsbury
03-26-2012, 03:31 PM
the books excluded from the new testament were excluded for actual reasons, not controversial ones. the only controversy involved is caused by people who want to accuse the church of something so they throw out vague statements and generalities.


yeah i can accuse the church of these things and even worse. have you no clue on who the popes were? have you no idea of the books burnt and lives taken to crush christianity that differed from the churches views?

some of the books thrown out, were thrown out because women were empowered and the individual over the church were emphasized. YOU CAN COME TO GOD ONLY THROUGH THE SON, nothing to do with church, it's just you!

and for your information the old testament has also been changed by man and books left out.

and the books of the old testament left out are just as old.
and the some of the books left out of the new testament dated as early as the books of mathew and john.

do some research :party0053:


anyone who has actually studied what got in and why, instead of reading the da vinci code or read a blog would understand how incorrect that statement is.

first of all, the old testament never had debates about inclusion. the old testament has been the old testament for over 2000 years.
.

this only shows how little you do know, ever here of Enoch?

Wickabee
03-26-2012, 04:53 PM
I don't think your question can be answered in enough detail to be to your satisfaction in a short message board post. I was just trying to be helpful. If you are truly interested in the information, it is out there, and it isn't difficult to find. It is, however, voluminous.
Enlighten me. What exactly would be to my satisfaction?
Since you know me oh so well...

(for the record, I'm more worried about one person accusing another of being vague with vague statements of their own...guess you don't know me that well after all...)

AUTaxMan
03-26-2012, 05:16 PM
Enlighten me. What exactly would be to my satisfaction?
Since you know me oh so well...

(for the record, I'm more worried about one person accusing another of being vague with vague statements of their own...guess you don't know me that well after all...)

I don't purport to know what level of satisfaction you would require, but I assume that it would involve a level of specificity that could not be done justice in a 3 sentence message board post. I suggest you shed that chip from your shoulder and stop being argumentative for the mere sake of it.

ensbergcollector
03-26-2012, 05:23 PM
Enlighten me. What exactly would be to my satisfaction?
Since you know me oh so well...

(for the record, I'm more worried about one person accusing another of being vague with vague statements of their own...guess you don't know me that well after all...)

you are WORRIED about vague statements? dude, not everyone has unlimited time to spend writing long responses on a message board. I was on my way out of the house to spend the day with my family. Wasn't really concerned with a long response. Wasn't trying to be vague either. sorry i worried you

Wickabee
03-26-2012, 05:57 PM
Read again and try to understand this time.

It's not the vague statements I have a problem with. What I do have a problem with is when you tell someone they're making vague statements the sentence before you yourself make vague statements. That's hypocrisy, and it takes away from your actual point.

ensbergcollector
03-26-2012, 06:12 PM
Read again and try to understand this time.

It's not the vague statements I have a problem with. What I do have a problem with is when you tell someone they're making vague statements the sentence before you yourself make vague statements. That's hypocrisy, and it takes away from your actual point.

ok, a few things. first of all, if you can't have a conversation without trying to insult someone's intelligence with your "try and understand this time" then you probably won't find many people willing to have conversations with you. Going straight to insults usually won't get you anywhere.

secondly, allow me to clarify since i was obviously misunderstood. When i referred to vague statements, i wasn't talking about anyone here. I was talking about the bloggers and bible-opposers who claim to have information when really they just throw out vague generalities and half truths. I apologize if anyone thought i was referring to something someone here had said.


very briefly because my day is kinda crazy. Some of the reasons that books were excluded:

the books claimed to be written by known authors (paul, john, etc) but the language was completely in opposition to known works by the same author.

Books that were easily attributed to someone other than the claimed author.

books that could not be traced back to the generation they claimed to originate from.

etc.



i understand why there is controversy about the books of the bible. I also understand the sentiment directed toward the catholic church. I am the last person you will find blindly supporting anything the catholic church has done in it's history. Please don't assume that if I believe something that I have believed it blindly.

Wickabee
03-26-2012, 06:31 PM
ok, a few things. first of all, if you can't have a conversation without trying to insult someone's intelligence with your "try and understand this time" then you probably won't find many people willing to have conversations with you. Going straight to insults usually won't get you anywhere.
No need to be insulted. All I ask is that you actually put forth the effort to comprehend what's written. I don't think that's too much to ask.


secondly, allow me to clarify since i was obviously misunderstood. When i referred to vague statements, i wasn't talking about anyone here. I was talking about the bloggers and bible-opposers who claim to have information when really they just throw out vague generalities and half truths. I apologize if anyone thought i was referring to something someone here had said.
Whether you're talking about someone here or not, it's still hypocritical of you to denounce vague statements before making one of your own.



very briefly because my day is kinda crazy. Some of the reasons that books were excluded:

the books claimed to be written by known authors (paul, john, etc) but the language was completely in opposition to known works by the same author.

Books that were easily attributed to someone other than the claimed author.

books that could not be traced back to the generation they claimed to originate from.

etc.



i understand why there is controversy about the books of the bible. I also understand the sentiment directed toward the catholic church. I am the last person you will find blindly supporting anything the catholic church has done in it's history. Please don't assume that if I believe something that I have believed it blindly.
I'm not assuming anything, though if I were it would be because of your vague statements. Thank you for actually putting together some semblance of an answer. You could have saved a lot of time, and wouldn't feel so insulted, if you had done that in the first place instead of making vague statements.

shrewsbury
03-26-2012, 07:52 PM
Some of the reasons that books were excluded:

how about constantine wanted material that would suit both christians and pagans (romans were famous for being involved with the religions of the people they conquered) for one example this is why christman is on dec 25th

the bible as we know it was assembled in 332 AD

those who opposed were exiled, at the least

the books that were left out have just as much relevance and antiquity as the books left in and were wide spread as any of the traditional work, example, the book of mary, has been found in 3 seperate countries

the orthodox church could not destroy the unorthodox beliefs or even beat them in debate, so they used the roman law to get rid of them

the catholic church is a multi billion $$$ business, that has created their own city-state, and owns billions of shares in major corporations and has much to lose if people did not feel the need to seek god through church but rather through themselves

have nothing against catholics, have and have had many catholic friends, also attended catholic church for a few years

though the bible contains books that are holy to us christians, it is far from the only way to seek, find, or understand God

Wickabee
03-26-2012, 07:58 PM
Woah...don't try telling anyone that religion is business...

shrewsbury
03-26-2012, 08:07 PM
sorry, how about it can be a financially profitable organization?

Paddington
03-26-2012, 08:09 PM
You realized that the books that did make it to the bible often contradict each other don't you?


They never contradict. There are times when they seem to until you give it more study and prayer.

theonedru
03-26-2012, 08:10 PM
sorry, how about it can be a financially profitable organization?

Lovin it, good one

Paddington
03-26-2012, 08:11 PM
[quote]The bible is God breathed. There is a good reason why those books didn't make it into the bible. They didn't meet the criteria. The weren't written by the eyewitnesses. They weren't writtin in the lifetime of the writer. Many of them contradict the rest of scritpture.[/QUOTE

maybe you should look at who put the "bible together" had little to do with eyewitness' and some of the ones left out contradict what the "church" deemed as god's rules, ways, and desires. god had very little to nothing to do with the book we call the old and new testamnts


I HAVE looked into it. There was a council and the criteria was very strict. God had everything to do with the bible.

Paddington
03-26-2012, 08:13 PM
Woah...don't try telling anyone that religion is business...

Ac 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

shrewsbury
03-26-2012, 08:17 PM
I HAVE looked into it. There was a council and the criteria was very strict. God had everything to do with the bible.

God has to do with everything written in the Bible, but the books themselves were not put together by God, by His order, or by an provable Holy act

the council of nicea was not gathered by God, nor was it put together in God's best interest, but by the interests of the leader of men

it may have been with good intentions, but good intentions shouldn't require book burning, exiles, and death

Wickabee
03-26-2012, 08:20 PM
Ac 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
uh...yeah. So why does every religion want everyone's money?

shrewsbury
03-26-2012, 08:24 PM
Ac 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

left it a bit out of context;

17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money

19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

20 Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money!

21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God.

22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart.

it's not saying money is bad, but it cannot buy your way to God

money is not evil, just the people who use it for evil purposes are sinners

Wickabee
03-26-2012, 08:29 PM
left it a bit out of context;

17 then peter and john placed their hands on them, and they received the holy spirit.

18 when simon saw that the spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money

19 and said, “give me also this ability so that everyone on whom i lay my hands may receive the holy spirit.”

20 peter answered: “may your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of god with money!

21 you have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before god.

22 repent of this wickedness and pray to the lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart.

It's not saying money is bad, but it cannot buy your way to god

money is not evil, just the people who use it for evil purposes are sinners
preach!

shrewsbury
03-26-2012, 09:21 PM
not about preaching, but people can take anything out of context of any book and make it appear what it is not.

Paddington
03-27-2012, 11:00 AM
uh...yeah. So why does every religion want everyone's money?

IF a church or otherwise tries to tell you that you can pay your way into heaven, then they are lying to you. Read this first post about how to get to heaven when you die. Do you see anything about money in there? The tithing goes to help pay for expenses as well as send out missionaries and pay the salary of the ministers. I don't agree with the ones who focus the whole time on getting people to send in money. It's not about what men say. It's about what God says. The bible is God's word. Read it.

Paddington
03-27-2012, 11:01 AM
left it a bit out of context;

17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money

19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

20 Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money!

21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God.

22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart.

it's not saying money is bad, but it cannot buy your way to God

money is not evil, just the people who use it for evil purposes are sinners


It wasn't really taken out of context. The point of my posting the verse was to show that the gift of God (Salvation) cannot be purchased with money. The verse certainly proves that in context.

shrewsbury
03-27-2012, 11:44 AM
actually you were referring to the church being called a business

Wickabee
03-27-2012, 03:06 PM
IF a church or otherwise tries to tell you that you can pay your way into heaven, then they are lying to you. Read this first post about how to get to heaven when you die. Do you see anything about money in there? The tithing goes to help pay for expenses as well as send out missionaries and pay the salary of the ministers. I don't agree with the ones who focus the whole time on getting people to send in money. It's not about what men say. It's about what God says. The bible is God's word. Read it.
What about churches who "shame" people into giving money by passing the collection plate around for all to see?

AUTaxMan
03-27-2012, 03:25 PM
What about churches who "shame" people into giving money by passing the collection plate around for all to see?

Passing the collection plate does not and is not intended to "shame" people into giving, contrary to what you may believe. There is no stigma attached to those who pass the plate without putting anything in it. There is a general understanding in the church that people give by different methods and at different times. Thus, we don't assume someone is not giving to the church merely because they don't drop a few bucks in the offering plate when it is passed on Sundays.

Wickabee
03-27-2012, 03:57 PM
Passing the collection plate does not and is not intended to "shame" people into giving, contrary to what you may believe. There is no stigma attached to those who pass the plate without putting anything in it. There is a general understanding in the church that people give by different methods and at different times. Thus, we don't assume someone is not giving to the church merely because they don't drop a few bucks in the offering plate when it is passed on Sundays.
Yeah, I don't believe that for a second. If that were the case, they wouldn't publicly pass the plate around for everyone to see how much you put in.

But let's say that is the (highly unlikely) case. How about churches that demand tithes?

mrveggieman
03-27-2012, 04:03 PM
I know most churches in the south make you stand up walk to the front of the church to give thides. If you are sitting down everyone can see that you are not giving anything that week.

AUTaxMan
03-27-2012, 04:11 PM
Yeah, I don't believe that for a second. If that were the case, they wouldn't publicly pass the plate around for everyone to see how much you put in.

But let's say that is the (highly unlikely) case. How about churches that demand tithes?

If you choose not to believe the facts, I can't help you. Every church I have ever attended or even visited (mostly of the Southern Baptist denomination) provides envelopes for you to put your money or check in so that you can keep people from seeing how much you give, if you choose to do so. The overwhelming majority of people use the envelopes. I would also state that I have never been to a church that requires you to stand up to donate to the church. That is certainly not a Southern Baptist practice.

Also, churches don't demand tithes. God does.

Wickabee
03-27-2012, 04:25 PM
If you choose not to believe the facts, I can't help you. Every church I have ever attended or even visited (mostly of the Southern Baptist denomination) provides envelopes for you to put your money or check in so that you can keep people from seeing how much you give, if you choose to do so. The overwhelming majority of people use the envelopes. I would also state that I have never been to a church that requires you to stand up to donate to the church. That is certainly not a Southern Baptist practice.
Fair enough, I have little experience with Baptists, and if they give the envelope that's fine. One thing though, and never forget this, just because you tell me it's so does NOT make it fact and doesn't prove a single thing either way. Just sayin'.


Also, churches don't demand tithes. God does.
Really? Really? God needs my money? For what? Please tell me, what does God have to buy that he needs 10% of my income?

Better yet, tell me where he shops.

AUTaxMan
03-27-2012, 04:29 PM
Fair enough, I have little experience with Baptists, and if they give the envelope that's fine. One thing though, and never forget this, just because you tell me it's so does NOT make it fact and doesn't prove a single thing either way. Just sayin'.

I understand that, but I would hope that we could reach a level of conversation where I could represent a fact to you, and you would take my word for it, and I would do likewise for you. Like Reagan said, trust, but verify if you feel the need to do so.


Really? Really? God needs my money? For what? Please tell me, what does God have to buy that he needs 10% of my income?

Better yet, tell me where he shops.

God commands us to give to the church. The church is not a business and can only financially survive on the charity of its members.

shrewsbury
03-27-2012, 04:57 PM
God commands us to give to the church

i, respectfully, do not agree


The church is not a business and can only financially survive on the charity of its members.

this, i do agree with

Paddington
03-27-2012, 09:12 PM
actually you were referring to the church being called a business

Technically, I was responding to Religion being called a business. My actual point was that Salvation cannot be purchased with money. Religion isn't going to save you either. Church cannot save you. Baptism cannot save you. Good deeds cannot save you. Only trusting in Jesus Christ can save you. That was the point.

Paddington
03-27-2012, 09:15 PM
What about churches who "shame" people into giving money by passing the collection plate around for all to see?

There's nothing wrong with passing the plate, however, I see your point. I would rather that they had an anonymous box, but that's not the way that it's done. I don't put money in it most of the time, because my wife usually has it anyway, so if they are watching me, they are going to be very disappointed. You have to have the attitude that your giving is between you and God and it's nonone's business anyway. I give the money to God, not to the church.

Paddington
03-27-2012, 09:18 PM
Yeah, I don't believe that for a second. If that were the case, they wouldn't publicly pass the plate around for everyone to see how much you put in.

But let's say that is the (highly unlikely) case. How about churches that demand tithes?

Honestly, there are churches who are focused on money. Those churches are in it for the wrong reasons. I can't stop them from doing that, but they aren't doing what the bible says to do and we know that God is going to judge all men according to His word, the bible. No one is going to get away with anything.

Paddington
03-27-2012, 09:18 PM
I know most churches in the south make you stand up walk to the front of the church to give thides. If you are sitting down everyone can see that you are not giving anything that week.

As I have said, I would rather that it were as private as possible. I don't agree with that, however, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be in church.

shrewsbury
03-27-2012, 09:23 PM
My actual point was that Salvation cannot be purchased with money. Religion isn't going to save you either. Church cannot save you. Baptism cannot save you. Good deeds cannot save you. Only trusting in Jesus Christ can save you. That was the point.

well then, that's a good point

Paddington
03-27-2012, 09:25 PM
i, respectfully, do not agree



this, i do agree with

Yes, we are supposed to give to support the work of God. Do you have a problem supporting feeding starving children? That's a charity as well. People don't seem to have a problem with that. Somehow they think that the church can operate without money. Could God do it without money? many times He does, but He also expects His people to give in support of the ministry. The churches job is to send out missionaries, save lost souls, lift each other up and encourage one another and feed God's people with spiritual food, the word of God.


1Co 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

PDawson21
03-27-2012, 09:28 PM
I didn't read all 12 pages, but theres more to salvation than a simple prayer. Anyone can say it and do something completely different the next day. It's a good start to realize those things, but saying a simple prayer isn't cutting it.

ensbergcollector
03-27-2012, 09:37 PM
I know most churches in the south make you stand up walk to the front of the church to give thides. If you are sitting down everyone can see that you are not giving anything that week.

i would be careful of your use of the word most. i'm not sure what denomination you have been associated with but I have been at a pretty large number of churches and have never seen this. I have heard of it, but never seen it.

AUTaxMan
03-27-2012, 09:49 PM
i would be careful of your use of the word most. i'm not sure what denomination you have been associated with but I have been at a pretty large number of churches and have never seen this. I have heard of it, but never seen it.

Southern Baptists are the largest non-Catholic denomination in the country, and neither they, nor the Catholics, subscribe to this practice.

Wickabee
03-27-2012, 11:38 PM
Technically, I was responding to Religion being called a business. My actual point was that Salvation cannot be purchased with money. Religion isn't going to save you either. Church cannot save you. Baptism cannot save you. Good deeds cannot save you. Only trusting in Jesus Christ can save you. That was the point.
Beautifully said, thank you.


There's nothing wrong with passing the plate, however, I see your point. I would rather that they had an anonymous box, but that's not the way that it's done. I don't put money in it most of the time, because my wife usually has it anyway, so if they are watching me, they are going to be very disappointed. You have to have the attitude that your giving is between you and God and it's nonone's business anyway. I give the money to God, not to the church.
That's how Jehovah's Witnesses do it. For the very reason that it's no one's business how much or little you put in. They also seem to realize that $5 from someone who's very poor means way more than $1000 from a rich man.

boba
03-28-2012, 01:06 AM
Technically, I was responding to Religion being called a business. My actual point was that Salvation cannot be purchased with money. Religion isn't going to save you either. Church cannot save you. Baptism cannot save you. Good deeds cannot save you. Only trusting in Jesus Christ can save you. That was the point.

You do have to be careful with this. Jesus said in John 14:15, If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

All the things you mentioned are essential for salvation.

Wickabee
03-28-2012, 01:12 AM
You do have to be careful with this. Jesus said in John 14:15, If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.All the things you mentioned are essential for salvation.
Religion is in no way essential for anything.
Religion is man's perversion of God.
Spirituality and a good heart are what's needed for salvation.

boba
03-28-2012, 01:16 AM
Religion is in no way essential for anything.
Religion is man's perversion of God.
Spirituality and a good heart are what's needed for salvation.

Do you believe in the Bible, I wont waste your time if you don't.

Wickabee
03-28-2012, 01:23 AM
Do you believe in the Bible, I wont waste your time if you don't.

Does the bible not say "Man cannot lead man for it is as the blind leading the blind"?
All religions are organizations of a sort. The second you have an organization, you have a leader or leaders. The second you have leaders, you are following the blind.

boba
03-28-2012, 01:31 AM
Does the bible not say "Man cannot lead man for it is as the blind leading the blind"?
All religions are organizations of a sort. The second you have an organization, you have a leader or leaders. The second you have leaders, you are following the blind.

I agree with this. Thats why Jesus should always be the head of the Church. In the Biblical Church there should be no creeds ( as it's creed should be the Bible ). There shouldn't be people that claim to be closer to God then others. But there is a way to be saved that Jesus laid down for us that does require you to do something.

Wickabee
03-28-2012, 01:38 AM
I agree with this. Thats why Jesus should always be the head of the Church. In the Biblical Church there should be no creeds ( as it's creed should be the Bible ). There shouldn't be people that claim to be closer to God then others. But there is a way to be saved that Jesus laid down for us that does require you to do something.
Speaking only of Christianity, yes. However I don't for a second believe any one religions version of it, be it Catholic, Baptist, Quaker, Whatever. These are all man-made organizations who have human leaders.

That's where it all fails for me. It's nice to say Jesus is the head of your church, but I find that it's mostly lip service. Even if the followers believe it, the leaders are just counting their money.

boba
03-28-2012, 01:44 AM
Speaking only of Christianity, yes. However I don't for a second believe any one religions version of it, be it Catholic, Baptist, Quaker, Whatever. These are all man-made organizations who have human leaders.

That's where it all fails for me. It's nice to say Jesus is the head of your church, but I find that it's mostly lip service. Even if the followers believe it, the leaders are just counting their money.


But not all Churches are like this, there are some who genuinely have Jesus as their leader. I understand what you think about Churches as many if not most denominations are like this and give all Churches a bad name. But I will tell you that not all are like this.

Wickabee
03-28-2012, 01:47 AM
But not all Churches are like this, there are some who genuinely have Jesus as their leader. I understand what you think about Churches as many if not most denominations are like this and give all Churches a bad name. But I will tell you that not all are like this.
When you say "church" do you mean religion? I ask because I recently made the statement that church is business when I apparently should have said religion is business.

boba
03-28-2012, 01:54 AM
When you say "church" do you mean religion? I ask because I recently made the statement that church is business when I apparently should have said religion is business.

Yeah, you could fill in religion or denomination in the spots I put church.

Wickabee
03-28-2012, 01:58 AM
Ok, well all I will say to that is people can put on any show they want and say whatever they want. It doesn't mean what you're seeing is happening or what you're hearing is true.

I won't deny the possibility of such religions, but I've never met one.

AUTaxMan
03-28-2012, 10:20 AM
But not all Churches are like this, there are some who genuinely have Jesus as their leader. I understand what you think about Churches as many if not most denominations are like this and give all Churches a bad name. But I will tell you that not all are like this.

Most churches do not fit wickabee's perception. Some may be, but the overwhelming majority are not.

ensbergcollector
03-28-2012, 10:26 AM
Speaking only of Christianity, yes. However I don't for a second believe any one religions version of it, be it Catholic, Baptist, Quaker, Whatever. These are all man-made organizations who have human leaders.

That's where it all fails for me. It's nice to say Jesus is the head of your church, but I find that it's mostly lip service. Even if the followers believe it, the leaders are just counting their money.

the bible specifically states that there should be church leaders. The bible even goes as far as to give qualifications for elders and deacons.

now, i agree that there should be no one claiming to lead out of being closer to God but the church is told to appoint leadership.

shrewsbury
03-28-2012, 10:30 AM
Jesus, who is more important than the bible (for christians) never taught you had to be part of a church to be christian.

this is the main reason the "bible" was put together, so man have could control over your religion.

this is not to say churches can't play an important role nor that they do not help out communities, but they are not needed to reach gods salvation

ensbergcollector
03-28-2012, 10:43 AM
Jesus, who is more important than the bible (for christians) never taught you had to be part of a church to be christian.

this is the main reason the "bible" was put together, so man have could control over your religion.

this is not to say churches can't play an important role nor that they do not help out communities, but they are not needed to reach gods salvation

no one is saying you have to go to church to reach salvation. but i'm not sure how people can take things jesus said (in the bible) while also saying they don't have to listen to anything else in the bible. Regardless of what people think of the church, the council of nicea, or anything else. How can you accept Jesus at his words but ignore anything written by paul?

shrewsbury
03-28-2012, 10:58 AM
one reason would be, there are books left out of the bible that are as relevant as anything in it.

accept jesus at his word does not mean it has to written in the bible, jesus is everywhere and inside of all of us.

ignore anything written by paul, i would say not everything.

how about christians who do not follow mary? jesus' main person, his confidant, the one who told the others jesus had risen and was there when he died on the cross, but because she was a women the church shunned her and tried to destroy all written material associated with her.

ensbergcollector
03-28-2012, 11:04 AM
one reason would be, there are books left out of the bible that are as relevant as anything in it.

accept jesus at his word does not mean it has to written in the bible, jesus is everywhere and inside of all of us.

ignore anything written by paul, i would say not everything.

how about christians who do not follow mary? jesus' main person, his confidant, the one who told the others jesus had risen and was there when he died on the cross, but because she was a women the church shunned her and tried to destroy all written material associated with her.

and where do you get the information that mary was jesus' main person and his confidant?

you do know that the "gospel of mary" as well as the "gospel of thomas" and the "gospel of judas" and a ton of others, were almost 100% proven to be written by the gnostics? As in, not by the people they claimed to be written by. do a little research on the gnostics. The same people who brought you the gospel of mary are the same people who brought you the "jesus was a hologram" idea as well as the "the spirit of God entered a normal man jesus at his baptism and left him at the garden" so that they didn't have to accept that the son of God died on the cross.

in fact, the church did not shun mary. First of all, at the time of jesus, women were not even allowed to testify in court. Their opinion meant nothing. So, for the gospels to even record that mary was the one who was the first witness to jesus' resurrection was a huge issue, and in fact is one that skeptics used to refute the resurrection story.

the language in paul's writings about women's roles, which have been used to show a sexist slant in the church, were in fact far more progressive toward women then anything to be found in the culture at the time.

boba
03-28-2012, 11:16 AM
the bible specifically states that there should be church leaders. The bible even goes as far as to give qualifications for elders and deacons.

now, i agree that there should be no one claiming to lead out of being closer to God but the church is told to appoint leadership.


+1, you put this a lot better then I did.

Wickabee
03-28-2012, 12:55 PM
the bible specifically states that there should be church leaders. The bible even goes as far as to give qualifications for elders and deacons.

now, i agree that there should be no one claiming to lead out of being closer to God but the church is told to appoint leadership.
Then the church is being led by men.
Thanks for proving my point.

shrewsbury
03-28-2012, 01:14 PM
the gnostics, like many christians have many beliefs. and no one can prove who the non bible gospels were written by. if we go by this, then most of the new testament was written way after the death of jesus and they themselves would know little but hand me down traditions of chists life.

the originals letters have not been discovered, even the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, shows that they were copies of other earlier texts, but do not age themselves to the times these were suppose to be written.

does jesus state, in any works, that we should follow the new testament? of course not, it did not exist in his times

AUTaxMan
03-28-2012, 01:22 PM
Then the church is being led by men.
Thanks for proving my point.

What, exactly, is your point? That men should not lead the church? If not, then who would teach the message?

ensbergcollector
03-28-2012, 01:28 PM
who should be in charge then? someone has to pay the bills. someone has to decide things for the church. etc.

ensbergcollector
03-28-2012, 01:34 PM
the gnostics, like many christians have many beliefs. and no one can prove who the non bible gospels were written by. if we go by this, then most of the new testament was written way after the death of jesus and they themselves would know little but hand me down traditions of chists life.

the originals letters have not been discovered, even the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, shows that they were copies of other earlier texts, but do not age themselves to the times these were suppose to be written.

does jesus state, in any works, that we should follow the new testament? of course not, it did not exist in his times

if you look at things historically, it is very easy to determine what books/letters are authentic. The only people who claim the gnostics hold any validity are the people who like what they say better so they claim they are legitimate. The gnostics were not even viewed by the early church (not catholics, the actual church in the first 200 years AD) as followers of christ. they were viewed almost as a cult who wanted to take pieces of the gospel and then change it for their own purposes.
all the gnostic gospels have one thing in common which is the one thing that proves them to be false. All the gnostic gospels (mary, judas, thomas, etc) all claim that their author was the closest confidant of jesus. All claim that jesus would speak to the masses, then he would speak to the disciples, then to peter, james, and john, and then jesus would take (insert gnostic gospel writers name) aside and tell them the actual truth. The very claim of all the gnostic gospels shows all of them to be false.
do you have any claim of mary's relationship to jesus other than the gnostic gospel of mary? since you seem to be arguing that we don't have to listen to the new testament, then why are you choosing to listen to the gospel of mary which is far less credible?

shrewsbury
03-28-2012, 02:26 PM
just to make this simple, the only evidence of anything in the bible being true is very small and up for debate. even Pilot as an historical figure was proven in the last decade with a discovery of a plaque with his name, but no mention of jesus. even crucifiction cannot be proven, except one single bone, found within the last decade, don't think it was jesus'.

accounts of historians differ from that of the bible, and even the dead sea scrolls are mere copies. there was no printing press so it would be easy to copy a document and it not be word for word, but this does not mean they were not written.

so no, it is not easy to determine anything, and the church has always been out to distinguish any beliefs but their own, this is common with man, my way or the highway.

no different than thinking baptism is the way to heaven, but yet we can see many things, in the bible, that say this isn't so.

if the gnostic were so worthless why did the church hide and destroy these documents? their faith being better would make them erelavant and with god on their side, why does man need to do any of these things? well, because he is man, so he is corrupt.

how about a women lead the church?


The very claim of all the gnostic gospels shows all of them to be false.
do you have any claim of mary's relationship to jesus other than the gnostic gospel of mary? since you seem to be arguing that we don't have to listen to the new testament, then why are you choosing to listen to the gospel of mary which is far less credible?

hum, how about portraying her as a hooker? the time she spent with jesus and the relationship of a man and woman versus man and man. woman are better listners and quite often more intellectual than man, and have a better nature than most men.
common sense more than anything, think about what you would share with a woman friend over a man friend.


. She became Jesus' close friend and most prominent during his last days, being present at the cross after the male disciples (excepting John the Beloved) had fled, and at his burial. She was the first person to see Jesus after his Resurrection,[3] according to both John 20 and Mark 16:9.

she seems pretty important to me

ensbergcollector
03-28-2012, 02:38 PM
just to make this simple, the only evidence of anything in the bible being true is very small and up for debate. even Pilot as an historical figure was proven in the last decade with a discovery of a plaque with his name, but no mention of jesus. even crucifiction cannot be proven, except one single bone, found within the last decade, don't think it was jesus'.

accounts of historians differ from that of the bible, and even the dead sea scrolls are mere copies. there was no printing press so it would be easy to copy a document and it not be word for word, but this does not mean they were not written.

so no, it is not easy to determine anything, and the church has always been out to distinguish any beliefs but their own, this is common with man, my way or the highway.

no different than thinking baptism is the way to heaven, but yet we can see many things, in the bible, that say this isn't so.

if the gnostic were so worthless why did the church hide and destroy these documents? their faith being better would make them erelavant and with god on their side, why does man need to do any of these things? well, because he is man, so he is corrupt.

how about a women lead the church?



hum, how about portraying her as a hooker? the time she spent with jesus and the relationship of a man and woman versus man and man. woman are better listners and quite often more intellectual than man, and have a better nature than most men.
common sense more than anything, think about what you would share with a woman friend over a man friend.



she seems pretty important to me

i'm trying to keep things straight, if I didn't I'm sorry.

as for mary being a prostitute, why would we assume that to be false. If anything, it only furthered the idea of jesus being the forgiving God that he was. It didn't stop her from being the first to see of his resurrection, etc. Don't really see that being added just to discredit her.

also, better listener? how many men do you know who confide in a female (other than their wife) over their male friends? So you choose to believe Mary was a closer confidant of jesus because women are better listeners? really? So you discredit all of scripture but you believe the gospel of mary because it makes more sense to you?

the church destroyed gnostic writings because it was heresy and false teaching. I don't defend it, i think you should let people decide for themselves but assume for a minute that there actually is a line of thinking that is truth. wouldn't you want to protect those who want to follow the truth from false teachings that would lead them astray?

care to show me the many things in the bible that show baptism isn't needed?

jesus and the early christians are talked about by numerous non-religious writers of the times. Jesus' existence isn't really up for debate. It is only a matter of whether you think he was the son of god or just a man.


I guess I will ask again. Why do you discredit all of the new testament and yet believe in a book like the gospel of mary? is it really because it makes more sense to you?

PDawson21
03-28-2012, 03:09 PM
i guess i will ask again. Why do you discredit all of the new testament and yet believe in a book like the gospel of mary? Is it really because it makes more sense to you?

amen

shrewsbury
03-28-2012, 04:40 PM
Why do you discredit all of the new testament and yet believe in a book like the gospel of mary?

who says i discredited any of the bible? i may not believe in some peoples interpretation of the bible, but not everyones.

you cannot even translate the language jesus spoke into english and it make sense to us. there were no such terms as green or blue, it would be plant like or water like, so don't act like the bible we know was written while jesus was around and still exists in that form today.

ensbergcollector
03-28-2012, 05:15 PM
who says i discredited any of the bible? i may not believe in some peoples interpretation of the bible, but not everyones.

you cannot even translate the language jesus spoke into english and it make sense to us. there were no such terms as green or blue, it would be plant like or water like, so don't act like the bible we know was written while jesus was around and still exists in that form today.

you have basically said that the new testament is untrustworthy because the manner of which the books were chosen. However, you talk about mary in ways that are only referred to in the gnostic gospels.

actually the old testament was written in hebrew and the new testament was written in greek. both of which you can translate. whoever told you otherwise lied.

we have portions of new testaments writings that date back as far as around 100 ad so it isn't hard to see that what was back then is still around today.

also, the gnostic gospels are the equivalent to me writing a book and attributing it to mark twain. guess what, it is very easy to look at the known writings of mark twain and figure out that what I wrote isn't authentic. also, you haven't commented on the one question i keep asking. why have you chosen to respect the gospel of mary?

also, as I have said, the gnostic gospels all claim to be the one true source of information. that in effect makes all of them wrong. the writings of the new testament present themselves as part of a community. Even the writings of all four gospels agree that peter james and john were the three closest to jesus. the gnostics all claim that mary was the closest, or judas was, or thomas was, or etc. etc.

shrewsbury
03-28-2012, 05:40 PM
no, some gnostics may have claimed it to be the true way, but again not all. just like some christians believe the earth is only 6000 years old.

the oldest gnostic find thus far is associated with the 2nd century, and guess what? they are a lot harder to find, because they were burnt, considered blasphamy by the church, and outlawed.

the new testament, and the only thing that differs christians, is wriiten in greek, not something commonly spoken by the villagers jesus would have interacted with.

here is a nice quote for you


Recall the Aramaic phrase so well recorded by the Evangelists, and spoken by Jesus as He was dying on the Cross: Eloi Eloi lema sabactani. These Words, found in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, are interpreted for us as a Prayer of Jesus. They were in fact the beginning of Psalm 22, spoken by Jesus in Aramaic, and faithfully written down by the Evangelists in Greek. It is possible that the Evangelists wished to preserve and hand down through their writings some words certainly spoken by Jesus, words which the Early Christians (since they spoke Aramaic) faithfully remembered.


you haven't commented on the one question i keep asking. why have you chosen to respect the gospel of mary?

here is my honest answer, as a father of three daughters and a husband, i believe in the empowerment of women and that they have always played an important role in history.

as an internal martial arts practitioner i have studied many esoteric arts and mystic teachings, the book of mary seems to fit all those things nicely together for me, yet it does not oppose any of the teachings of jesus in the new testament, nor does it sway me from christianity, in fact it secures it deeper for me.

i don't want to bore you by quoting and explaining what i think it means, but something with it makes sense. the real issue is the work has been found in 3 different countries, but if you put them all together they are still far from complete.

but peter doubting mary seems to fit not only a mans perspective in those days, but peter known for his temper, it seems plausible.

it is not crazy enough that us christians believe what we believe, so to doubt other things that seem a little out there, seems to be contradictory

judas was not closer, but had a mission that no other had. he had to turn his Savior over to the romans for certain death. it would be worse than sacrificing your own family, you would be destined to be responsible for your own Gods death, so judas may have not been a coward but braver than most anyone could possibly be.

just like in judaism there is an orthodox and mystic side to it

shrewsbury
03-28-2012, 05:48 PM
i should add, i don't want you think i disrespect anything you believe, nor do i "think it's wrong".

but i do enjoy debating this with you, you seem intelligent and pretty well versed,i always appreciate when others take the time to tell me their side of things

ensbergcollector
03-28-2012, 05:53 PM
i should add, i don't want you think i disrespect anything you believe, nor do i "think it's wrong".

but i do enjoy debating this with you, you seem intelligent and pretty well versed,i always appreciate when others take the time to tell me their side of things

i enjoy debating with you too. i like being able to debate without people getting all heated. i will reply to your last post a little later. have family in town. thanks!!

Paddington
03-29-2012, 09:51 AM
I didn't read all 12 pages, but theres more to salvation than a simple prayer. Anyone can say it and do something completely different the next day. It's a good start to realize those things, but saying a simple prayer isn't cutting it.

There is nothing more to salvation. Christ did the work. He provides the salvation. That's why the bible says that it's a free gift. All we have to do is take it.

Grace means unearned favor. A gift is something that you don't earn. It's free. All you do is accept it. Words in Parentheses added by me.

Eph 2:8 For by grace (unearned favor) you are saved through faith (In Jesus), and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

It's not by OUR righteousness that we get salvation. It's by trusting in Christ Jesus's righteousness. We washes us clean.

Tit 3:5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

Paddington
03-29-2012, 10:03 AM
Jesus, who is more important than the bible (for christians) never taught you had to be part of a church to be christian.

this is the main reason the "bible" was put together, so man have could control over your religion.

this is not to say churches can't play an important role nor that they do not help out communities, but they are not needed to reach gods salvation

It is absolutely true that salvation does NOT come through church, but ONLY through faith in Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross, believers are still required as go, not for salvation, but to exhort one another.

Heb 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Paddington
03-29-2012, 10:04 AM
and where do you get the information that mary was jesus' main person and his confidant?

you do know that the "gospel of mary" as well as the "gospel of thomas" and the "gospel of judas" and a ton of others, were almost 100% proven to be written by the gnostics? As in, not by the people they claimed to be written by. do a little research on the gnostics. The same people who brought you the gospel of mary are the same people who brought you the "jesus was a hologram" idea as well as the "the spirit of God entered a normal man jesus at his baptism and left him at the garden" so that they didn't have to accept that the son of God died on the cross.

in fact, the church did not shun mary. First of all, at the time of jesus, women were not even allowed to testify in court. Their opinion meant nothing. So, for the gospels to even record that mary was the one who was the first witness to jesus' resurrection was a huge issue, and in fact is one that skeptics used to refute the resurrection story.

the language in paul's writings about women's roles, which have been used to show a sexist slant in the church, were in fact far more progressive toward women then anything to be found in the culture at the time.


That's so true. Those books were rejected from the bible because they weren't written by the actual people, nor were they written by the actual eyewitnesses like the cannonical scriptures. They were written 150 years or more after the events. The people were dead by then. One big reason why the books that were accepted were accepted is because they WERE written by the actual eyewitnesses and within their lifetimes.

Paddington
03-29-2012, 10:07 AM
Then the church is being led by men.
Thanks for proving my point.


That's not exactly true. The church is supposed to be led by God through men. Their job is to feed the people the word of God and lead them to worshipping Him. Unfortunately, in some churches, the man is not submitting to God and is actually leading God's people astray. That's why we have to line up all teachings with the Word of God, the Bible.

Paddington
03-29-2012, 10:12 AM
who says i discredited any of the bible? i may not believe in some peoples interpretation of the bible, but not everyones.

you cannot even translate the language jesus spoke into english and it make sense to us. there were no such terms as green or blue, it would be plant like or water like, so don't act like the bible we know was written while jesus was around and still exists in that form today.

Question: How to you decide which parts are true and which parts are false then? If one part is false then none of it can be trusted. I believe it's all 100% true. It was written by the actual eyewitnesses, the gnostics were NOT. Big difference.

shrewsbury
03-29-2012, 10:49 AM
Question: How to you decide which parts are true and which parts are false then? If one part is false then none of it can be trusted. I believe it's all 100% true. It was written by the actual eyewitnesses, the gnostics were NOT. Big difference.

simply by not taking it out of context, trying to look at it from the period it was written, and trying to be open minded. i never said any of it was false, but it's the peoples interpretation that make it not what i think it should be.


That's so true. Those books were rejected from the bible because they weren't written by the actual people, nor were they written by the actual eyewitnesses like the cannonical scriptures.

that's funny, there is no way to prove mark, luke or any of the gang wrote any of those works. even the original writing cannot be found and cannot be traced back before the 2nd century AD. but we do see mention of the "gnostic" works around 130 AD.

if you never read them, then how would you know what they contain or what they represent? the bible was put togetehr by a roman pagan, and conviently after the gnostics started in some serious debate with the then chrsitian scholars.


The Council interrogated Arius using Scripture, only to find that he had a new way of interpreting every verse they brought before him. Finally, they used the argument that Arius' view had to be wrong because it was new.

Paddington
03-29-2012, 03:01 PM
simply by not taking it out of context, trying to look at it from the period it was written, and trying to be open minded. i never said any of it was false, but it's the peoples interpretation that make it not what i think it should be.



that's funny, there is no way to prove mark, luke or any of the gang wrote any of those works. even the original writing cannot be found and cannot be traced back before the 2nd century AD. but we do see mention of the "gnostic" works around 130 AD.

if you never read them, then how would you know what they contain or what they represent? the bible was put togetehr by a roman pagan, and conviently after the gnostics started in some serious debate with the then chrsitian scholars.

The very last book was completed by A.D. 90

Most schalars date them as such: They were all written by the witneesses and within the lifetime of those who knew Jesus.

http://www.ucg.org/bible-faq/when-were-books-bible-written

The bible was put together by the council of nicea. And he wasn't a pegan. He converted to Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

shrewsbury
03-29-2012, 03:10 PM
When were the books of the Bible written?
Because the date of writing of many books of the Bible is either unknown or difficult to state with certainty, it's difficult to compile a list of the books of the Bible in chronological order. Below we have compiled a list of the books of the Bible in the order that they appear in standard translations and noted next to their names commonly accepted dates for when they were written.

well here is a perfect example of what i am saying. you, yourself are referring to a source to show you are right, when even the source states:


Because the date of writing of many books of the Bible is either unknown or difficult to state with certainty

you have wrote nothing or shown anything that proves what i said is not correct.

simply put, there is no evidence, only opinions.

the funny thing is i am not disagreeing with you, you are just trying to prove me wrong, and there is no way to do so.

but atleast bring a better source and an educated response

Paddington
03-30-2012, 09:28 AM
well here is a perfect example of what i am saying. you, yourself are referring to a source to show you are right, when even the source states:



you have wrote nothing or shown anything that proves what i said is not correct.

simply put, there is no evidence, only opinions.

the funny thing is i am not disagreeing with you, you are just trying to prove me wrong, and there is no way to do so.

but atleast bring a better source and an educated response

Anywhere that you go you will find the dates on that site, not the ones that you are espousing. The majority of scholars agree with the dates that are listed on that site. That statement is merely the opinion of the person who made that site. The important thing isn't the exact date of the writing of the books, but rather, the fact that the actual eyewitnesses wrote them. No matter if the exact date is known or not, the fact is that the writers were the actual eyewitnesses.


Was The New Testament Written By The eyewitnesses or After All Eyewitnesses Were Dead?



Critics claim that the New Testament was written so long after the events of Jesus� life that all the eyewitnesses had died and thus the accounts are not accurate. Can we answer this claim? Do we have any reason to believe that the New Testament was written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses? Yes we do. Let�s start with a timeline of the events we�ll be talking about.

4 to 1 BC � Jesus is born
30 to 35 AD � Jesus is crucified and resurrected
50 to 95 AD � The New Testament is written


Here are some reasons for dating the New Testament books early:

� Jesus had predicted that the Jewish temple would be destroyed. This happened in 70AD yet none of the gospels - even John which was written last - mentions it. The idea that, not one, but four different gospel writers would not mention this fulfilled prophecy is simply hard to believe. Some critics argue that the destruction of the temple is mentioned in chapters like Matthew 24 but those verses are clearly talking about the Great Tribulation because they mentioned Jesus returning and reigning forever. It�s foolish to suggest that four different writers were smart enough to fool everyone into thinking Christianity was true yet all were stupid enough to say that Jesus had returned and was reigning

� Around 95AD the early church father Clement quotes either directly or indirectly nearly every book of the Bible

� Throughout church history the authors of the gospels have never been disputed. They have always been Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This is very important because had these books been written by anonymous authors many years later we would find two things:

1) There would be several different traditional authors to each book
2) They would be named after more important people

For point #1 we point out that there is not one different author suggested anywhere in church history for any of the gospels. Not one. It�s only recent modern �scholars� that claim the authorship of the gospels is in dispute. The early church always knew who wrote them. We can prove this out. Compare the gospels to the book of Hebrews which is anonymous. While the gospels have only one author per book, Hebrews has no less then half a dozen different traditional authors!

As far as point #2 goes, note that three of the four gospel writers aren�t important people in the New Testament (John is the exception). Compare this to books that are known frauds� The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Thomas, all well-known figures. People who forge books would put famous people�s names on them to give them credibility. The gospels don�t follow this pattern.

The gospels claimed to be written either eyewitnesses (Matthew, John) or people who had access to eyewitnesses (Mark, who served as Peter�s secretary and Luke who had access to Paul and the other apostles). And it was nearly two thousand years before anyone disputed this


Now let�s see if we can find reasons to date some books earlier then 70AD:

� Paul, who wrote two-thirds of the New Testament, wrote his works between 50-55AD. These dates are not seriously disputed. So, if nothing else, we can say most of the Bible can be traced back as early as 15 to 20 years of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus

� Peter and Paul were both martyred around 66AD yet the New Testament does not mention their deaths. After Jesus they are the two most important people in Church history and yet not so much as one verse is devoted to their deaths? Even stranger is that Acts, which is the �sequel� to the gospel of Luke, ends with Paul in jail. So from this we can conclude that Paul was still alive by the end of Acts. Now if Paul died in 66AD then Acts must have been written before that. If Acts was written before 66AD then Luke must have been written even earlier then that. And since critics say that Luke was written after Mark and Matthew then they both must have been written very early. That means at least three of the four gospels were written before 66 AD and most likely all were written before 70AD

� James, who authored the book of the Bible after the same name was martyred in 62AD


So before 70AD have at least Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians , 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Philemon, James, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter all written.


Now let�s take a different approach to prove our point. The fatal mistake the critics make is they assume that there was 30 or more years of silence between the death of Jesus and the birth of Christianity. Jesus, they reason, died and long after all the eyewitnesses were gone the New Testament was written. I think we can show this wasn�t the case and that the apostles were preaching about Jesus from the beginning.

As we said before, the earliest New Testament writings come from Paul in the early 50�s. So right here we have the two-thirds of the New Testament written within 15 to 20 years of the crucifixion. What�s important is what Paul wrote. He doesn�t talk much about Jesus life the way the gospels do. His writings build on the foundation of the gospels. He assumes you�ve already heard the gospel account.

Also notice to whom he�s writing to. He writes to churches and elders and instructs them on theology, church conduct, the importance of the resurrection (even challenging people to verify the resurrection by talking to the eyewitnesses!), and corrects false teaching. So from Paul�s writings we learn:

� He writes to people who knew the gospel story and he is teaching them how to apply the gospels to their lives

� Christianity is so far advance that it�s organized to the point where there are churches in many areas far away and they have elders

� The churches were having to deal with false teachers who were coming to their churches

So within 15-20 years of the crucifixion Christianity has gained a following, spread throughout different regions, organized meeting places for believers, established a hierarchy within the church, and has been around long enough to develop problems with false teachers. You can�t do all this overnight. And you can�t do it at all if people hadn�t heard, and checked out for themselves, the claims of the gospel.
Later on, with the rise of the false teachers the need arose for the gospels to be written so future generations would know the truth about the good news of the salvation that is found in Jesus Christ.

shrewsbury
03-30-2012, 09:39 AM
The important thing isn't the exact date of the writing of the books, but rather, the fact that the actual eyewitnesses wrote them. No matter if the exact date is known or not, the fact is that the writers were the actual eyewitnesses.

I agree, but no matter how many scholars agree there are more that disagree, and there is no emperical evidence to prove when the books were written or who wrote them, or if most of them even existed.

the same can be said about the so called gnostic books, so how can you say one is wrong and one is right? well, because it is your opinion, and though i respect it, it is still just an opinion and not fact.

just because someone gives a so called new idea, does not mean it is wrong, nor even new. when it was established that these "new" ideas were wrong it was over 100+ years after jesus' death and the death of the writers.

just because the church says so, does not make it fact.

one simple idea is december 25th as jesus' birthday. there is no evidence of this date anywhere, nor even His birth. if we look at the few facts one could come up with,it would be more like 6/17/2BCE.

why then 12/25? because it fit right in to an existing pagan holiday, and the person who demanded the bible be put togetehr was a pagan.

Paddington
03-30-2012, 10:16 PM
I agree, but no matter how many scholars agree there are more that disagree, and there is no emperical evidence to prove when the books were written or who wrote them, or if most of them even existed.

There is plenty. All of the books of the bible support each other. They were written by those who were actually there. That's imperical evidence. Scientific evidence is considered empirical when it can be observed by many people and all will agree as to what they observed. That's the biblical books. And then there is Secular history which supports the biblical stories. Those were people who were around at the time. Church History does as well. How do you think that the churches got the writings? Many of the books were letters from Paul, sent to the church. He went there and preached about the letters to them. Those were people who were around at the time.

the same can be said about the so called gnostic books, so how can you say one is wrong and one is right? well, because it is your opinion, and though i respect it, it is still just an opinion and not fact.

No, the gnostics are proven not to be written by the people that they claim to be written by and not even in their lifetimes. That's why the early church rejected them.

just because someone gives a so called new idea, does not mean it is wrong, nor even new. when it was established that these "new" ideas were wrong it was over 100+ years after jesus' death and the death of the writers.

So, if someone came along 200 years after George Washington was President and claimed that he was never President, that he was a black man and that he lived in Italy, would you believe that person or the ones who were actually there, actually eyewitnesses, ect.?

just because the church says so, does not make it fact.

True, but it is a piece of evidence that fits with lots of other pieces of evidence that make up the whole. It's consistant.

one simple idea is december 25th as jesus' birthday. there is no evidence of this date anywhere, nor even His birth. if we look at the few facts one could come up with,it would be more like 6/17/2BCE.

And I don't believe that Dec. 25 is Jesus's birthday. No one knows when it is. The reason that they chose that day to celebrate His birth, is because they actually replaced a pagan holiday with it and wanted to give the new converts a replacement holiday. With that said, it's ok to celebrate it whenever we want to. No matter when He was born. Just because the pagans used that day, doesn't mean that they own it.

why then 12/25? because it fit right in to an existing pagan holiday, and the person who demanded the bible be put togetehr was a pagan.

No, it's because they knew that if they didn't give the new converts the holiday that many of them would continue to celebrate the pagan holiday.




My responses are in bold above.

shrewsbury
03-31-2012, 11:44 PM
i don't want you to think i am disagreeing with the books in the bible, but here we go


There is plenty. All of the books of the bible support each other. They were written by those who were actually there. That's imperical evidence. Scientific evidence is considered empirical when it can be observed by many people and all will agree as to what they observed. That's the biblical books. And then there is Secular history which supports the biblical stories. Those were people who were around at the time. Church History does as well. How do you think that the churches got the writings? Many of the books were letters from Paul, sent to the church. He went there and preached about the letters to them. Those were people who were around at the time.

and we also see them contradict eachother, and again there are no copies dating back to jesus, nor any archeological evidence.

the oldest fragment of the new testament came from the gospel of john and dates to 130ad

and the gnostic works are historicaly mentioned as early as 130ad


No, the gnostics are proven not to be written by the people that they claim to be written by and not even in their lifetimes. That's why the early church rejected them.

actually they have not and they were rejected because they were different than what the church deemed as the correct way to practice christianity. no need for church means no power and no money.


So, if someone came along 200 years after George Washington was President and claimed that he was never President, that he was a black man and that he lived in Italy, would you believe that person or the ones who were actually there, actually eyewitnesses, ect.?

i would say think about newton and einstien

[QUOTE]No, it's because they knew that if they didn't give the new converts the holiday that many of them would continue to celebrate the pagan holiday[QUOTE]

look at the decision of the council of nicea, and you will see constantine did not desire to convert the pagans, but make them and the christians happy

Paddington
04-01-2012, 02:01 PM
i don't want you to think i am disagreeing with the books in the bible, but here we go



and we also see them contradict eachother, and again there are no copies dating back to jesus, nor any archeological evidence.

They absolutely do not contradict each other.

the oldest fragment of the new testament came from the gospel of john and dates to 130ad

Absolutely false. It's from 90 A.D.

and the gnostic works are historicaly mentioned as early as 130ad

Those are all frauds. I don't care about them. They are works of fiction. They weren't even written by the eyewitesses. I could make up a story too.

actually they have not and they were rejected because they were different than what the church deemed as the correct way to practice christianity. no need for church means no power and no money.

No, they were rejected because they are frauds. They weren't even in existence when the early church began. They didn't rear their ugly head until around 200 A.D. or so. Yet you seem to be intreged by them. Could I write you a story about George Washington from 200 years ago and if I claim that he wasn't really President, was actually from India and was a famous violinist would you believe me or the people who were alive at the time and the people who were actually THERE?


i would say think about newton and einstien



[quote]No, it's because they knew that if they didn't give the new converts the holiday that many of them would continue to celebrate the pagan holiday[quote]




look at the decision of the council of nicea, and you will see constantine did not desire to convert the pagans, but make them and the christians happy

I am missing the point.

shrewsbury
04-01-2012, 02:57 PM
No, they were rejected because they are frauds. They weren't even in existence when the early church began. They didn't rear their ugly head until around 200 A.D. or so.[QUOTE]

actually gnostics existed before the orthodox church, and this is evident through no biblical historical writings. many gnostics did write their own works, trying to combine all the teachings into their own version, these are not related directly through jesus, but years of passed on interpretations. but the older works have been found in more complete form than the new testament, which both date between 300-400 ad.

all the research i have done, from various sources date the oldest piece of the new testament as a piece from john and dates to 130ad.

[QUOTE] Yet you seem to be intreged by them.

i am intreged with a few of the books, but not totally sold on any of them. but to dismiss them based on what the church said, the same church who burnt books, killed people, burnt people, exiled people, and grew to great political and financial power, well i will make that decision on my own.


Could I write you a story about George Washington from 200 years ago and if I claim that he wasn't really President, was actually from India and was a famous violinist would you believe me or the people who were alive at the time and the people who were actually THERE?

rewriting history and writing fiction are to different things, again i would have to mention newton and einstein, they rewrote history in many ways.

i will not argue the books of the bible, i find it an important piece of christianity. but if push comes to shove, there is no way to prove who and when certain books were written.

habsheaven
04-01-2012, 03:45 PM
And besides, it is CLEAR that MOSTof it is fiction.

Paddington
04-02-2012, 01:57 PM
[quote]No, they were rejected because they are frauds. They weren't even in existence when the early church began. They didn't rear their ugly head until around 200 A.D. or so.[quote]

actually gnostics existed before the orthodox church, and this is evident through no biblical historical writings. many gnostics did write their own works, trying to combine all the teachings into their own version, these are not related directly through jesus, but years of passed on interpretations. but the older works have been found in more complete form than the new testament, which both date between 300-400 ad.

They gnostics didn't exist before the Church. None of the eyewitnesses wrote them. They weren't written until 150 years or more after the events. Think about it. You can't trust a work that contradicts all of the eyewitness accounts and wasn't written until hundreds of years later. Unless you think that I know more about the events surrounding the Founders of the U.S. than the people who were actually there. Why wouldn't you just trust the eyewitnesses? They were the ones who were there.

all the research i have done, from various sources date the oldest piece of the new testament as a piece from john and dates to 130ad.

Nope. Do more research. It's 90 A.D.

i am intreged with a few of the books, but not totally sold on any of them. but to dismiss them based on what the church said, the same church who burnt books, killed people, burnt people, exiled people, and grew to great political and financial power, well i will make that decision on my own.

You are going into another discussion. Those works were done by the Catholic church, not the church. I am very much against the Catholic church and it's history. What you don't read about is the underground church that was persecuted by the Catholics. They were many of the ones who were burnt, killed, ect. Read Fox's Book of Martyres and The Trail of Blood. They chronicle those events. There is a big difference between a church and the bible. Not all churches follow the bible. We all know what the bible says about murder, yet this church were disobeying the bible in these acts.

rewriting history and writing fiction are to different things, again i would have to mention newton and einstein, they rewrote history in many ways

Newton was a great Christian man.

i will not argue the books of the bible, i find it an important piece of christianity. but if push comes to shove, there is no way to prove who and when certain books were written.

I have a video that I would like for you to watch about how the biblical canon was compiled. Please watch it. It's like 20 minutes.




Where did the New Testiment Come From? Please Watch:

http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=D76LD7NX

shrewsbury
04-02-2012, 04:01 PM
i watched, well listened to the video.

and if you look outside the religious sect for answers you will see a non faith based approach. the gnostics (not the books but the people)did exist before the church, this is historically proven.

and many debate whether thomas predates luke, mark, mathew and john. if you base your decision on writing analasys then it would seem thomas was the first and the others elaborated on it to write luke, mark, mathew and john.

here is the issue we are having, i do believe the gospels to be written by who they say they are, but there is no way to prove this with archeology or other historical writers, but i still believe.

but the gospels of thomas, mary, peter and judas, also have just as a strong history and archeological evidence to say they maybe did come from their said sources.

i cannot tell you they did, but i will not base my decision of the bias of the church, or the blind eyes and deaf ears of christians who refuse to study and research on their own.

i am certain in time, jesus will let me know where to look and what to look for, not the church. i think he wants me to have an open heart and mind and find my own way to Him.

pspstatus
04-02-2012, 06:35 PM
Even if you do believe that the whole Bible is real, how do you explain some of the seriously messed up things that take place in it?

shrewsbury
04-02-2012, 11:58 PM
Even if you do believe that the whole Bible is real, how do you explain some of the seriously messed up things that take place in it?

i guess it would depend on what messed up thing your talking about.
if you are referring to strictly to the "old testament", i will have to say, as a christian it more tells the story of how the religion began and its past, but it has little to do with jesus and his teachings.

pspstatus
04-03-2012, 12:28 AM
i guess it would depend on what messed up thing your talking about.
if you are referring to strictly to the "old testament", i will have to say, as a christian it more tells the story of how the religion began and its past, but it has little to do with jesus and his teachings.


I posted a bunch of questions a few pages back regarding these things. Nobody answered. :(:

Paddington
04-03-2012, 10:58 PM
i watched, well listened to the video.

and if you look outside the religious sect for answers you will see a non faith based approach. the gnostics (not the books but the people)did exist before the church, this is historically proven.

and many debate whether thomas predates luke, mark, mathew and john. if you base your decision on writing analasys then it would seem thomas was the first and the others elaborated on it to write luke, mark, mathew and john.

here is the issue we are having, i do believe the gospels to be written by who they say they are, but there is no way to prove this with archeology or other historical writers, but i still believe.

but the gospels of thomas, mary, peter and judas, also have just as a strong history and archeological evidence to say they maybe did come from their said sources.

i cannot tell you they did, but i will not base my decision of the bias of the church, or the blind eyes and deaf ears of christians who refuse to study and research on their own.

i am certain in time, jesus will let me know where to look and what to look for, not the church. i think he wants me to have an open heart and mind and find my own way to Him.





Then take it from a secular source, Wikipedia. The Gnostics were not written until 150-200 A.D. and later. In other words, they were NOT written by the actual eyewitnesses who were actually there, like the Bible was. Big difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels





Here is an excerpt from it. They all came much later than the biblical canon and not written by the eyewitnesses according to secular wikipedia:
The Gospel of Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas) is held by most to be the earliest of the "gnostic" gospels composed. Scholars generally date the text to the early-mid 2nd century.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels#cite_note-8) The Gospel of Thomas, it is often claimed, has some gnostic elements but lacks the full gnostic cosmology. However, even the description of these elements as "gnostic" is based mainly upon the presupposition that the text as a whole is a "gnostic" gospel, and this idea itself is based upon little other than the fact that it was found along with gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels#cite_note-9) Some scholars including Nicholas Perrin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Perrin) argue that Thomas is dependent on the Diatessaron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatessaron), which was composed shortly after 172 by Tatian in Syria.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels#cite_note-10) A minority view contends for an early date of perhaps 50, citing a relationship to the hypothetical Q document (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document) among other reasons.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels#cite_note-11)
The Gospel of the Lord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Lord), a gnostic but otherwise non-canonical text, can be dated approximately during the time of Marcion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion) in the early 2nd century. The traditional view holds Marcion did not compose the gospel directly but, "expunged [from the Gospel of Luke] all the things that oppose his view... but retained those things that accord with his opinion" [13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels#cite_note-12) The traditional view and dating has continued to be affirmed by the mainstream of biblical scholars,[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels#cite_note-13)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels#cite_note-14) however, G. R. S. Mead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._R._S._Mead) [16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels#cite_note-15)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels#cite_note-16) have argued that Marcion's gospel predates the canonical Luke and was in use in Pauline churches.
The Gospel of Truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Truth)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels#cite_note-17) and the teachings of the Pistis Sophia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistis_Sophia) can be approximately dated to the early 2nd century as they were part of the original Valentinian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinus_(Gnostic)) school, though the gospel itself is 3rd century.
Documents with a Sethian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sethian) influence (like the Gospel of Judas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas), or outright Sethian like Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Gospel_of_the_Egyptians) can be dated substantially later than 40 and substantially earlier than 250; most scholars giving them a 2nd century date.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels#cite_note-18) More conservative scholars using the traditional dating method would argue in these cases for the early 3rd century.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
Some gnostic gospels (for example Trimorphic Protennoia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimorphic_Protennoia)) make use of fully developed Neoplatonism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism) and thus need to be dated after Plotinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus) in the 3rd century.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels#cite_note-19)[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels#cite_note-20)

Paddington
04-06-2012, 03:36 PM
Even if you do believe that the whole Bible is real, how do you explain some of the seriously messed up things that take place in it?

It's because of sin. It's not God's fault that men to what they do.

theonedru
04-06-2012, 03:52 PM
It's because of sin. It's not God's fault that men to what they do.

God is the creator all ALL things

War
Disease
Greed
Sexual Infidelities
Pain Suffering
Sin
Torture

The list is long but you get my point

He created these so how is he not responsible for them? Unless God really doesn't care and we are more playthings to amuse him in his eyes than anything else....

shrewsbury
04-06-2012, 05:24 PM
dude, from wikipedia?

theonedru;

god created humans, we created everything on that list

the catch 22 is he created us with free will, so we can do what we want, whetehr right or wrong, he did not creates robots to worship him

it is like a parent whose child grows up and makes their own choices, you gave them the tools they need, but how they use them is not up to you. you will be proud, sad, angered, and even frightened by their choices, but it is their choice

when we view god as this outside source, we can easily remove ourself from him and also blame him for the good and bad

when you look inward for him, you no longer can blame anyone but yourself, we may wish for intervention but we are the only reason he hasn't intervened

this is just my point of view, no problem with a different one, just wanted to share my thoughts

Paddington
04-06-2012, 11:41 PM
God is the creator all ALL things

War
Disease
Greed
Sexual Infidelities
Pain Suffering
Sin
Torture

The list is long but you get my point

He created these so how is he not responsible for them? Unless God really doesn't care and we are more playthings to amuse him in his eyes than anything else....

God didn't create sin. Man chose to sin. The pain and suffering that this world currently experiences is because of sin. A sin is when someone does something that is against what God wants them to do.

habsheaven
04-06-2012, 11:49 PM
Kind of ironic. God created man and man created God. Where does that leave us?

shrewsbury
04-07-2012, 12:41 AM
a duality?

pspstatus
04-07-2012, 06:24 PM
It's because of sin. It's not God's fault that men to what they do.


Some of the things I'm talking about were done by or sanctioned by God.

pspstatus
04-07-2012, 06:26 PM
God didn't create sin. Man chose to sin. The pain and suffering that this world currently experiences is because of sin. A sin is when someone does something that is against what God wants them to do.


Yeah that seems fair. We should all suffer for letting gay people get married.

shrewsbury
04-07-2012, 08:23 PM
who said gay people getting married is a sin?


The pain and suffering that this world currently experiences is because of sin.

i, myself, word word this differently.

the pain and suffering the world has always experienced is by humans own ignorant choices and their inability to control themselves and their desire to control others.

if you want to speculate on the god before jesus, then don't look at the practices of christianity, we got a second chance and a new way to have a relationship with our god

then you must be able to put yourself into the context of life and people of those days
where people will kill you, rape you, take your stuff, and do this to everyone you know. they will do this for any reason or any means needed with no mercy or quarter. sometimes the only way to control a fire is to use fire

Paddington
04-08-2012, 06:06 PM
I posted a bunch of questions a few pages back regarding these things. Nobody answered. :(:

I apologize. I looked and couldn't find them. Please repost.

Paddington
04-08-2012, 06:14 PM
Yeah that seems fair. We should all suffer for letting gay people get married.

This has nothing to do with gay people. It has to do with Adam sinning. I explained that earlier. Because Adam is the head of the human race, when He sinned, it brought pain on the entire world. Yes it is wrong for gay people to be gay, but God doesn't hate them. He desires that they turn away from their sins like everyone else. Just like he desires for those who commit adultery to repent and turn to Him.

pspstatus
04-08-2012, 06:51 PM
I apologize. I looked and couldn't find them. Please repost.


1. Why is slavery not deemed to be completely unacceptable? Why is it even at times divinely sanctioned?

2. Why are women not treated equally to men? Why are men allowed to "take" wives? Why are women considered unclean during menstruation, which I imagine is a natural process created by God? Why is the kidnapping and rape of women at times divinely sanctioned? How does it make sense to consider a baby impure because it came from a woman?

3. Why is the Bible so violent? Is it directly related to a desire to control? Is that why God insists on being feared?

4. Why does God say to honor your mother and father, then ask you to forsake them and anyone else for him?

5. Why does God need to be constantly worshipped and glorified? Why does he demand such intense devotion? Why would he let Satan destroy Job's life just to prove how devoted he was to him? Why did he feel it was so important to prove Satan wrong? Why was God so easily tempted?

6. If the only way to reach God is through Jesus what happened to the souls of people born before Jesus?

7. Why are some of the stories and persons from the Bible so similar to the stories and persons from other ancient civilizations?

8. Why does God seem so concerned with human sexuality? If I believe that homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle through the experience of having a gay friend and knowing him since he was very young how can I reconcile that with what the Bible says?

9. Why do so many of the views and messages conveyed in the Bible seem to directly reflect widely held human views of the time it was written? That is to say why do views on things such as slavery, women, sexuality seem as though they are period specific and not timeless?

10. Is it possible that the Bible is a collection of some factual evidence, stories, and beliefs of its writers produced as a tool to gain control of the masses? Why are there so many versions of the Bible? Why were people or institutions such as the Church of England able to produce new translations that seemed to fit beliefs more akin to their religious structure?

11. If I disagree with one of God's views on something because of what I truly believe in my heart what does that mean?

pspstatus
04-08-2012, 06:59 PM
This has nothing to do with gay people. It has to do with Adam sinning. I explained that earlier. Because Adam is the head of the human race, when He sinned, it brought pain on the entire world. Yes it is wrong for gay people to be gay, but God doesn't hate them. He desires that they turn away from their sins like everyone else. Just like he desires for those who commit adultery to repent and turn to Him.

No God doesn't hate gay people, but if they do what comes naturally to them they're going to end up burning in hell for eternity correct? And why does one mans sin affect everyone else? God takes his anger at one person out on everybody?

whereisreggienobl
04-08-2012, 10:59 PM
why would anybody even want to go to Heaven?

My vision of Heaven is an incredibly boring and bland place, where everything is blindingly white. Like a country club, almost. Must wear a collared shirt, no swearing, no spitting on the greens. And the people who actually think they are going to Heaven are the people I would least like to spend eternity with. Maybe it's just personal experience, but the people I know who are "God Fearing" have the most condescending, I'm better than you attitude. Not all, but most.

Id rather be in Hell, where all my friends and my dad are certain to be, where there is gambling and loose women and recreational drugs, where there is a massive bonfire and all the great dead musicians have a concert every night, where there is no curfew and I can sleep til noon, etc...

Wickabee
04-08-2012, 11:03 PM
why would anybody even want to go to Heaven?

My vision of Heaven is an incredibly boring and bland place, where everything is blindingly white. Like a country club, almost. Must wear a collared shirt, no swearing, no spitting on the greens. And the people who actually think they are going to Heaven are the people I would least like to spend eternity with. Maybe it's just personal experience, but the people I know who are "God Fearing" have the most condescending, I'm better than you attitude. Not all, but most.

Id rather be in Hell, where all my friends and my dad are certain to be, where there is gambling and loose women and recreational drugs, where there is a massive bonfire and all the great dead musicians have a concert every night, where there is no curfew and I can sleep til noon, etc...
The most popular version of heaven is most certainly not heaven.

shrewsbury
04-08-2012, 11:18 PM
Id rather be in Hell, where all my friends and my dad are certain to be, where there is gambling and loose women and recreational drugs, where there is a massive bonfire and all the great dead musicians have a concert every night, where there is no curfew and I can sleep til noon, etc...

if that was hell, then everyone would want to go there.

too bad it is more like an eternity of suffering and torment, that never stops, you never get use to, and is always present.

and you won't be seeing anyone there, just yourself suffering the worst death, over and over

don't sound so cool to me

whereisreggienobl
04-08-2012, 11:27 PM
if that was hell, then everyone would want to go there.

too bad it is more like an eternity of suffering and torment, that never stops, you never get use to, and is always present.

and you won't be seeing anyone there, just yourself suffering the worst death, over and over

don't sound so cool to me

awesome, have you visited?

shrewsbury
04-08-2012, 11:35 PM
not yet, and hopefully i won't, but i won't count on it

and if you don't believe or believe something else, no big deal to me, i am not here to sell you something, just giving my opinion based on what i believe

but if i visit soon i will try to email you a few pics from my smart phone

whereisreggienobl
04-08-2012, 11:37 PM
not yet, and hopefully i won't, but i won't count on it

and if you don't believe or believe something else, no big deal to me, i am not here to sell you something, just giving my opinion based on what i believe

but if i visit soon i will try to email you a few pics from my smart phone

I just told you what I believed, and you rained on my parade, telling me Hell is nothing like that. If we both believe something to be true, but neither of us has any proof, what makes you think your version is more accurate than mine?

shrewsbury
04-08-2012, 11:45 PM
it is more accurate for me, don't want to rain on your parade.

how about your hell will be like you think and mine will be like what i think, in that case i would say yours sounds a whole lot better

theonedru
04-08-2012, 11:45 PM
use science to prove your theories, if science cannot make it probable then it most likely cannot or does not exist in any level of existence. For the record I can use science to prove the probability of an after life or more generally that life can exist after the body dies.

shrewsbury
04-08-2012, 11:49 PM
science is changing all the time and even the scientists argue among themselves

don't get me wrong, i love science, but it is certainly not the end all to a debate on faith, religion, or the afterlife

whereisreggienobl
04-08-2012, 11:56 PM
how about your hell will be like you think and mine will be like what i think, in that case i would say yours sounds a whole lot better

awesome, yeah my hell definitely sounds a whole lot better. I bet my hell sounds a lot like most peoples heaven.

habsheaven
04-09-2012, 12:19 PM
use science to prove your theories, if science cannot make it probable then it most likely cannot or does not exist in any level of existence. For the record I can use science to prove the probability of an after life or more generally that life can exist after the body dies.

You can? Please enlighten us.

Paddington
04-09-2012, 12:48 PM
1. Why is slavery not deemed to be completely unacceptable? Why is it even at times divinely sanctioned?

Remember that slavery was VOLUNTARY back then usually to pay off a debt. It was limited to 7 years I believe, however, the slave could choose to be a slave for life if he wished. Anyone caught stealing other men or placing them in slavery were to be put to death. It wasn't like forced slavery that you are thinking of. It was very different.

Ex 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

2. Why are women not treated equally to men? Why are men allowed to "take" wives? Why are women considered unclean during menstruation, which I imagine is a natural process created by God? Why is the kidnapping and rape of women at times divinely sanctioned? How does it make sense to consider a baby impure because it came from a woman?

God didn't allow those things, men just did them. God hadn't dealt with it yet. Sometimes He waits to deal with things to prove a point later. Women are considered unclean during menstration because of the blood. Blood spreads disease as you should know. They coudn't have known that back then without God. Regarding kidnapping women If you are referring to conquering of nations, the reason for them making the women their wives is so that they would be taken care of instead of left to die. I don't follow you on when a baby is called impure. I would need a verse.


3. Why is the Bible so violent? Is it directly related to a desire to control? Is that why God insists on being feared?

The Bible is merely re-telling history of what actually happened. A better question would be "why were the people so violent back then"? The answer would probably be that they weren't as civilized back then as we are. God isn't controlling, the devil is. God leads gently, the devil tries to force his way in while accusing God and His people of doing exactly what he himself is doing. God wants us to fear Him, not in an AFRAID type of way, but it's more of a RESPECT of His authority and who He is as KING of the Universe.




4. Why does God say to honor your mother and father, then ask you to forsake them and anyone else for him?

What God wants is for us to place Him above everything else. If we place God above all else, including our parents, family, ect. Everything else will fall into place. You WILL honor your Father and Mother, ect.



5. Why does God need to be constantly worshipped and glorified?

Because that's why He created us. Because He is King. With that said, He is worthy of this worship.


Why does he demand such intense devotion?

Because He cannot lead His Kingdom with people who aren't faithful to Him. As long as sin is in the world, there will be pain and suffering and chaos.

Why would he let Satan destroy Job's life just to prove how devoted he was to him?

Because God doesn't just look on this life as we do. He sees all the way into eternity. He knew that Job would exist for all of eternity and was actually demonstrating what a great man Job was to Satan. Remember that God and Satan are in a war for the souls of men and the devil would love to steal God's glory. My question is that are you asking questions about the devil? Why does the devil want to trick people into going to hell forever? Why does the devil try to steal God's glory, Kingdom and worship? Why does the devil try to control everyone while accusing of God of doing it, when God doesn't do it?


Why did he feel it was so important to prove Satan wrong? Why was God so easily tempted?

Because He is in a war with satan for the souls of men. God wants to give you eternal life in heaven and make YOU personally ROYALTY with Him. It's a HUGE deal. Satan wants you to worship him and be destroyed with him in hell forever. satan knows his fate. when the unsaved die, the demons are the ones pushing them into hell. Did you know that? They LOVE it when people go to hell.


6. If the only way to reach God is through Jesus what happened to the souls of people born before Jesus?

They were under the law. They sacrificed animals to cover their sins. It was a symbol of Christ's blood that would be shed to not merely cover our sins, but cleans them forever. Yes, they could be saved. They went to paradise at that time, which was located in the center of the earth. They could actually see hell from where they were. It is believed that when Jesus rose from the dead, that paradise it's self went up into heaven. I believe that there are different cities in heaven. Paradise is now located there. The New Jerusalem is another city, which is where Chritians go when they die at this time.

7. Why are some of the stories and persons from the Bible so similar to the stories and persons from other ancient civilizations?

They aren't. There is a hoax out there that the story of Jesus was copied from earlier stories. If you look at the actual writings, it's a lie. They have nothing to do with the biblical story. Horus is one example of a huge hoax. Don't buy into it. There ARE stories written AFTER the bible that parallel the biblical ones. Those were merely copied from the bible and twisted up. Look at the actual writings yourself, not what some liar says in a book.


8. Why does God seem so concerned with human sexuality? If I believe that homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle through the experience of having a gay friend and knowing him since he was very young how can I reconcile that with what the Bible says?

God has a plan and purpose for everything. He created man for woman, not man for man or woman for woman. The purpose of sex is pro-creation, you cannot have pro-creation with homosexual sex. It's just self centered and pleasure centered. With that said, God does LOVE gay people and desire them to repent and be saved. Look, it's also a sin to commit adultry. I am tempted to look at women and have sex with those who are not my wife, but I don't because I know that that would be a sin. Just because someone is tempted with a certain type of sin, doesn't mean that it's no longer a sin.

9. Why do so many of the views and messages conveyed in the Bible seem to directly reflect widely held human views of the time it was written? That is to say why do views on things such as slavery, women, sexuality seem as though they are period specific and not timeless?

There are times when God deals differently with man to prove a point and set groundwork for His ultimate message. I believe that the ultimate message is that Man cannot rule himself, he fails time and time again and that we need God to rule over us. There are what's called different dispensations or ways that God deals with men. The first was concience, then the law was one...there were like 7, but I don't remember them all right now. We are currently under Grace, which means unearned favor.


10. Is it possible that the Bible is a collection of some factual evidence, stories, and beliefs of its writers produced as a tool to gain control of the masses?

Absolutely not. There is no way that the stories could all fit together as if written by one man the way that they do. There were 40 writers, living in different parts of the world over a 1500 year period, many of whom didn't know each other or have access to the others writings, they were from different walks of life. Some were rich, some poor, some educated and some not. It's truly God's word.


Why are there so many versions of the Bible?

There is actually only one version of the bible. The bible has many different Translations from the original language into English. Not all of them are equal. Some of them were translated specifically for the purpose of twisting it up to form a doctrine that isn't really in the original writings. Jehovah's Witnesses are a classic example of this. They have their own twisted translation of the bible, which was translated specifically to manipulate and change the meaning of the scriptures. You have to be careful which version you choose. The KJV is the most widely accepted, accurate translation of the bible by most all denominations. That's why it's so popular.

Why were people or institutions such as the Church of England able to produce new translations that seemed to fit beliefs more akin to their religious structure?

I just addressed that above. I told you that some do that. You have to be careful.


11. If I disagree with one of God's views on something because of what I truly believe in my heart what does that mean?

That means that you are not fully trusting in the Lord's judgement. If He is able to create all things that exist from nothing, create all men from nothing and hold all things together, see everything past, present and future, don't you think that He knows best? He's not trying to be mean or controlling.



My reponses are in bold above. I hope that I have answered them well for you. If you have anymore questions please let me know.

shrewsbury
04-09-2012, 04:00 PM
i am not sure even where to start with those answers, nor if i have time to.

i will start by saying you seem to think everything that is written and not in the bible is a lie.

the sumerians have similiar stories, such as noah, and they have some of the earliest writings in recorded history and yes it predates any biblical finds. these are not faked

and most of what you are pointing out is based on speculation, you can't even prove mark, john, luke, or mathew existed outside of the bible, i am sure you will argue this, but you cannot show any proof, because there is none.

again, faith is great, but it can also put someone on the edge

and i need to also state, God has a plan? really? why would He need to plan anything, He already knows the outcome?!!!

centrehice
04-09-2012, 06:30 PM
Posters and their imaginary friend.

habsheaven
04-09-2012, 07:51 PM
Nothing better than a child with an active imagination.

Paddington
04-10-2012, 01:44 PM
i am not sure even where to start with those answers, nor if i have time to.

i will start by saying you seem to think everything that is written and not in the bible is a lie.

The Bible is God's word. God cannot lie.

the sumerians have similiar stories, such as noah, and they have some of the earliest writings in recorded history and yes it predates any biblical finds. these are not faked

Actually, there are stories of the flood in different cultures around the world. It actually affirms the story as true, so I'm not sure what your point is here.

and most of what you are pointing out is based on speculation, you can't even prove mark, john, luke, or mathew existed outside of the bible, i am sure you will argue this, but you cannot show any proof, because there is none.

Yes, you can go by secular history, church history and other writings, so you can affirm these writings as true, just as you can affirm the History of George Washington as true.

again, faith is great, but it can also put someone on the edge

You say I have faith, but so do you. My arguments are backed up by the facts.

and i need to also state, God has a plan? really? why would He need to plan anything, He already knows the outcome?!!!

For His purposes and for us.



My responses are in bold.

habsheaven
04-10-2012, 01:49 PM
My responses are in bold.


Your arguments are backed up by facts??? You cannot be serious.

shrewsbury
04-10-2012, 02:20 PM
Your arguments are backed up by facts??? You cannot be serious.

thanks, at least someone understands what i am saying

paddington,

i never said anything in the bible is a lie, i said you think everything NOT in the bible is a lie

and you still want to say, you can prove these peple existed and the time the books were written, but you can't and you provide nothing to say you can

where are the facts?? not scripture, but facts outside of the bible?

theonedru
04-10-2012, 02:24 PM
My responses are in bold.

*The Bible is God's word. God cannot lie.*

The bible is Mans INTERPRETATION of Gods words. God can lie, he invented the whole concept of lying, sure man has free will but remember if you truly believe in the bible does it not state that God created ALL things...

mrveggieman
04-10-2012, 02:24 PM
thanks, at least someone understands what i am saying

paddington,

i never said anything in the bible is a lie, i said you think everything NOT in the bible is a lie

and you still want to say, you can prove these peple existed and the time the books were written, but you can't and you provide nothing to say you can

where are the facts?? not scripture, but facts outside of the bible?

I often ask those same questions and get blasted by some of the of more conservative christians on here whever I do. :confused0024:

shrewsbury
04-10-2012, 02:52 PM
i am christian but i guess i am not conservative

pspstatus
04-10-2012, 07:45 PM
My responses to your responses are in blue. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions.

Remember that slavery was VOLUNTARY back then usually to pay off a debt. It was limited to 7 years I believe, however, the slave could choose to be a slave for life if he wished. Anyone caught stealing other men or placing them in slavery were to be put to death. It wasn't like forced slavery that you are thinking of. It was very different.

Ex 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.



Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."



Deuteronomy 15:12-18 "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."



Exodus 21:7 "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."



Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."



Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."



Selling someone does not sound like voluntary slavery to me.


God didn't allow those things, men just did them. God hadn't dealt with it yet. Sometimes He waits to deal with things to prove a point later. Women are considered unclean during menstration because of the blood. Blood spreads disease as you should know. They coudn't have known that back then without God. Regarding kidnapping women If you are referring to conquering of nations, the reason for them making the women their wives is so that they would be taken care of instead of left to die. I don't follow you on when a baby is called impure. I would need a verse.


Deuteronomy 21:10-14 "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."



Deuteronomy 20:14 "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"

It doesn't sound to me like their soul concern for these women was their well being.

The Bible is merely re-telling history of what actually happened. A better question would be "why were the people so violent back then"? The answer would probably be that they weren't as civilized back then as we are. God isn't controlling, the devil is. God leads gently, the devil tries to force his way in while accusing God and His people of doing exactly what he himself is doing. God wants us to fear Him, not in an AFRAID type of way, but it's more of a RESPECT of His authority and who He is as KING of the Universe.

Fear does not equal true respect. It is forced respect.
Many of the wars described in biblical times were sanctioned by God. Therefore it seems that God was more than willing to let violence get his message acrossed.


4. Why does God say to honor your mother and father, then ask you to forsake them and anyone else for him?

What God wants is for us to place Him above everything else. If we place God above all else, including our parents, family, ect. Everything else will fall into place. You WILL honor your Father and Mother, ect.


That doesn't make sense to me. My parents have been the most important people in my life. I think it means basically that if your family doesn't believe in God the way God thinks they should that you turn from them. I will forsake them for noone.





5. Why does God need to be constantly worshipped and glorified?

Because that's why He created us. Because He is King. With that said, He is worthy of this worship.

He created us to worship him? Whether he is worthy of that worship or not it baffles me that God would really need to create humans to worship his greatness.

Why does he demand such intense devotion?

Because He cannot lead His Kingdom with people who aren't faithful to Him. As long as sin is in the world, there will be pain and suffering and chaos.

So did he create us to help him lead his kingdom or for us to worship and glorify him?

Why would he let Satan destroy Job's life just to prove how devoted he was to him?

Because God doesn't just look on this life as we do. He sees all the way into eternity. He knew that Job would exist for all of eternity and was actually demonstrating what a great man Job was to Satan. Remember that God and Satan are in a war for the souls of men and the devil would love to steal God's glory. My question is that are you asking questions about the devil? Why does the devil want to trick people into going to hell forever? Why does the devil try to steal God's glory, Kingdom and worship? Why does the devil try to control everyone while accusing of God of doing it, when God doesn't do it?


That's exactly what I'm saying. Satan challenged God and instead of telling satan to kiss his butt he let him destroy Job's life to prove satan wrong.




Why did he feel it was so important to prove Satan wrong? Why was God so easily tempted?

Because He is in a war with satan for the souls of men. God wants to give you eternal life in heaven and make YOU personally ROYALTY with Him. It's a HUGE deal. Satan wants you to worship him and be destroyed with him in hell forever. satan knows his fate. when the unsaved die, the demons are the ones pushing them into hell. Did you know that? They LOVE it when people go to hell.

How does satan have so much power if he's supposed to be sitting in a huge chunk of ice?

6. If the only way to reach God is through Jesus what happened to the souls of people born before Jesus?

They were under the law. They sacrificed animals to cover their sins. It was a symbol of Christ's blood that would be shed to not merely cover our sins, but cleans them forever. Yes, they could be saved. They went to paradise at that time, which was located in the center of the earth. They could actually see hell from where they were. It is believed that when Jesus rose from the dead, that paradise it's self went up into heaven. I believe that there are different cities in heaven. Paradise is now located there. The New Jerusalem is another city, which is where Chritians go when they die at this time.

I have no response to this.

7. Why are some of the stories and persons from the Bible so similar to the stories and persons from other ancient civilizations?

They aren't. There is a hoax out there that the story of Jesus was copied from earlier stories. If you look at the actual writings, it's a lie. They have nothing to do with the biblical story. Horus is one example of a huge hoax. Don't buy into it. There ARE stories written AFTER the bible that parallel the biblical ones. Those were merely copied from the bible and twisted up. Look at the actual writings yourself, not what some liar says in a book.

Where is your proof of this? Your proof can come from a book but mine can't?

8. Why does God seem so concerned with human sexuality? If I believe that homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle through the experience of having a gay friend and knowing him since he was very young how can I reconcile that with what the Bible says?

God has a plan and purpose for everything. He created man for woman, not man for man or woman for woman. The purpose of sex is pro-creation, you cannot have pro-creation with homosexual sex. It's just self centered and pleasure centered. With that said, God does LOVE gay people and desire them to repent and be saved. Look, it's also a sin to commit adultry. I am tempted to look at women and have sex with those who are not my wife, but I don't because I know that that would be a sin. Just because someone is tempted with a certain type of sin, doesn't mean that it's no longer a sin.

If science ever proved that homosexuality isn't a choice would that ever change your opinion on this?

9. Why do so many of the views and messages conveyed in the Bible seem to directly reflect widely held human views of the time it was written? That is to say why do views on things such as slavery, women, sexuality seem as though they are period specific and not timeless?

There are times when God deals differently with man to prove a point and set groundwork for His ultimate message. I believe that the ultimate message is that Man cannot rule himself, he fails time and time again and that we need God to rule over us. There are what's called different dispensations or ways that God deals with men. The first was concience, then the law was one...there were like 7, but I don't remember them all right now. We are currently under Grace, which means unearned favor.

All I can say is that that seems pretty convenient.


10. Is it possible that the Bible is a collection of some factual evidence, stories, and beliefs of its writers produced as a tool to gain control of the masses?

Absolutely not. There is no way that the stories could all fit together as if written by one man the way that they do. There were 40 writers, living in different parts of the world over a 1500 year period, many of whom didn't know each other or have access to the others writings, they were from different walks of life. Some were rich, some poor, some educated and some not. It's truly God's word.

As far as I can tell from the research I have done is that these stories do not all fit together. Furthermore I believe I have seen so many contradictions from different books that it's very hard for me to believe this all came from one source.
Why are there so many versions of the Bible?

There is actually only one version of the bible. The bible has many different Translations from the original language into English. Not all of them are equal. Some of them were translated specifically for the purpose of twisting it up to form a doctrine that isn't really in the original writings. Jehovah's Witnesses are a classic example of this. They have their own twisted translation of the bible, which was translated specifically to manipulate and change the meaning of the scriptures. You have to be careful which version you choose. The KJV is the most widely accepted, accurate translation of the bible by most all denominations. That's why it's so popular.

Why were people or institutions such as the Church of England able to produce new translations that seemed to fit beliefs more akin to their religious structure?

I just addressed that above. I told you that some do that. You have to be careful.

So is the KJV right or wrong?

11. If I disagree with one of God's views on something because of what I truly believe in my heart what does that mean?

That means that you are not fully trusting in the Lord's judgement. If He is able to create all things that exist from nothing, create all men from nothing and hold all things together, see everything past, present and future, don't you think that He knows best? He's not trying to be mean or controlling.

I will fully admit that I am not fully trusting in the lord. My best friends brother happens to be gay. I knew he was gay when he was about 7 years old. I believe it was not a lifestyle choice but a natural instinct for him. I do not believe he is a sinner and I love him like a brother. If God believes that because this man is gay that he belongs in hell then no i do not think God necessarily knows best.

Paddington
04-11-2012, 12:52 PM
[quote=pspstatus;11359583]

That doesn't make sense to me. My parents have been the most important people in my life. I think it means basically that if your family doesn't believe in God the way God thinks they should that you turn from them. I will forsake them for noone.

The point is that we are to place God above all else, including our family. God does command you to be good to your parents. By placing God first, you WILL be the best son you can be to them. God isn't asking you to forsake them.

So did he create us to help him lead his kingdom or for us to worship and glorify him?

Yes! You have no idea the blessings that are in store for His people.

1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.



That's exactly what I'm saying. Satan challenged God and instead of telling satan to kiss his butt he let him destroy Job's life to prove satan wrong.

Because through Job's suffering, He glorified God in heaven among the angels and proved satan a liar among the demons. How demoralizing for the enemy. Job was blessed greatly for his faithfulness.



How does satan have so much power if he's supposed to be sitting in a huge chunk of ice?

I don't know why you think satan is sitting on a huge chunk of ice. he currently rules in this world because Adam gave him the power. God hasn't taken it from satan yet because God is using satan to see who will choose to serve God and who will choose to serve satan. FREEWILL.



Where is your proof of this? Your proof can come from a book but mine can't?

Frankly, the burden of proof is on the accuser. If you look at the actual writings and not what some liar said that wrote a book, you will find that it's not in the actual writings. It's a huge hoax.


If science ever proved that homosexuality isn't a choice would that ever change your opinion on this?

I would equate it to this. Is is ok for me to cheat on my wife or have sex before I'm married? No. But I desire those things. So what, it's still a sin. Just because you are tempted to do something or struggle with it, doesn't make it not a sin. God does NOT hate gay people.


As far as I can tell from the research I have done is that these stories do not all fit together. Furthermore I believe I have seen so many contradictions from different books that it's very hard for me to believe this all came from one source.

It DOES all fit together and it wasn't written by one man, it was written by 40 men over a 1500 year period in different parts of the world and many of them didn't have access to the others writings. God inspired them. God controlled what was written. There is no way that it isn't God's word.




So is the KJV right or wrong?


I believe that it is right, yet not perfect. Sometimes you need to look at the meaning of the original greek/hebrew words to get the most accurate translation of the word.


I will fully admit that I am not fully trusting in the lord. My best friends brother happens to be gay. I knew he was gay when he was about 7 years old. I believe it was not a lifestyle choice but a natural instinct for him. I do not believe he is a sinner and I love him like a brother. If God believes that because this man is gay that he belongs in hell then no i do not think God necessarily knows best.

No one is going to hell because they are gay or a sinner. They go to hell because they reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. If He will repent and turn his life over to Jesus Christ, he will be saved like anyone else.

Paddington
04-11-2012, 12:54 PM
*The Bible is God's word. God cannot lie.*

The bible is Mans INTERPRETATION of Gods words. God can lie, he invented the whole concept of lying, sure man has free will but remember if you truly believe in the bible does it not state that God created ALL things...

False. The bible is NOT man's interpretation of God's words. They ARE God's words written down through man. God cannot lie. Yes God created all things, He was referring to objects, not behavior. Lying is a choice. God did not create lying.

theonedru
04-11-2012, 01:10 PM
False. The bible is NOT man's interpretation of God's words. They ARE God's words written down through man. God cannot lie. Yes God created all things, He was referring to objects, not behavior. Lying is a choice. God did not create lying.

care to explain your double standard, if he created all things but not lying then he did not create all things.... And God did not write the bible, man did so there goes that theory as well......

ensbergcollector
04-11-2012, 01:23 PM
care to explain your double standard, if he created all things but not lying then he did not create all things.... And God did not write the bible, man did so there goes that theory as well......

ok, i have tried to stay out of this for the most part but i will jump in.

when my wife and I had our daughter, we created life. When my daughter lies, does that mean we created lying? come on, you are better than that.

also, if an author dictates to an assistant who does the typing, who "wrote" the book? the author or the assistant? Christians believe that God inspired the words of scripture. Just because a person physically wrote the words does not mean that God did not write the bible. (not saying you have to believe it, just saying it isn't as cut and dry and you attempt to make it)

habsheaven
04-11-2012, 02:13 PM
I have a problem with this:

Paddington says, "It DOES all fit together and it wasn't written by one man, it was written by 40 men over a 1500 year period in different parts of the world and many of them didn't have access to the others writings. God inspired them. God controlled what was written. There is no way that it isn't God's word."

My understanding is that the bible was compiled by a "council of religious leaders" that basically reviewed 100's of writings and only those that fit a certain criteria were included in the bible. If that is the case, how can anyone claim that the fact all the books "fit" together means they are undeniably, God's words?

How the bible was compiled (by man) automatically casts doubt on its authenticity as "God's word".

shrewsbury
04-11-2012, 04:21 PM
habs, where were you about20 posts back? i have explained all that before, with some details, but was shot down as it was all lies

pspstatus
04-11-2012, 04:49 PM
[quote=pspstatus;11359583]

That doesn't make sense to me. My parents have been the most important people in my life. I think it means basically that if your family doesn't believe in God the way God thinks they should that you turn from them. I will forsake them for noone.

The point is that we are to place God above all else, including our family. God does command you to be good to your parents. By placing God first, you WILL be the best son you can be to them. God isn't asking you to forsake them.


Exactly God wants us to put him in front of everyone. Why would I do that? I love my parents more than I could ever love a God, especially one that so demands this devotion.

So did he create us to help him lead his kingdom or for us to worship and glorify him?

Yes! You have no idea the blessings that are in store for His people.

1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Man I don't want to be disrespectful but this sounds so rediculous. It's just another thing you're excepting on blind faith alone.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Satan challenged God and instead of telling satan to kiss his butt he let him destroy Job's life to prove satan wrong.

Because through Job's suffering, He glorified God in heaven among the angels and proved satan a liar among the demons. How demoralizing for the enemy. Job was blessed greatly for his faithfulness.

How was Job blessed? How do you know? What about the rest of his family? Were they blessed as well? Satan doesn't seem to be too demoralized if he's still such a prominent figure. You also are proving my point. God let satan put a man through unimaginable suffering to glorify himself. If this is true God strikes me as someone who calling them vain would be a vast understatement.


How does satan have so much power if he's supposed to be sitting in a huge chunk of ice?

I don't know why you think satan is sitting on a huge chunk of ice. he currently rules in this world because Adam gave him the power. God hasn't taken it from satan yet because God is using satan to see who will choose to serve God and who will choose to serve satan. FREEWILL.

My mistake there. I was confusing the ice thing with something else. You bring up something interesting. Just because I don't choose to serve God that doesn't mean I serve satan.



Where is your proof of this? Your proof can come from a book but mine can't?

Frankly, the burden of proof is on the accuser. If you look at the actual writings and not what some liar said that wrote a book, you will find that it's not in the actual writings. It's a huge hoax.

I feel the same way about the Bible. The difference is you will dismiss anything that doesn't jive with your belief system as lies. I gave the Bible a chance and found it to be unreliable.

If science ever proved that homosexuality isn't a choice would that ever change your opinion on this?

I would equate it to this. Is is ok for me to cheat on my wife or have sex before I'm married? No. But I desire those things. So what, it's still a sin. Just because you are tempted to do something or struggle with it, doesn't make it not a sin. God does NOT hate gay people.

These are two different things. When you marry someone you take a vow to be faithful to them which is why cheating would be a sin. If a gay person is naturally gay and not making a choice to be gay then they are sinning by being who they naturally are. That makes no sense to me.

As far as I can tell from the research I have done is that these stories do not all fit together. Furthermore I believe I have seen so many contradictions from different books that it's very hard for me to believe this all came from one source.

It DOES all fit together and it wasn't written by one man, it was written by 40 men over a 1500 year period in different parts of the world and many of them didn't have access to the others writings. God inspired them. God controlled what was written. There is no way that it isn't God's word.



There are so many contradictions in the Bible. If you choose not to see that then I won't argue with you about it.

So is the KJV right or wrong?


I believe that it is right, yet not perfect. Sometimes you need to look at the meaning of the original greek/hebrew words to get the most accurate translation of the word.


I will fully admit that I am not fully trusting in the lord. My best friends brother happens to be gay. I knew he was gay when he was about 7 years old. I believe it was not a lifestyle choice but a natural instinct for him. I do not believe he is a sinner and I love him like a brother. If God believes that because this man is gay that he belongs in hell then no i do not think God necessarily knows best.

No one is going to hell because they are gay or a sinner. They go to hell because they reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. If He will repent and turn his life over to Jesus Christ, he will be saved like anyone else.

So if he accepts Jesus but still lives as a homesexual until the day he dies then he's all good?


I will say again, thank you for your responses but I can't help but notice that you failed to respond again to certain things such as slavery, gender inequality and so forth. Some things are just hard to deny ay?

ensbergcollector
04-11-2012, 05:15 PM
[quote=Paddington;11362546]

I will say again, thank you for your responses but I can't help but notice that you failed to respond again to certain things such as slavery, gender inequality and so forth. Some things are just hard to deny ay?

for what it's worth, which i know to those opposed to christianity it isn't much, women in the new testament were looked at much better than the cultural norm and much better than the jewish law.

pspstatus
04-11-2012, 05:24 PM
[quote=pspstatus;11363468]

for what it's worth, which i know to those opposed to christianity it isn't much, women in the new testament were looked at much better than the cultural norm and much better than the jewish law.

But they still weren't considered equal though right? I believe they were still submitted to the will of their husbands.

AUTaxMan
04-11-2012, 05:31 PM
But they still weren't considered equal though right? I believe they were still submitted to the will of their husbands.

What do you think that means?

pspstatus
04-11-2012, 05:43 PM
I think that means that women are considered to be less equal than men.

ensbergcollector
04-11-2012, 05:47 PM
I think that means that women are considered to be less equal than men.

Not true. The.husband being the head of the household does not mean women are not equal. My wife would readily tell you I am the leader of the family but has never felt less equal. In fact, it is the men who are called to sacrifice themselves for their wives.

pspstatus
04-11-2012, 06:21 PM
Not true. The.husband being the head of the household does not mean women are not equal. My wife would readily tell you I am the leader of the family but has never felt less equal. In fact, it is the men who are called to sacrifice themselves for their wives.

I hear what you're saying and I agree that the men are called to sacrifice themselves but I don't think that is because the sexes are considered to be equal.

habsheaven
04-11-2012, 06:47 PM
To claim that religion considers men and women equal is utter nonsense. Before secular society came to its senses and started attempting to treat women equally, such a notion would have been laughed at by the masses.

ensbergcollector
04-11-2012, 06:58 PM
To claim that religion considers men and women equal is utter nonsense. Before secular society came to its senses and started attempting to treat women equally, such a notion would have been laughed at by the masses.

again, look at the new testament. in a time when women weren't even viewed as reliable witnesses to crimes, christianity had women in leadership roles. while women are called to submit to their husbands, men are called to sacrifice themselves for their wives. While it might not look equal 2000 years later, christianity was pushing serious boundaries on women's roles.

ensbergcollector
04-11-2012, 06:59 PM
I hear what you're saying and I agree that the men are called to sacrifice themselves but I don't think that is because the sexes are considered to be equal.

why do you think it is then?

habsheaven
04-11-2012, 07:03 PM
again, look at the new testament. in a time when women weren't even viewed as reliable witnesses to crimes, christianity had women in leadership roles. while women are called to submit to their husbands, men are called to sacrifice themselves for their wives. While it might not look equal 2000 years later, christianity was pushing serious boundaries on women's roles.

Care to elaborate. What roles are you referring to?

theonedru
04-11-2012, 07:08 PM
again, look at the new testament. in a time when women weren't even viewed as reliable witnesses to crimes, christianity had women in leadership roles. while women are called to submit to their husbands, men are called to sacrifice themselves for their wives. While it might not look equal 2000 years later, christianity was pushing serious boundaries on women's roles.

Yet they were still repressed. Why would a God allow Men mastery over women, thats sexist and discriminatory and proves 1 of 3 things

1. God is not perfect, unlike what the bible says
2. The Bible was written by men to support their needs not Gods word (more readily proven)
3. God is a pig who cares little for those whom he made in their own image and we are but mere toys made for his sick perverted self pleasure.

ensbergcollector
04-11-2012, 07:09 PM
Care to elaborate. What roles are you referring to?

i'm on my way out but check out the beginning of romans 16. Talk of phoebe being a deacon in the church. She receives as glowing a reference from paul as anyone, male or female

ensbergcollector
04-11-2012, 07:12 PM
Yet they were still repressed. Why would a God allow Men mastery over women, thats sexist and discriminatory and proves 1 of 3 things

1. God is not perfect, unlike what the bible says
2. The Bible was written by men to support their needs not Gods word (more readily proven)
3. God is a pig who cares little for those whom he made in their own image and we are but mere toys made for his sick perverted self pleasure.

and that is why i have stayed out of this thread. there are people who don't actually want answers, just an opportunity to bash christianity.

care to explain mastery? so if I file my taxes as head of household am I being sexist?


"husbands, love your wives, just as christ loves the church"

"husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them"

"In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself."

yeah, explain these quotes in a culture that look upon women as non-people

habsheaven
04-11-2012, 07:21 PM
i'm on my way out but check out the beginning of romans 16. Talk of phoebe being a deacon in the church. She receives as glowing a reference from paul as anyone, male or female

You mean this Phoebe?

Was Phoebe a “Deaconess”?


On the basis of Romans 16:1-2, some have contended that:
Phoebe was a church official (deacon);
the church was to “assist her,” implying her authority over the church;
she had been a “helper” (prostatis) of many, implying “authority, discipline, over-seeing.”
All of this is alleged to show that Phoebe was a preacher-leader in the early church.

However:
The word diakonos simply means a “servant” (Matthew 23:11; John 2:5, etc.), and any official attachment to the term must be demanded by the context, as in Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8.
The fact that the saints were encouraged to “assist” Phoebe did not imply her authority over them. The Greek word paristerni meant to “come to the aid of, help, stand by” (Arndt and Gingrich, 633). When Paul said, “[T]he Lord stood by pareste me” (2 Timothy 4:17), he certainly was not asserting that he exercised authority over Christ!
The word prostatis (helper) does not necessitate oversight. If so, then Phoebe exercised authority over Paul, for she had been his helper as well as others! Though it is found only here in the New Testament, the term, which can connote simply rendering assistance, is used in a third-century B.C. letter from a son to his father (the verbal form): “[T]here will be nothing of more importance for me than to look after you for the remainder of life, in a manner worthy of you, and worthy of me” (Moulton and Milligan 1963, 551).

habsheaven
04-11-2012, 07:24 PM
and that is why i have stayed out of this thread. there are people who don't actually want answers, just an opportunity to bash christianity.

care to explain mastery? so if I file my taxes as head of household am I being sexist?


"husbands, love your wives, just as christ loves the church"

"husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them"

"In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself."

yeah, explain these quotes in a culture that look upon women as non-people

Nowhere there does it say or imply "husbands treat your wives as equal". Moreso, it implies that they are your possessions and you should treat them well.

theonedru
04-11-2012, 07:30 PM
and that is why i have stayed out of this thread. there are people who don't actually want answers, just an opportunity to bash christianity.

care to explain mastery? so if I file my taxes as head of household am I being sexist?


"husbands, love your wives, just as christ loves the church"

"husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them"

"In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself."

yeah, explain these quotes in a culture that look upon women as non-people

But I do want answers, But you can't use the bible, use actual unarguable hard facts to move me..... If someone can use scientific fact to prove Christianity and the bible then I am all for it.

AUTaxMan
04-11-2012, 08:33 PM
Nowhere there does it say or imply "husbands treat your wives as equal". Moreso, it implies that they are your possessions and you should treat them well.

where in the new testament does it imply that husbands own their wives?

Paddington
04-11-2012, 08:33 PM
care to explain your double standard, if he created all things but not lying then he did not create all things.... And God did not write the bible, man did so there goes that theory as well......

I did explain it. Again, it means that He created all OBJECTS He didn't create all behaviors. People choose to behave the way that they do. He doesn't force them. He did give them the ability to do those things because He wanted to give us free will. He told the authors what to write and they wrote it. Many times they didn't understand what they were writing themselves.

After penning the Book of Daniel, Daniel Himself said this

Da 12:8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

Da 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

Paddington
04-11-2012, 08:36 PM
I have a problem with this:

Paddington says, "It DOES all fit together and it wasn't written by one man, it was written by 40 men over a 1500 year period in different parts of the world and many of them didn't have access to the others writings. God inspired them. God controlled what was written. There is no way that it isn't God's word."

My understanding is that the bible was compiled by a "council of religious leaders" that basically reviewed 100's of writings and only those that fit a certain criteria were included in the bible. If that is the case, how can anyone claim that the fact all the books "fit" together means they are undeniably, God's words?

How the bible was compiled (by man) automatically casts doubt on its authenticity as "God's word".

This video will explain this to you perfectly. It IS God's word. Here's how the council chose the books. One criteria was that it had to have been written by an eyewitness to the events.


http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=D76LD7NX

shrewsbury
04-11-2012, 09:04 PM
yikes

first let me state as a christian my views are not limited to the new testament.

the early christians, before the establishment of the "church", viewed women as equals to men and their writing and the works of paul testify to this.

the old testament is the old covenant of god with his chosen people, jesus was the way for all of us to get to god, so the old testament does not weigh much on my christian beliefs but respected for the history of the hardships people have undertaken in antiquity.

habsheaven
04-11-2012, 09:17 PM
where in the new testament does it imply that husbands own their wives?

Huh? The implication is right in the quotes I quoted.

habsheaven
04-11-2012, 09:38 PM
This video will explain this to you perfectly. It IS God's word. Here's how the council chose the books. One criteria was that it had to have been written by an eyewitness to the events.


http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=D76LD7NX

Thanks for the video. However, that only confirms what I was saying. Men decided what to include in the Bible. It doesn't matter what criteria they used because they alone were the ones deciding what writings fit the criteria.

shrewsbury
04-11-2012, 10:00 PM
If someone can use scientific fact to prove Christianity and the bible then I am all for it.

and what would this entail?

the sciences are constantly being updated. archaeology, paleontology, and even physics are being understood at different levels. the major issue is science often does not accept new ideas that do not fit old ideas.

you can explain many things from the bible with science, but many are not a recognized hypothesis. you can look at the military strategies of the bible and not only see viable and often quite advanced military tactics, but also these methods are still used to this day. the geography of the bible is quite accurate, with not only recent finds backing the existance of many biblical cities but even the surrounding terrain.

now when we jump to the new testament we have little evidence to prove much. the books of the new testament cannot be traced back via actual finds, with the oldest piece from the works of john dating to around 120 ad. but we see other christian works from nearly the same era. we have one piece of evidence that pilot existed, but your not getting much more.

when we look at all the writings it would seem logical that someone did something in the early 20-30 ad's that caused the birth and movement of christianity. but besides this it is a matter of opinion, belief, and/or faith. but christianity is all about faith.

habsheaven
04-11-2012, 10:12 PM
I don't think anyone is disputing that the bible has many factual statements in it, the problem is that it contains so many more things that science has emphatically proved wrong.

ensbergcollector
04-11-2012, 10:14 PM
Nowhere there does it say or imply "husbands treat your wives as equal". Moreso, it implies that they are your possessions and you should treat them well.

if you read those quotes and what you take from it is that women are the possessions of their husbands then i might as well bow out of the conversation because you are only seeing what supports your stance. i have no idea how you get that from those quotes but to each his own.

habsheaven
04-11-2012, 10:22 PM
if you read those quotes and what you take from it is that women are the possessions of their husbands then i might as well bow out of the conversation because you are only seeing what supports your stance. i have no idea how you get that from those quotes but to each his own.

If you read those quotes and take from it that God is implying they are equal I guess we are at an impasse. It would be interesting to see the full text surrounding those quotes.

pspstatus
04-11-2012, 11:32 PM
why do you think it is then?

Probably because it seems like the right thing to do.

pspstatus
04-11-2012, 11:35 PM
again, look at the new testament. in a time when women weren't even viewed as reliable witnesses to crimes, christianity had women in leadership roles. while women are called to submit to their husbands, men are called to sacrifice themselves for their wives. While it might not look equal 2000 years later, christianity was pushing serious boundaries on women's roles.

That may be so but I believe the old testament and new testament came from the same source. Even though the new testament may be kinder towards women I don't think that means that what God says in the old testament is irrelevant.

mrveggieman
04-12-2012, 08:27 AM
again, look at the new testament. in a time when women weren't even viewed as reliable witnesses to crimes, christianity had women in leadership roles. while women are called to submit to their husbands, men are called to sacrifice themselves for their wives. While it might not look equal 2000 years later, christianity was pushing serious boundaries on women's roles.


Some people who were christian did indeed push for civil rights for women, minorities and others however a lot of them did not. Just like some blacks, whites, muslims, jews, atheists, etc fought for civil rights. There were also a lot of racist jerks such as jerry fallwell, pat robertson and others who used christanity to promote racism, slavery, hatred, homophopbia, division and a vast variety of social ills. I'm sorry but I cannot accept that christanity as a whole lead the way for curing our social ills but it was a diverse group of people from all backrounds who fought for the common good for all people.

ensbergcollector
04-12-2012, 10:05 AM
Some people who were christian did indeed push for civil rights for women, minorities and others however a lot of them did not. Just like some blacks, whites, muslims, jews, atheists, etc fought for civil rights. There were also a lot of racist jerks such as jerry fallwell, pat robertson and others who used christanity to promote racism, slavery, hatred, homophopbia, division and a vast variety of social ills. I'm sorry but I cannot accept that christanity as a whole lead the way for curing our social ills but it was a diverse group of people from all backrounds who fought for the common good for all people.

oh, i'm sorry, i thought we were talking about scripture, not individuals that make it easy for us to attack.

the new testament, regardless of what christians have done with it, was generations ahead of its time in its view of women.

shrewsbury
04-12-2012, 10:10 AM
That may be so but I believe the old testament and new testament came from the same source. Even though the new testament may be kinder towards women I don't think that means that what God says in the old testament is irrelevant.

the old testament itself did not come from one source, neither did the new testament, so no they did not come from the same source nor written in the same era.

you are talking about 2 different covenants with god, so (some of us) christians do not 'go by" the old covenant that has nothing to do with us and our relationship with god. only the new covenant involves us unchosen folks and only jesus as our way to god.

and again, the bible is hardly the only source of understanding what god, through jesus, wants for us and requires of us.

mrveggieman
04-12-2012, 10:11 AM
oh, i'm sorry, i thought we were talking about scripture, not individuals that make it easy for us to attack.

the new testament, regardless of what christians have done with it, was generations ahead of its time in its view of women.


You can pick any holy book and say that it can be viewed as either pro women or anti-women. People pick and chose from their favorite books for their own personal political agenda. It dosen't prove a thing.

ensbergcollector
04-12-2012, 10:14 AM
You can pick any holy book and say that it can be viewed as either pro women or anti-women. People pick and chose from their favorite books for their own personal political agenda. It dosen't prove a thing.

so now i can't even use the bible as a reference in a thread about scripture? glad to know the ground rules.

mrveggieman
04-12-2012, 10:26 AM
so now i can't even use the bible as a reference in a thread about scripture? glad to know the ground rules.


You can but you can't use any holy book to prove itself right.

ensbergcollector
04-12-2012, 10:29 AM
You can but you can't use any holy book to prove itself right.

people asked for proof from scripture of christianities views on women. I quoted scripture. you are just attacking because you like to and it makes you feel all good about yourself. I am not trying to convince people of anything. I was asked to use scripture and then you hop on and try and tell me I can't use scripture.

Paddington
04-12-2012, 10:39 AM
Please vote in the poll.

habsheaven
04-12-2012, 10:43 AM
oh, i'm sorry, i thought we were talking about scripture, not individuals that make it easy for us to attack.

the new testament, regardless of what christians have done with it, was generations ahead of its time in its view of women.

It's all a matter of perspective. You think that the passages in the New Testament show that its views on women were generations ahead of its time. That may be. I think the passages show that the New Testament's views on women are still generations behind today's version of equality.

ensbergcollector
04-12-2012, 10:48 AM
It's all a matter of perspective. You think that the passages in the New Testament show that its views on women were generations ahead of its time. That may be. I think the passages show that the New Testament's views on women are still generations behind today's version of equality.

and i absolutely respect that and i can even see that side of the argument. I was taking issue with veggie because he likes to pop in every few pages just to tell people they can't use scripture.

mrveggieman
04-12-2012, 10:56 AM
and i absolutely respect that and i can even see that side of the argument. I was taking issue with veggie because he likes to pop in every few pages just to tell people they can't use scripture.


Again use whatever you like but you cannot use a particular holy book to prove itself right. ALL holy books claim to be correct and claim that all others are false.

ensbergcollector
04-12-2012, 10:59 AM
Again use whatever you like but you cannot use a particular holy book to prove itself right. ALL holy books claim to be correct and claim that all others are false.

what part of this are you refusing to understand? I was asked to use scripture. you are fighting with me just to fight

habsheaven
04-12-2012, 11:05 AM
Again use whatever you like but you cannot use a particular holy book to prove itself right. ALL holy books claim to be correct and claim that all others are false.

In this particular case, scripture is ALL he could use to make his point. How would anything but scripture be relevant? I just didn't think the scripture advanced his point.

mrveggieman
04-12-2012, 11:06 AM
what part of this are you refusing to understand? I was asked to use scripture. you are fighting with me just to fight


Sorry I missed your post at the top of the page. Carry on with the discussion and I will chime in as needed.

shrewsbury
04-12-2012, 11:16 AM
i believe is original question referred to god, who is not limited to the scripture of the bible

pspstatus
04-12-2012, 04:53 PM
the old testament itself did not come from one source, neither did the new testament, so no they did not come from the same source nor written in the same era.

you are talking about 2 different covenants with god, so (some of us) christians do not 'go by" the old covenant that has nothing to do with us and our relationship with god. only the new covenant involves us unchosen folks and only jesus as our way to god.

and again, the bible is hardly the only source of understanding what god, through jesus, wants for us and requires of us.

I know that neither of them came from one source. Come on Shrews you know I don't believe they came from where they supposedly came from.

Even if the are two different covenants aren't they both still from the same God?

shrewsbury
04-12-2012, 05:24 PM
I know that neither of them came from one source. Come on Shrews you know I don't believe they came from where they supposedly came from.

Even if the are two different covenants aren't they both still from the same God?

i know you do my friend.

The same God, i will have to give you that. and now we are treading in a place few will go, at least go without freaking out, accusing, or thinking you are crazy.

now we get into how does God have a son? why would God need to redo anything, he is God? Why would He have chosen people? He knew all this was coming before he even created us, so why bother?

i have my own personal answers for this, and i do not believe you can pick up the bible and figure out any of this, but it can help. i think if you start pulling things out and thinking about it, then put it all back together, things seem a bit different.

don't get me wrong, i don't claim to KNOW anything, nor know more, just perhaps look at it slightly different than some do. some will think i am a fool, some won't care, while others may think i THINK i know what i am talking about.

discussions are truly the best way to learn anything, but when others refuse to listen even a little bit, then it is all useless.

pspstatus
04-12-2012, 06:40 PM
i know you do my friend.

The same God, i will have to give you that. and now we are treading in a place few will go, at least go without freaking out, accusing, or thinking you are crazy.

now we get into how does God have a son? why would God need to redo anything, he is God? Why would He have chosen people? He knew all this was coming before he even created us, so why bother?

i have my own personal answers for this, and i do not believe you can pick up the bible and figure out any of this, but it can help. i think if you start pulling things out and thinking about it, then put it all back together, things seem a bit different.

don't get me wrong, i don't claim to KNOW anything, nor know more, just perhaps look at it slightly different than some do. some will think i am a fool, some won't care, while others may think i THINK i know what i am talking about.

discussions are truly the best way to learn anything, but when others refuse to listen even a little bit, then it is all useless.

I'm ok with treading there. You have to go to the edge to find out what's beyond it. I'll try not accuse or freak out but I can't guarantee that I'M not crazy.

Just like you I won't claim to know anything for sure but I do have some strong beliefs. Debating things with an open mind may not change someones opinion but I think it can help everyone to become more knowledgable. Even if I still don't agree with everything people have said in this thread I certainly have learned a lot from their thoughts.

shrewsbury
04-12-2012, 07:25 PM
I'm ok with treading there. You have to go to the edge to find out what's beyond it. I'll try not accuse or freak out but I can't guarantee that I'M not crazy.

Just like you I won't claim to know anything for sure but I do have some strong beliefs. Debating things with an open mind may not change someones opinion but I think it can help everyone to become more knowledgable. Even if I still don't agree with everything people have said in this thread I certainly have learned a lot from their thoughts.

great post!

maybe we should start a few new threads, kind of feel like we are hijacking this one?

pspstatus
04-13-2012, 02:51 AM
great post!

maybe we should start a few new threads, kind of feel like we are hijacking this one?


Thank you.

I think maybe we are hijacking a bit. After 292 posts in here I'm not even sure what this thread was even originally about.

mrveggieman
04-13-2012, 08:45 AM
That's how P&R threads go. The start as one thing but evolve to something completely different. Feel free to sign me up. I'm always down for a good religious discussion.

Paddington
04-14-2012, 02:28 PM
ALL holy books claim to be correct and claim that all others are false.

True, so why does everyone attack only Christians when they claim to have the truth? Because it's a spiritual thing. Christians really do have the truth and it's offensive to the unsaved.

andrewhoya
04-14-2012, 02:48 PM
True, so why does everyone attack only Christians when they claim to have the truth? Because it's a spiritual thing. Christians really do have the truth and it's offensive to the unsaved.

They dont only attack Christians.

pspstatus
04-14-2012, 03:08 PM
True, so why does everyone attack only Christians when they claim to have the truth? Because it's a spiritual thing. Christians really do have the truth and it's offensive to the unsaved.


As far as I know there are no Buddhists, Muslims, Jews (besides myself, didn't see that coming did ya?), Taoists, Hindus, etc on these boards to debate with. And nobody is attacking Christians here anyway.

habsheaven
04-14-2012, 05:57 PM
True, so why does everyone attack only Christians when they claim to have the truth? Because it's a spiritual thing. Christians really do have the truth and it's offensive to the unsaved.

There's nothing OFFENSIVE about it. It's really just quite sad when you think about it.

ensbergcollector
04-14-2012, 06:37 PM
As far as I know there are no Buddhists, Muslims, Jews (besides myself, didn't see that coming did ya?), Taoists, Hindus, etc on these boards to debate with. And nobody is attacking Christians here anyway.

you must not be paying attention. anytime a christian tries to claim anything they get met with serious opposition even if they are only answering a direct question. if you are atheist or universalist you are pretty much cool and free from opposition. anyone who takes a stance on anything religious is fair game.

pspstatus
04-14-2012, 06:48 PM
you must not be paying attention. anytime a christian tries to claim anything they get met with serious opposition even if they are only answering a direct question. if you are atheist or universalist you are pretty much cool and free from opposition. anyone who takes a stance on anything religious is fair game.


Some people may go a little overboard. But there's nothing wrong with having opposing ideas and putting them forth. Expressing those opposing ideas doesn't mean that anyone is attacking you.

ensbergcollector
04-14-2012, 07:37 PM
Some people may go a little overboard. But there's nothing wrong with having opposing ideas and putting them forth. Expressing those opposing ideas doesn't mean that anyone is attacking you.

oh no, i agree completely. i have never taking someone having a different opinion as an attack. what i am referring to is very obviously not a difference of opinion.

pspstatus
04-14-2012, 09:40 PM
oh no, i agree completely. i have never taking someone having a different opinion as an attack. what i am referring to is very obviously not a difference of opinion.

I hear you but I don't think Christians are attacked that often here.

ensbergcollector
04-14-2012, 09:46 PM
I hear you but I don't think Christians are attacked that often here.

if you had been posting here and reading for the last year you would understand where i was coming from. this thread hasn't been too bad.

pspstatus
04-14-2012, 11:24 PM
if you had been posting here and reading for the last year you would understand where i was coming from. this thread hasn't been too bad.

Understood, I didn't realize.

ensbergcollector
04-14-2012, 11:44 PM
Understood, I didn't realize.

no sweat. sorry if I came across like you had said something wrong. you and I don't agree on a lot religion wise but i do appreciate that you have been able to disagree respectfully. thanks for that

pspstatus
04-15-2012, 12:07 AM
no sweat. sorry if I came across like you had said something wrong. you and I don't agree on a lot religion wise but i do appreciate that you have been able to disagree respectfully. thanks for that

Nah it's cool I knew what you were getting at. I'm glad that you would say I've been respectful. There have been a few times where I thought maybe I was too harsh.

mrveggieman
04-16-2012, 08:27 AM
As far as I know there are no Buddhists, Muslims, Jews (besides myself, didn't see that coming did ya?), Taoists, Hindus, etc on these boards to debate with. And nobody is attacking Christians here anyway.


I thought that the gentleman from Detroit was jewish but I'm not sure. I'm sorry if I'm incorrect.

pspstatus
04-16-2012, 03:54 PM
I thought that the gentleman from Detroit was jewish but I'm not sure. I'm sorry if I'm incorrect.

Not sure. And just to clarify I'm not Jewish in belief. I just come from a partly Jewish family.

Paddington
04-16-2012, 05:19 PM
Some people may go a little overboard. But there's nothing wrong with having opposing ideas and putting them forth. Expressing those opposing ideas doesn't mean that anyone is attacking you.

It is very true that Christians get ganged up on just about everywhere they go. I know this for a fact. With that said, this site hasn't been too bad as compared to the other 99% of the Forums out there.

Paddington
04-24-2012, 02:44 PM
Jesus Christ IS God

There are some religions out there that believe and teach that Jesus Christ is not God. Some teach that He is a god, but not thee God. I am going to demonstrate through the word of God that He is God and created all things.

Jesus’s name “Immanuel” LITERALLY means “God with us”

Mt 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us."

Isa 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

He always existed (from everlasting):

Mic 5:2 (NKJV) "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, [Though] you are little among the thousands of Judah, [Yet] out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth [are] from of old, From everlasting."

This prophecy is of Christ's first comming. His Goings forth have been from everlasting because Christ Jesus is God.

Jesus Christ is one with the Father. He is God.

Joh 14:8 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are one God:

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

Jesus declares Himself to be the great I AM of the Old Testiment. I AM is God's Name

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

I am IS God. There is only one God. That God has three parts.

Ex 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

All of the Fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ’s Body.

Col 2:8 Beware lest anyone rob you through philosophy and vain deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ.
For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And you are complete in Him, who is the Head of all principality and power,

All Things Were Created By Jesus Christ and are Held Together by Him.

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And He is before all things, and by him all things consist.

His Disciple/Apostle Peter Admits that Jesus knows “All things” (Only God knows all things)

Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep.

God's plurality is found in Genesis

Ge 1:26 ¶ Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

His Disciple/Apostle Thomas Confessed Him to be God and Jesus did NOT rebuke Him for it:

Joh 20:27 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing."And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

This verse demonstrates how God has multiple aspects. He said Let “US” make man in “OUR” image. He didn’t say, let me make man in My image, He said let US make man is OUR image.

His Apostle/Disciple John declares Christ Jesus to be God:

Joh 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

His Apostle/Disciple John declares that the world was made by Him (Jesus Christ)

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

All things were made by Him and He was in the beginning with God (Father)

Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

There are MANY places where He is worshipped and Jesus NEVER tells them not to worship Him, NOT once. Only God is to be worshipped, because Jesus IS God, Jesus IS worshipped:

Mt 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. {presented: or, offered}
Mt 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
Mt 9:18 ¶ While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
Mt 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
Mt 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
Mt 18:26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. {worshipped him: or, besought him}
Mt 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
Mt 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
Mr 5:6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,
Mr 15:19 And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him.
Lu 24:52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:
Joh 9:38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
Ac 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
Re 5:14 And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.

Scripture refers to Him as the Lord, Jesus Christ. The phrase "The Lord" is unique only to God:

Here are a few mentioning "The Lord Your God"

De 5:6 ¶ I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. {bondage: Heb. servants}

De 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

De 5:11 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

De 5:12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.

Here are many calling Him Jesus Christ, The Lord.

Ac 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

Ac 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Ac 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Ac 28:31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

Ro 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ro 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

Ro 15:30 ¶ Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me;

1Co 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

1Co 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

2Co 1:2 Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. <<The second [epistle to the Corinthians was written from Philippi, a city of Macedonia, by Titus and Lucas.]>>

Eph 1:2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Eph 6:23 Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Php 1:2 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Php 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: {conversation...: or, we live or conduct ourselves as citizens of heaven, or, for obtaining heaven}

Col 1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1Th 1:1 ¶ Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

There are many more, but I don't think I need to continue.



Conclusion: Jesus Christ is God. Not a God but the God of the bible. God has three parts. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All are equal, yet the Son is submissive to the Father and the Holy Spirit is submissive to the Son.

shrewsbury
04-24-2012, 03:02 PM
saying jesus is god and proving it by quoting biblical text isn't really doing much.

if you believe He is God (which i do) then of course you believe the bible says so

my issue is, the bible is not the only source of understanding who jesus is

habsheaven
04-24-2012, 03:04 PM
Let me get this straight. God creates Heaven and Earth, speaks to a few people to make sure they knew the rules. After awhile decides to wipe most of them out with a Flood because they were breaking the rules. Finally He impregnates Himself in a virgin, takes on an earthly form to teach everyone the "new" rules and allows Himself to be sacrificed for our future generations sins.

Now we should be grateful that Jesus (who isn't even Jesus - just God in disguise) sacrificed nothing for us because He was apparently God and couldn't really suffer or die in any sense of the words.

Makes sense to me.

shrewsbury
04-24-2012, 03:06 PM
close my friend, close

Paddington
04-26-2012, 10:49 PM
saying jesus is god and proving it by quoting biblical text isn't really doing much.

if you believe He is God (which i do) then of course you believe the bible says so

my issue is, the bible is not the only source of understanding who jesus is

No it's not, however it is the only RELIABLE source of understanding who Jesus is since it was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events.

Paddington
04-26-2012, 10:53 PM
Let me get this straight. God creates Heaven and Earth, speaks to a few people to make sure they knew the rules. After awhile decides to wipe most of them out with a Flood because they were breaking the rules. Finally He impregnates Himself in a virgin, takes on an earthly form to teach everyone the "new" rules and allows Himself to be sacrificed for our future generations sins.

Now we should be grateful that Jesus (who isn't even Jesus - just God in disguise) sacrificed nothing for us because He was apparently God and couldn't really suffer or die in any sense of the words.

Makes sense to me.

Jesus was predicted to come into the world thousands of years before He came into the world. He came to save mankind from their sins. The law was a guide to show mankind that they were sinners. Jesus fulfilled the law when He was nailed to the cross. He set mankind free from the rules of the law. Jesus is God and Jesus is man at the same time. He's God indwelled in Human flesh. He did sacrifice something for us. Himself. The Father willingly gave Him to suffer and die for you. He did suffer and die in reality and truth.

habsheaven
04-27-2012, 07:57 AM
Jesus was predicted to come into the world thousands of years before He came into the world. He came to save mankind from their sins. The law was a guide to show mankind that they were sinners. Jesus fulfilled the law when He was nailed to the cross. He set mankind free from the rules of the law. Jesus is God and Jesus is man at the same time. He's God indwelled in Human flesh. He did sacrifice something for us. Himself. The Father willingly gave Him to suffer and die for you. He did suffer and die in reality and truth.

And we wonder how/why guys like David Koresh can exist and be believed. Just have to listen to enough of this kind of speak from a charismatic guy and voila. They are sold.

Here's my question. Where the heck is God? According to His standards, human kind is a mess (much more so than it was 2,000 years ago) when can we expect a shake up? When is He going to scrap this "free will" idea and put a system in place that works? He is a terrible creator/manager if He can't figure this all out after 6,000 years.

Star_Cards
04-27-2012, 09:35 AM
No it's not, however it is the only RELIABLE source of understanding who Jesus is since it was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events.

I don't follow with saying that the bible is reliable? It's not a historical document. I also never knew it was written by eye witnesses.

Paddington
04-30-2012, 10:59 PM
I don't follow with saying that the bible is reliable? It's not a historical document. I also never knew it was written by eye witnesses.

Yes it is a historical document. Why would you think otherwise? Yes, it was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events. That was one of the most important criteria for including all books of the Bible in the canon of Scripture. The Bible really is God's word. If you look at the actual evidence you will see why. I can show you and help you.

Paddington
04-30-2012, 11:02 PM
And we wonder how/why guys like David Koresh can exist and be believed. Just have to listen to enough of this kind of speak from a charismatic guy and voila. They are sold.

Here's my question. Where the heck is God? According to His standards, human kind is a mess (much more so than it was 2,000 years ago) when can we expect a shake up? When is He going to scrap this "free will" idea and put a system in place that works? He is a terrible creator/manager if He can't figure this all out after 6,000 years.


When it's time. He's allowing all of those who are willing to place their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation to have time to do so before He comes. He wants as many people to be saved from hell as possible. Sir, you do not want to go to hell. Place your faith in Jesus Christ, believing that He died on the cross and rose from the dead.

theonedru
04-30-2012, 11:31 PM
Yes it is a historical document. Why would you think otherwise? Yes, it was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events. That was one of the most important criteria for including all books of the Bible in the canon of Scripture. The Bible really is God's word. If you look at the actual evidence you will see why. I can show you and help you.

I would love to see the scientific proof that backs this claim up.

habsheaven
05-01-2012, 07:49 AM
When it's time. He's allowing all of those who are willing to place their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation to have time to do so before He comes. He wants as many people to be saved from hell as possible. Sir, you do not want to go to hell. Place your faith in Jesus Christ, believing that He died on the cross and rose from the dead.

I have news for you. I am NOT going to Hell. I am going to a hole 6 feet under where I will eventually become just another part of the Earth. You can believe whatever you want, but at the end of your days, you will be in the same spot as I.

As I have already stated. People do not rise from the dead, if Jesus did then he is not a person and therefore his sacrifice was no sacrifice at all. I will continue to place my faith in the people I know and myself. You can continue placing your faith in a false god. It really doesn't matter.

shrewsbury
05-01-2012, 09:41 AM
habs, good post for what you had to respond to.

not that i agree with your whole statement, but i understand where it is coming from and can respect that.

Star_Cards
05-01-2012, 10:13 AM
Yes it is a historical document. Why would you think otherwise? Yes, it was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events. That was one of the most important criteria for including all books of the Bible in the canon of Scripture. The Bible really is God's word. If you look at the actual evidence you will see why. I can show you and help you.

I would think otherwise because it simply isn't. There are historical references in the bible, but to the best of my knowledge it is not looked at as an encyclopedia type of historical document. It's historical in the sense that it's a bases of a religion, but it's not a source that is used looked at factual historical events. I only took history in high school so that's the bear minimum of history education but maybe someone who was a history major in college can chime in.

habsheaven
05-01-2012, 10:27 AM
habs, good post for what you had to respond to.

not that i agree with your whole statement, but i understand where it is coming from and can respect that.

Jay, I do not flatly reject the concept of a "God" because quite frankly I do not know. I do however, completely reject the notion that any religion or man that has ever existed knows the TRUTH. All religion is self-serving to the MEN that lead it. And this "God" they claim to know as ALMIGHTY surprisingly exhibits traits that are nothing more than human in nature.

shrewsbury
05-01-2012, 03:35 PM
but to the best of my knowledge it is not looked at as an encyclopedia type of historical document

and will never be because you will have to accept the rest of the information provided, will never happen.


Jay, I do not flatly reject the concept of a "God" because quite frankly I do not know. I do however, completely reject the notion that any religion or man that has ever existed knows the TRUTH. All religion is self-serving to the MEN that lead it. And this "God" they claim to know as ALMIGHTY surprisingly exhibits traits that are nothing more than human in nature.

I agree again, and you are right, man has messed it up yet again. the bible is a nice starting point, but will only get you into man's state of mind, not gods

Paddington
05-01-2012, 11:08 PM
I would love to see the scientific proof that backs this claim up.

The biblical account of Jesus Christ is much more reliable than the history of George Washington. Do you believe George Washington was President of the United States?

Paddington
05-01-2012, 11:11 PM
I have news for you. I am NOT going to Hell. I am going to a hole 6 feet under where I will eventually become just another part of the Earth. You can believe whatever you want, but at the end of your days, you will be in the same spot as I.

As I have already stated. People do not rise from the dead, if Jesus did then he is not a person and therefore his sacrifice was no sacrifice at all. I will continue to place my faith in the people I know and myself. You can continue placing your faith in a false god. It really doesn't matter.

People don't rise from the dead unless they are God in the flesh. That's exactly who Jesus is. You have the choice to believe what you wish, but that doesn't exempt you from the consequences of your choices. The evidence is on my side. Eyewitness history, Secular History and Church History and other writings are on the side of the Bible being true.

Paddington
05-01-2012, 11:12 PM
I would think otherwise because it simply isn't. There are historical references in the bible, but to the best of my knowledge it is not looked at as an encyclopedia type of historical document. It's historical in the sense that it's a bases of a religion, but it's not a source that is used looked at factual historical events. I only took history in high school so that's the bear minimum of history education but maybe someone who was a history major in college can chime in.

It's history is based upon God's working with man to bring Him to salvation. While it does record historical events therein, it's not the focal point, Christ Jesus is.

Paddington
05-01-2012, 11:15 PM
Jay, I do not flatly reject the concept of a "God" because quite frankly I do not know. I do however, completely reject the notion that any religion or man that has ever existed knows the TRUTH. All religion is self-serving to the MEN that lead it. And this "God" they claim to know as ALMIGHTY surprisingly exhibits traits that are nothing more than human in nature.


Jesus is Human and Jesus is God at the same time. He is the one who rose from the dead, healed the sick, walked on water, made the blind to see and floated in mid air up to heaven. He has the authority to say as He does "I AM the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE, no man comes to the Father, except though me"

theonedru
05-01-2012, 11:18 PM
The biblical account of Jesus Christ is much more reliable than the history of George Washington. Do you believe George Washington was President of the United States?

Asides from bible accounts, show me the scientific proof of your claim. Also your claim above is not true sorry to say, there is hard evidence of Washington's acts from multiple sources NONE of Jesus besides the Bible, and people cannot prove the validity of it.

bangsportscards
05-01-2012, 11:45 PM
I didn't read the entire 34 pages yet.

I've settled my stance on the statement below.

As many cards as there are in circulation to collect there may very well be just as many ideas to collect about how you handle life with or without a God.

Thus it will always be a very wide topic to discuss.

habsheaven
05-02-2012, 07:53 AM
People don't rise from the dead unless they are God in the flesh. That's exactly who Jesus is. You have the choice to believe what you wish, but that doesn't exempt you from the consequences of your choices. The evidence is on my side. Eyewitness history, Secular History and Church History and other writings are on the side of the Bible being true.

You apparently need a lesson in the definition of EVIDENCE. You do not have 1 ounce of evidence supporting anything you have said in this thread. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the teachings of a native american shaman. He too, has all the "evidence" showing his stories to be TRUE. The hypocrisy shown by followers of every religion is mind-numbing. Keep preaching to the malleable, it apparently works.

Star_Cards
05-02-2012, 09:30 AM
It's history is based upon God's working with man to bring Him to salvation. While it does record historical events therein, it's not the focal point, Christ Jesus is.

I know that the historical events aren't the focus, that is why it isn't an historical document. However, people like to say it's historical because it mentions proven historical events.

The origin of Captain America used historical events but that doesn't make the story any more real.

pghin08
05-02-2012, 09:32 AM
I know that the historical events aren't the focus, that is why it isn't an historical document. However, people like to say it's historical because it mentions proven historical events.

The origin of Captain America used historical events but that doesn't make the story any more real.

I beg to differ. Captain America is real.

Star_Cards
05-02-2012, 09:35 AM
The biblical account of Jesus Christ is much more reliable than the history of George Washington. Do you believe George Washington was President of the United States?

This is completely absurd. George Washington's existence, while not witnessed by any of us, is well documented by various sources during his life. I didn't witness his presidency in person, but I know 100% that he was the president of the united states. Now, I will listen to questions about specific happenings that he may or may not have done or things that may not have happened the exact way it was reported, but saying George Washington was a president is in no way a belief similar to that of people's belief in Jesus Christ.

Star_Cards
05-02-2012, 09:48 AM
and let me add this... I'm perfectly fine with claims of a man existing that is Jesus Christ even to the extent that he went around claiming to be the son of god and teaching his religion that he created. I'm also able to see that he would have been crucified due to him preaching a religion that the majority (at the time) deemed wrong. It's the supernatural aspects that do not float. Things like the immaculate inception, his resurrection, Adam and Eve, and so on. To claim that those things are historical has no validity.

habsheaven
05-02-2012, 09:52 AM
and let me add this... I'm perfectly fine with claims of a man existing that is Jesus Christ even to the extent that he went around claiming to be the son of god and teaching his religion that he created. I'm also able to see that he would have been crucified due to him preaching a religion that the majority (at the time) deemed wrong. It's the supernatural aspects that do not float. Things like the immaculate inception, his resurrection, Adam and Eve, and so on. To claim that those things are historical has no validity.

Me too. Problem is that you are told to accept everything; hook, line and sinker, no matter how outrageous the other claims are.

Star_Cards
05-02-2012, 10:15 AM
Me too. Problem is that you are told to accept everything; hook, line and sinker, no matter how outrageous the other claims are.

I just never grasped how people can do that. I get wanting to believe and liking the idea of how christianity says it all happened. There are plenty of fictional stories that are great stories and are nice to think about and teach great lessons, but to literally believe these supernatural things and that they happened on the earth that we know seems odd to me.

*censored*
05-02-2012, 10:34 AM
I beg to differ. Captain America is real.

It's true. I saw photos of him hanging out with Paulina Gretzky last weekend!

ensbergcollector
05-02-2012, 11:02 AM
I just never grasped how people can do that. I get wanting to believe and liking the idea of how christianity says it all happened. There are plenty of fictional stories that are great stories and are nice to think about and teach great lessons, but to literally believe these supernatural things and that they happened on the earth that we know seems odd to me.

i completely understand why people feel that way. However, for me, looking at the size of the known universe, to think that it all began from a speck of dust and has expanded into billions upon billions of stars and galaxies seem far more odd to me than to believe that there is a higher power that had a hand in it.

mrveggieman
05-02-2012, 11:15 AM
i completely understand why people feel that way. However, for me, looking at the size of the known universe, to think that it all began from a speck of dust and has expanded into billions upon billions of stars and galaxies seem far more odd to me than to believe that there is a higher power that had a hand in it.


CHURCH!! :love0030:

habsheaven
05-02-2012, 11:21 AM
i completely understand why people feel that way. However, for me, looking at the size of the known universe, to think that it all began from a speck of dust and has expanded into billions upon billions of stars and galaxies seem far more odd to me than to believe that there is a higher power that had a hand in it.

The growth of the known universe is incremental. You have no explanation, nor seem to want one, for where the heck your "higher power" came from. Not only did HE create us from nothing, but we are to believe that HE just appeared from nothing.

ensbergcollector
05-02-2012, 11:30 AM
The growth of the known universe is incremental. You have no explanation, nor seem to want one, for where the heck your "higher power" came from. Not only did HE create us from nothing, but we are to believe that HE just appeared from nothing.

you have no explanation, nor seem to want one, for where the heck your "universe" came from.

again, it is a lot more rational for me to believe that God created the universe than that something (and by something i refer to billions of stars) came from a speck of dust. if you are comfortable saying "it makes sense, it is incremental" than more power to you. again, not trying to convince anyone, just sharing my feelings on the topic.

habsheaven
05-02-2012, 11:36 AM
you have no explanation, nor seem to want one, for where the heck your "universe" came from.

again, it is a lot more rational for me to believe that God created the universe than that something (and by something i refer to billions of stars) came from a speck of dust. if you are comfortable saying "it makes sense, it is incremental" than more power to you. again, not trying to convince anyone, just sharing my feelings on the topic.



That's where we are different. I WANT an explanation.

boba
05-02-2012, 11:38 AM
you have no explanation, nor seem to want one, for where the heck your "universe" came from.

again, it is a lot more rational for me to believe that God created the universe than that something (and by something i refer to billions of stars) came from a speck of dust. if you are comfortable saying "it makes sense, it is incremental" than more power to you. again, not trying to convince anyone, just sharing my feelings on the topic.

Thats just the beginning, I find how they explain how life first began pretty ridiculous.

mrveggieman
05-02-2012, 11:40 AM
That's where we are different. I WANT an explanation.


I would like an explanation on that as well as what happened to the dinosaurs as well as why people are gay. To this day no one has proven without a shadow of a doubt any of those issues one way or the other. As a far as God is involved you I go by proofs for the existance of God by renee decartes. It dosen't promote any particular religion but does show how more than likely everything came from a God.

ensbergcollector
05-02-2012, 11:40 AM
That's where we are different. I WANT an explanation.

you seem to be comfortable with the explanation that science has given you. for me, their explanation requires way more faith than my belief in God does.

boba
05-02-2012, 11:40 AM
That's where we are different. I WANT an explanation.

Do you realize that most of the founders of modern science where christians trying to disprove common beliefs of the time?

habsheaven
05-02-2012, 11:52 AM
you seem to be comfortable with the explanation that science has given you. for me, their explanation requires way more faith than my belief in God does.

I am more comfortable with the explanations science has given me as it relates to the progression of our universe over the last billion years or so. Science has yet to prove or disprove the existence of a God-like creator. Belief in a God requires very little faith, belief in religion as it pertains to a God, requires much more faith. A dangerous amount of faith in my mind.

habsheaven
05-02-2012, 11:53 AM
Do you realize that most of the founders of modern science where christians trying to disprove common beliefs of the time?

I do, but what is your point?

boba
05-02-2012, 12:02 PM
I do, but what is your point?

You act as if christianity is a hindrance to science. As if we don't want explanations about the world around us.

habsheaven
05-02-2012, 12:24 PM
You act as if christianity is a hindrance to science. As if we don't want explanations about the world around us.

Christians need EVERYTHING to fit into the confines of a book that is a couple of thousand years old. If it doesn't, it is discarded as "bad" science and conjecture. You only have to read your own comments to see the proof in what I say.

boba
05-02-2012, 12:30 PM
Christians need EVERYTHING to fit into the confines of a book that is a couple of thousand years old. If it doesn't, it is discarded as "bad" science and conjecture. You only have to read your own comments to see the proof in what I say.

Evolutionists do the same thing.

habsheaven
05-02-2012, 12:40 PM
Evolutionists do the same thing.

For example?

pghin08
05-02-2012, 12:43 PM
Evolutionists do the same thing.

If you mean look to scientific evidence of a universal common ancestor, then yes.

Star_Cards
05-02-2012, 01:34 PM
I think evolutionists tend to me rather openminded they are more about learning about things as they are discovered rather than defending a religion that they are very personally invested in. I believe in evolution but if one day we had more facts to another way I would be open minded about this new info. I have no personal investment in evolution. It just seems way more plausible to me than the christian story of how the world was formed and how man was created.

I feel that if we ever did get solid proof about how it all began if it were different from the ways that any religion says it happened, those people would be very unlikely to not still defend their personal religion. To me religious people are far more closed minded. Evolutionalists don't claim to know all of the answers and use new information as it comes to help understand how we came about.

ensbergcollector
05-02-2012, 02:08 PM
I think evolutionists tend to me rather openminded they are more about learning about things as they are discovered rather than defending a religion that they are very personally invested in. I believe in evolution but if one day we had more facts to another way I would be open minded about this new info. I have no personal investment in evolution. It just seems way more plausible to me than the christian story of how the world was formed and how man was created.

I feel that if we ever did get solid proof about how it all began if it were different from the ways that any religion says it happened, those people would be very unlikely to not still defend their personal religion. To me religious people are far more closed minded. Evolutionalists don't claim to know all of the answers and use new information as it comes to help understand how we came about.

i'm really torn. i do see where most christians could be defined as "close-minded." However, science gets to live in a revolving door of we are the smartest and we are right. For hundreds of years science has said "this is true" and puffed up their chests for being smarter than everyone else. Until they are proven wrong. Then they just say "hey, we weren't wrong, we just didn't have all the information, now that we do, this is true." Time and time again, science has been wrong but always get a free pass. It seems strange to me that the very segment of the population that demands proof of religion seems strangely ok that science keeps giving proof that is later disproved.


all that said, I am not some anti-science christian. i love science and think it is imperative in our knowledge. For me, science only increases my amazement at God. It does bring up hard questions but i'm ok with that. I don't have to have all the answers but to avoid the question entirely is wrong.


also, not sure how you can call religious people close minded and evolutionists open minded. Evolutionists are just as close minded toward religion as many religious people are toward science. Evolutionists are only open minded to ideas that further prove their own theories.

boba
05-02-2012, 02:17 PM
All I'm saying is that creationism and evolution are historical sciences. They both have the same evidence, but look at the evidence with different shades. The evolutionist shades are naturalism and the present is the only key to the past. The creationist's shades are that something supernatural created the earth and its laws. They both use the same evidence but come up with different views of that evidence based on their world view.

boba
05-02-2012, 02:18 PM
i'm really torn. I do see where most christians could be defined as "close-minded." however, science gets to live in a revolving door of we are the smartest and we are right. For hundreds of years science has said "this is true" and puffed up their chests for being smarter than everyone else. Until they are proven wrong. Then they just say "hey, we weren't wrong, we just didn't have all the information, now that we do, this is true." time and time again, science has been wrong but always get a free pass. It seems strange to me that the very segment of the population that demands proof of religion seems strangely ok that science keeps giving proof that is later disproved.


All that said, i am not some anti-science christian. I love science and think it is imperative in our knowledge. For me, science only increases my amazement at god. It does bring up hard questions but i'm ok with that. I don't have to have all the answers but to avoid the question entirely is wrong.


Also, not sure how you can call religious people close minded and evolutionists open minded. Evolutionists are just as close minded toward religion as many religious people are toward science. evolutionists are only open minded to ideas that further prove their own theories.


+1

habsheaven
05-02-2012, 02:41 PM
i'm really torn. i do see where most christians could be defined as "close-minded." However, science gets to live in a revolving door of we are the smartest and we are right. For hundreds of years science has said "this is true" and puffed up their chests for being smarter than everyone else. Until they are proven wrong. Then they just say "hey, we weren't wrong, we just didn't have all the information, now that we do, this is true." Time and time again, science has been wrong but always get a free pass. It seems strange to me that the very segment of the population that demands proof of religion seems strangely ok that science keeps giving proof that is later disproved.


all that said, I am not some anti-science christian. i love science and think it is imperative in our knowledge. For me, science only increases my amazement at God. It does bring up hard questions but i'm ok with that. I don't have to have all the answers but to avoid the question entirely is wrong.


also, not sure how you can call religious people close minded and evolutionists open minded. Evolutionists are just as close minded toward religion as many religious people are toward science. Evolutionists are only open minded to ideas that further prove their own theories.

The very nature of science is a revolving door. You cannot criticize it because further advances in science prove older science wrong. That is how it works. Name once where religion has proved science wrong. Look around you. Science has got it RIGHT everywhere you look.

Whether you avoid the question entirely or you shrug it off as "You have to have faith." Both are equally wrong.

habsheaven
05-02-2012, 02:49 PM
All I'm saying is that creationism and evolution are historical sciences. They both have the same evidence, but look at the evidence with different shades. The evolutionist shades are naturalism and the present is the only key to the past. The creationist's shades are that something supernatural created the earth and its laws. They both use the same evidence but come up with different views of that evidence based on their world view.

I must be missing something. Creationism = it's here, it's glorious, God created it that way. Where is the evidence?

ensbergcollector
05-02-2012, 02:51 PM
The very nature of science is a revolving door. You cannot criticize it because further advances in science prove older science wrong. That is how it works. Name once where religion has proved science wrong. Look around you. Science has got it RIGHT everywhere you look.

Whether you avoid the question entirely or you shrug it off as "You have to have faith." Both are equally wrong.

so, science has it figured out then. Science has been wrong more times then it has been right throughout history. Why would religion prove science wrong? The role of religion is not to disprove science. However, it could be argued that science has spent a lot of its history worried about disproving religion.


as for your "science has got it right everywhere you look" comment. Yeah, as of right now. and guess what. 200 years ago people said the same thing. Yet the majority of what science believed 200 years ago wasn't right. it was in fact very wrong. So I don't quite understand the confidence you stand with now saying science is right.

One of the things I respect about religion is its ability to say "I don't know." Science thinks saying I don't know is bad therefore they come up with whatever they can just so long as they have an answer. Can we really look at our known universe and not say "I have absolutely no idea how that came to be"? Why is that wrong?

boba
05-02-2012, 02:53 PM
I must be missing something. Creationism = it's here, it's glorious, God created it that way. Where is the evidence?

There is no observational Scientific evidence for evolution or creationism.

pghin08
05-02-2012, 02:58 PM
There is no observational Scientific evidence for evolution or creationism.

Huh? What about, you know, a fossil?

theonedru
05-02-2012, 02:59 PM
There is no observational Scientific evidence for evolution or creationism.

There is lots of scientific evidence for evolution, from fossil records to happenings today. The same cannot be said for creationism.

habsheaven
05-02-2012, 03:06 PM
so, science has it figured out then. Science has been wrong more times then it has been right throughout history. Why would religion prove science wrong? The role of religion is not to disprove science. However, it could be argued that science has spent a lot of its history worried about disproving religion.


as for your "science has got it right everywhere you look" comment. Yeah, as of right now. and guess what. 200 years ago people said the same thing. Yet the majority of what science believed 200 years ago wasn't right. it was in fact very wrong. So I don't quite understand the confidence you stand with now saying science is right.

One of the things I respect about religion is its ability to say "I don't know." Science thinks saying I don't know is bad therefore they come up with whatever they can just so long as they have an answer. Can we really look at our known universe and not say "I have absolutely no idea how that came to be"? Why is that wrong?

Did I just enter a parallel universe? Did you really just type that?

habsheaven
05-02-2012, 03:07 PM
There is no observational Scientific evidence for evolution or creationism.

You just said that they were both using the same evidence. Now you say there is none? One of us is very confused.

mrveggieman
05-02-2012, 03:09 PM
I think that evoultion and creationism can compliment each other and go hand in hand. I do not however believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. That is laughable and I wonder about the mental makeup of anyone who actually believes that.

ensbergcollector
05-02-2012, 03:12 PM
Did I just enter a parallel universe? Did you really just type that?

which part seems to bother you? you mock us when we say anything about faith, why would it surprise you for religious people to say i don't know.


How am I wrong about science?

habsheaven
05-02-2012, 03:23 PM
which part seems to bother you? you mock us when we say anything about faith, why would it surprise you for religious people to say i don't know.


How am I wrong about science?

I have rarely heard a religious person say, "I don't know." I have heard religious people say a thousand times over, "It says so in the Bible, and the Bible is the TRUTH." That hardly sounds like, "I don't know."

Science is an on-going process in every field. There are millions of "advances" made. None of which claim to be "right" and absolute. Completely "wrong" hypothesis are few and far between.

boba
05-02-2012, 03:29 PM
You just said that they were both using the same evidence. Now you say there is none? One of us is very confused.
:frusty:

We interpret the things we see in the world around us differently, ok?

ensbergcollector
05-02-2012, 03:29 PM
I have rarely heard a religious person say, "I don't know." I have heard religious people say a thousand times over, "It says so in the Bible, and the Bible is the TRUTH." That hardly sounds like, "I don't know."

Science is an on-going process in every field. There are millions of "advances" made. None of which claim to be "right" and absolute. Completely "wrong" hypothesis are few and far between.

i guess we will have to be on different sides then.


religious people very often state that they take something on faith because they can't explain it otherwise. in other words, "i don't know"

science routinely states "if you don't agree with us, then you are an idiot." can you honestly look at science and tell me that science never claims to be right? come on man. Just because they protect themselves with the word theory doesn't mean they are not presenting it as fact. look at the billions if not trillions of dollars spent as a result of the theory of global warming. If that was not presented as fact the response would not have been the way it was. In order to justify their continued grants and praise science has to present itself as true. Not sure how you can claim otherwise.

habsheaven
05-02-2012, 03:40 PM
i guess we will have to be on different sides then.


religious people very often state that they take something on faith because they can't explain it otherwise. in other words, "i don't know"

science routinely states "if you don't agree with us, then you are an idiot." can you honestly look at science and tell me that science never claims to be right? come on man. Just because they protect themselves with the word theory doesn't mean they are not presenting it as fact. look at the billions if not trillions of dollars spent as a result of the theory of global warming. If that was not presented as fact the response would not have been the way it was. In order to justify their continued grants and praise science has to present itself as true. Not sure how you can claim otherwise.

That is not, "I don't know." That is, "I believe what the Bible says despite my common sense that is telling me otherwise." When I claim; people could not have lived to be 900, a virgin cannot have a child, a man cannot walk on water, the Earth is older than 6,000 years, etc, etc, etc. I have yet to hear from a single christian, "You may be right, I don't know."

As for science, you are confusing scientists with science.

pghin08
05-02-2012, 03:43 PM
:frusty:

We interpret the things we see in the world around us differently, ok?

Then how do you interpret fossils depicting early humans?

ensbergcollector
05-02-2012, 03:51 PM
That is not, "I don't know." That is, "I believe what the Bible says despite my common sense that is telling me otherwise." When I claim; people could not have lived to be 900, a virgin cannot have a child, a man cannot walk on water, the Earth is older than 6,000 years, etc, etc, etc. I have yet to hear from a single christian, "You may be right, I don't know."

As for science, you are confusing scientists with science.

i know I say I don't know a lot when it comes to questions I can't answer. On a side note, I don't know that I could believe in a God that didn't do anything outside the realm of my "common sense." It would sadden me to live a life that says if I can understand it then it must not have happened.


not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean but it seems like you know exactly what I am talking about but don't want to admit it.

habsheaven
05-02-2012, 06:47 PM
i know I say I don't know a lot when it comes to questions I can't answer. On a side note, I don't know that I could believe in a God that didn't do anything outside the realm of my "common sense." It would sadden me to live a life that says if I can't understand it then it must not have happened.


not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean but it seems like you know exactly what I am talking about but don't want to admit it.

I assume you meant to say can't. No one is asking you to deny everything you do not understand. And no one I know does this either. It is sad that so many people in this world believe words in a book that make claims they know must be untrue without the help of supernatural forces.

The last sentence means scientists are human, and as so are greedy. You cannot condemn the actual science because some scientists want to pad their wallets. ACTUAL science works.

ensbergcollector
05-02-2012, 07:30 PM
I assume you meant to say can't. No one is asking you to deny everything you do not understand. And no one I know does this either. It is sad that so many people in this world believe words in a book that make claims they know must be untrue without the help of supernatural forces.

The last sentence means scientists are human, and as so are greedy. You cannot condemn the actual science because some scientists want to pad their wallets. ACTUAL science works.

but that seems to be exactly what you are doing. read all the threads on religion here. the sentiment from the non-religious is basically if you can't prove it using scientific methods then it didn't happen and you are an idiot for believing it.

theonedru
05-02-2012, 08:07 PM
but that seems to be exactly what you are doing. read all the threads on religion here. the sentiment from the non-religious is basically if you can't prove it using scientific methods then it didn't happen and you are an idiot for believing it.

Science theory can be use to prove or substantiate many things even things that many people claim as folly like ghosts, spiritual entities, or even an afterlife. So why can it not viably be used to back up religious claims? You can't just yammer that things in the bible are true because they were written in a book. If that were the case then any book could lay claim to anything. Faith is fine, but sometimes you need something a little more concrete.

shrewsbury
05-02-2012, 09:05 PM
we are dealing with the supernatural, you cannot say otherwise.

how this?

virgin impregnated by an act of god, baby is born, that is human and god, this person teaches us a new way about god, dies for our sins, rises from the dead, teaches more, then ascends to heaven.

and that's just the basics of the important stuff.

sounds esoteric, supernatural, unnatural, and defies anything we understand

but the issue is, science can't and will never be able to prove God or anything to do with him. no matter how hard you try to mix the two, it just won't work out in the end.

but there is a reason for this and it may be more common sense than most would think

habsheaven
05-02-2012, 09:11 PM
but that seems to be exactly what you are doing. read all the threads on religion here. the sentiment from the non-religious is basically if you can't prove it using scientific methods then it didn't happen and you are an idiot for believing it.

No it isn't. I am asking you to question those things that require supernatural ability to have taken place.

ensbergcollector
05-02-2012, 09:56 PM
No it isn't. I am asking you to question those things that require supernatural ability to have taken place.

come on now, you are asking a lot more than questioning. i question all the time. just because when i am done questioning i still believe in God doesn't seem acceptable for the non-religious around here.

theonedru
05-02-2012, 10:34 PM
we are dealing with the supernatural, you cannot say otherwise.

how this?

virgin impregnated by an act of god, baby is born, that is human and god, this person teaches us a new way about god, dies for our sins, rises from the dead, teaches more, then ascends to heaven.

and that's just the basics of the important stuff.

sounds esoteric, supernatural, unnatural, and defies anything we understand

but the issue is, science can't and will never be able to prove God or anything to do with him. no matter how hard you try to mix the two, it just won't work out in the end.

but there is a reason for this and it may be more common sense than most would think

if science cannot provide hard evidence or theory of proof then its all just one jolly fairy type tale. And what exactly is the reasoning behind the common sense part? It would have to be that it was all false.

As much as I cannot accept this whole Christian God thing, it doesn't mean that there is not a greater consciousness out there guiding those who tap into it. I think my main delusion to Christianity is that they believe their way is the only way, but you look at Judaism, or Buddhism, even Hinduism and they all say there is more than one road to the same destination, if they can be open to this realization why can't Christians?

shrewsbury
05-02-2012, 11:02 PM
some christians do, it would only be logical. people learn in different ways so the same path for everyone will just means many will be left behind. i believe this is the biggest downfall of christianity, its teachings, and what it is about. man corrupted it claimed many things to be correct only because of the authority they held and had behind them, and people had no choice. (but all that is another story)

most see christianity as being represented by the loudest among us or the larger groups within. like many liberals claim rush in the leader of the republican party, but that is so far removed from the truth, it is not worth even mentioning.


if science cannot provide hard evidence or theory of proof then its all just one jolly fairy type tale.

then there should be nothing, because science cannot prove where all of this started or came from. science cannot even agree among their disciplines, even evolutionists cannot agree on many things, prime example evolving from quad to bipedal, we see two great ideas savanah vs aquatic hypothesis (i am partial to the aquatic).

I love science and we see great hypothesis come to fruition, but not all that often nor in the realm of our existance. einstein's theory of relativity being a truth by measurements that can only be taken during an eclipse, this is the best of science and mind blowing unto itself.

quantum physics and mechanics is another prime example of science realizing basic "known" principles are not so known at all.

but to say science is the only answer would entail that science has all answers, which it simply does not.

the idea of something being beyond our comprehension is a big hit to our ego, but common sense should tell us there are many things we will never know.

understanding and studying the model does not always tell us about the maker in ways we wish to know.

bangsportscards
05-02-2012, 11:09 PM
I just died & went to Heaven.

I saw Jesus & he told me to come back to Earth.

You see I found out I still have some card dealing left in me!

So heaven is real, I even brought back a 1/1 statue located at the pearly gate.

Who ever here does the best Tebowing impression may be able to touch it.

Any questions?

Brian

shrewsbury
05-03-2012, 12:15 AM
are you sure it was heaven?

MadMan1978
05-03-2012, 06:42 AM
Well to stir the pot on this ..But i do not believe in the a heaven as some of all do. To believe in heaven means you also believe in a Hell as depicted in christian churches.

habsheaven
05-03-2012, 07:59 AM
Quote:
if science cannot provide hard evidence or theory of proof then its all just one jolly fairy type tale.


then there should be NO CLAIMS of knowing the truth, because science cannot prove where all of this started or came from.



Fixed that part for you Jay.

habsheaven
05-03-2012, 08:00 AM
I just died & went to Heaven.

I saw Jesus & he told me to come back to Earth.

You see I found out I still have some card dealing left in me!

So heaven is real, I even brought back a 1/1 statue located at the pearly gate.

Who ever here does the best Tebowing impression may be able to touch it.

Any questions?

Brian

Sorry, but I do not believe you. Can you provide some eyewitnesses please? :ref:

mrveggieman
05-03-2012, 08:19 AM
I think my main delusion to Christianity is that they believe their way is the only way, but you look at Judaism, or Buddhism, even Hinduism and they all say there is more than one road to the same destination, if they can be open to this realization why can't Christians?


Although I currently attend a christian church with very knowledgable bishop tend to agree with you on this.

Paddington
05-03-2012, 09:24 AM
Not true. There is hard proof of Jesus Christ's acts not only in the Bible, but in Secular History, Church History and other writings. It's the most documented event in History. <br />
<br />
Early Secular...

shrewsbury
05-03-2012, 09:45 AM
proving that there are christians is not the task, people want proof of jesus.

the only references to jesus are second hand

this is not the way to prove the validity of jesus or christianity

even josephus' account has now be deemed a fake, it was added on by early christian who were the only and main source for transcription and translation of books.

habsheaven
05-03-2012, 09:56 AM
Not true. There is hard proof of Jesus Christ's acts not only in the Bible, but in Secular History, Church History and other writings. It's the most documented event in History.



Not sure this is true but even if it were. That in and of itself isn't proof of anything. Again, I suggest you change your definition of "hard proof". Everything you have presented here is heresay.

ensbergcollector
05-03-2012, 10:12 AM
proving that there are christians is not the task, people want proof of jesus.

the only references to jesus are second hand

this is not the way to prove the validity of jesus or christianity

even josephus' account has now be deemed a fake, it was added on by early christian who were the only and main source for transcription and translation of books.

dude, a bunch of people with a motive to disprove jesus does not prove josephus' account to be fake. There is small speculation as to its accuracy but you seem to portray it as given fact that it is fake. you are being far from honest

shrewsbury
05-03-2012, 10:28 AM
you are being far from honest

really? do some research. not only do MOST scholars and historians think it was added on, but if you read the text before and after, it is easy to see why they do. also we are talking a jew who died jewish claiming jesus to be the messiah, this would make no sense.

also even if it were not an add on, it would be second hand information, he did not see jesus or any of the events.


There is small speculation as to its accuracy

not small at all

theonedru
05-03-2012, 10:53 AM
Alot of these you sourced do not even mention Jesus so why you posted along with my post is confusing as they do not relegate to anything.

Star_Cards
05-03-2012, 11:03 AM
most of these are just historical recordings that christians existed. I doubt you'll find many people that don't believe that there were and are christians throughout history. They still give no...

ensbergcollector
05-03-2012, 11:15 AM
most of these are just historical recordings that christians existed. I doubt you'll find many people that don't believe that there were and are christians throughout history. They still give no historical credence to the claims of resurrection, virgin birth, and such.

i think it was more about proving the existence of a man named jesus. obviously belief in any of the supernatural claims won't be historical record

mrveggieman
05-03-2012, 11:18 AM
i think it was more about proving the existence of a man named jesus. obviously belief in any of the supernatural claims won't be historical record


I think that most of us on here even the atheists believe in jesus. Hell even the koran makes reference to jesus. I've also heard that a lot of the quotes that paddington put up were proven to be forgeries. Not trying to stir the pot one way or the other just wanted to add my 2 cents. Carry on.

Star_Cards
05-03-2012, 01:04 PM
i think it was more about proving the existence of a man named jesus. obviously belief in any of the supernatural claims won't be historical record

definitely true. I think most people can agree that a person named Jesus who preached christianity is extremely plausible. his post still doesn't prove the bible is an historical document.

ensbergcollector
05-03-2012, 01:11 PM
definitely true. I think most people can agree that a person named Jesus who preached christianity is extremely plausible. his post still doesn't prove the bible is an historical document.

there will never be a way to prove the bible is a historical document to anyone who doesn't believe in the things the bible contains. We view whether a historical document is accurate by whether we believe that the things it contains actually happened. Since non-religious people don't believe the supernatural things the bible contains, they will never view it as a historical document.
Honestly not sure why the conversation even takes place. If someone doesn't believe the things it contains, they will never believe it is accurate. and there won't be a way to convince them otherwise.

Star_Cards
05-03-2012, 01:13 PM
there will never be a way to prove the bible is a historical document to anyone who doesn't believe in the things the bible contains. We view whether a historical document is accurate by whether we believe that the things it contains actually happened. Since non-religious people don't believe the supernatural things the bible contains, they will never view it as a historical document.
Honestly not sure why the conversation even takes place. If someone doesn't believe the things it contains, they will never believe it is accurate. and there won't be a way to convince them otherwise.

I agree. I personally don't think it's even worth a discussion. It was just brought up by a poster that it was the single more historical text... or at least I think that's what he was claiming. He definitely said it was a historical document.

shrewsbury
05-03-2012, 04:48 PM
Proving any miracles would require us to go back in time, find a small group of people, on the exact day it happened , and gather the forensic and other evidence.
Many will site that no other ancient writers mentioned such an important figure, but remember jesus was only important to his followers, not the jews or romans, his band of main followers were very few in number and Christians were very few and far between. Also, Remember you are trying to track down less than two dozen individuals dating back to 25-90 AD. At its earliest times Christianity was viewed by the outside world (mainly the romans) as a small jewish sect.
So it would seem logical that other writers would not mention Him or the apostles. The only two mentioning of jesus are both downplayed as being intropolated into a work or because it is not first hand it is not the truth. The chance of Josephus or Tacitus running into jesus or an apostle is so small they wouldn’t have known if they did.

Paddington
05-07-2012, 09:15 AM
proving that there are christians is not the task, people want proof of jesus.

the only references to jesus are second hand

this is not the way to prove the validity of jesus or christianity

even josephus' account has now be deemed a fake, it was added on by early christian who were the only and main source for transcription and translation of books.

The Bible was written by the ACTUAL eyewitnesses, they are not second hand accounts. Josephus was Rome's official Historian. They are not deemed to be fake except for those who wish to discredit the Biblical accounts.

Paddington
05-07-2012, 09:18 AM
most of these are just historical recordings that christians existed. I doubt you'll find many people that don't believe that there were and are christians throughout history. They still give no historical credence to the claims of resurrection, virgin birth, and such.


Yes they do. Here's one:

ARISTIDES: (138-161 A.D.)
Aristides was a second-century Christian believer and philosopher from Athens. This portion of his defense of Christianity was addressed to the Roman Emperor Antonius Pius, who reigned from 138-161 A.D.
“The Son of the most high God, revealed by the Holy Spirit, descended from heaven, born of a Hebrew Virgin. His flesh he received from the Virgin, and he revealed himself in the human nature as the Son of God. In his goodness which brought the glad tidings, he has won the whole world by his life-giving preaching…He selected twelve apostles and taught the whole world by his mediatorial, light-giving truth.
And he was crucified, being pierced with nails by the Jews; and he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. He sent the apostles into all the world and instructed all by divine miracles full of wisdom. Their preaching bears blossoms and fruits to this day, and calls the whole world to illumination.”
Carey, “Aristides,” 68.

Paddington
05-07-2012, 09:21 AM
definitely true. I think most people can agree that a person named Jesus who preached christianity is extremely plausible. his post still doesn't prove the bible is an historical document.

Yes, those historical writings DO affirm the biblical accounts. If Jesus hadn't really performed the Miracles that are recorded in the bible, don't you think that someone, somehwere would have written about how the disciples were lying? Yet you find no such writings. If He hadn't really risen from the dead, don't you think that someone would have written about how the body was still in the tomb, guarded by Roman Guards?

habsheaven
05-07-2012, 09:21 AM
Yes they do. Here's one:

ARISTIDES: (138-161 A.D.)
Aristides was a second-century Christian believer and philosopher from Athens. This portion of his defense of Christianity was addressed to the Roman Emperor Antonius Pius, who reigned from 138-161 A.D.
“The Son of the most high God, revealed by the Holy Spirit, descended from heaven, born of a Hebrew Virgin. His flesh he received from the Virgin, and he revealed himself in the human nature as the Son of God. In his goodness which brought the glad tidings, he has won the whole world by his life-giving preaching…He selected twelve apostles and taught the whole world by his mediatorial, light-giving truth.
And he was crucified, being pierced with nails by the Jews; and he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. He sent the apostles into all the world and instructed all by divine miracles full of wisdom. Their preaching bears blossoms and fruits to this day, and calls the whole world to illumination.”
Carey, “Aristides,” 68.

How is this credible? It is written a 100 years after the guy's death?

shrewsbury
05-07-2012, 10:18 AM
How is this credible? It is written a 100 years after the guy's death?

exactly!! what don't people understand about this?

JustAlex
05-07-2012, 07:58 PM
Pfftt....

The GREATEST lie in the world!

Scaring people to the point where they give up their only life into believing in FAIRY TALES!

You gotta love christianity...

habsheaven
05-07-2012, 08:18 PM
Pfftt....

The GREATEST lie in the world!

Scaring people to the point where they give up their only life into believing in FAIRY TALES!

You gotta love christianity...

You mean the CRUELEST lie in the world. Just think of how many god-fearing people that kill their loved ones to "save" them from the misery they do not want them to experience on this earth. In the belief that they will live happily ever after in Heaven.

JustAlex
05-07-2012, 08:57 PM
You mean the CRUELEST lie in the world. Just think of how many god-fearing people that kill their loved ones to "save" them from the misery they do not want them to experience on this earth. In the belief that they will live happily ever after in Heaven.

Yes....agreed!

Christianity terrorizes the human mind into thinking they will be eternally tortured, and the only way to save themselves is to give up your one and only life.

And then like you said, all the people that kill others to "save" them or because God told them to do it for whatever reason.


BTW....I used to be a Christian myself, I believed the bible with all my heart and everything that goes along with it.

However, once I actually used my brain, I realized it was a complete LIE!

shrewsbury
05-08-2012, 01:09 AM
Yes....agreed!

Christianity terrorizes the human mind into thinking they will be eternally tortured, and the only way to save themselves is to give up your one and only life.

And then like you said, all the people that kill others to "save" them or because God told them to do it for whatever reason.


BTW....I used to be a Christian myself, I believed the bible with all my heart and everything that goes along with it.

However, once I actually used my brain, I realized it was a complete LIE!

then your understanding of christianity is much different than mine. terrorizing? tortured? give up your life? killing others? using your brain?

if hell is the only reason you are a christian, you can bet you will be going there.
if giving up your life means you can't steal, rape, kill, cheat, or be violent, then i guess i am willing to give mine up.
more people kill than just christians and i am sure that most christians who are murderers, may only be claiming to be christian.
i don't remember jesus killing, terrorizing or telling people they better listen or they will be tortured for eternity.

the things you peak of is mans influence on christianity not christianity itself.

and to use your brain, to me, means to try to realize where the bible came from and how it came to be in the form we are reading it today, not just blindly reading words and listening to interpretations of them.

JustAlex
05-08-2012, 01:55 AM
then your understanding of christianity is much different than mine. terrorizing? tortured? give up your life? killing others? using your brain?

if hell is the only reason you are a christian, you can bet you will be going there.
if giving up your life means you can't steal, rape, kill, cheat, or be violent, then i guess i am willing to give mine up.
more people kill than just christians and i am sure that most christians who are murderers, may only be claiming to be christian.
i don't remember jesus killing, terrorizing or telling people they better listen or they will be tortured for eternity.

the things you peak of is mans influence on christianity not christianity itself.

and to use your brain, to me, means to try to realize where the bible came from and how it came to be in the form we are reading it today, not just blindly reading words and listening to interpretations of them.

What you said is basically the talking points to every christian out there, almost word for word.

#1 YES, Hell and Heaven is the ONLY reason people are christians, they are afraid to go to hell, so they obediently follow the bible blindly for fear that if they don't they will wind up in hell, there is NO other reason to be a christian other than the pursuit of going to heaven instead of hell.

#2 Why do you think that giving up your life means not being able to do horrendous things such as rape and murder?

When I say that christians give up their life I mean because they have to be like sheep to the church, they think that minuscule things like having sex before marriage is a HUGE SIN, and they live in fear that "God" is going to punish them.

Also, according to the bible even THINKING is a sin.

YES, I would equivilate that to giving up your life!

After all, Jesus basically said, give up the "world" and follow me.

#3 Actually, Jesus said that NO ONE will be allowed in heaven except by accepting him.

So YES, he is saying either repent and follow me or be DAMNED for ALL eternity.

I would equivilate this to terrorizing someone by forcing him to do what he says because if you don't he's going to torture you for all eternity.

shrewsbury
05-08-2012, 08:39 AM
again, your idea of christianity and mine differ so greatly, i am unsure we are even talking about the same thing.

christians don't need to go to church.
if getting to heaven or not going to hell is your reason for believing, then you were taught wrong.
we don't live n fear of god, heck he is my best friend


Actually, Jesus said that NO ONE will be allowed in heaven except by accepting him.

So YES, he is saying either repent and follow me or be DAMNED for ALL eternity.

I would equivilate this to terrorizing someone by forcing him to do what he says because if you don't he's going to torture you for all eternity.

that's a stretch there

obviously you are trolling, but if you think you know about jesus, and this is the type of stuff you say, then you must have only been told what to think and never used your brain as you stated you have.

habsheaven
05-08-2012, 09:35 AM
Actually to characterize the "threat of Hell on a child" as terrorizing is not a stretch at all.

shrewsbury
05-08-2012, 10:41 AM
Actually to characterize the "threat of Hell on a child" as terrorizing is not a stretch at all.

and this is christian like?

i guess the real issue here (for me) is my view of christianity is quite different than what people are saying here, so different in fact, that most of it does not make sense to me.

Star_Cards
05-08-2012, 03:01 PM
I agree that the threat of hell and eternal damnation would be considered terrorizing to some degree. It's not terrorizing as some actions, but it's definitely a product used to put fear into people. Hell is most definitely used as a deterrent and it's a rather scary one at that.

Now, that's not to say that the Hell deterrent is the only reason why believers believe, but it has to be in the back of the mind of most.

JustAlex
05-08-2012, 04:20 PM
and this is christian like?

i guess the real issue here (for me) is my view of christianity is quite different than what people are saying here, so different in fact, that most of it does not make sense to me.

Well, if you have a different view from the mainstream Christians then you are a rare breed.

However, when I talk about Christians, I'm talking about those that believe any and ALL people who don't accept Jesus will be burned in HELL for all eternity.

That's what the bible teaches.

theonedru
05-08-2012, 04:51 PM
Most Christians live their life according to some book put together by a bunch of guys and take it as the word of God instead of actually following in the footsteps and the teachings of Jesus which very very few Christians are willing to do. If a Christian is really truly a Christian then they would emulate Christ as much as possible.

shrewsbury
05-08-2012, 11:45 PM
[QUOTE]Most Christians live their life according to some book put together by a bunch of guys and take it as the word of God instead of actually following in the footsteps and the teachings of Jesus which very very few Christians are willing to do. If a Christian is really truly a Christian then they would emulate Christ as much as possible[QUOTE]

i am shocked, some one has said something about christians i agree with.

and the problem with doing this is, it is very, very, very hard. but even at 1/2% the results are amazing.

we are not seeking to do miracles or damn anyone to anything, just trying to be the best person we can and use jesus as our ultimate example.

Paddington
05-09-2012, 10:09 AM
How is this credible? It is written a 100 years after the guy's death?

....But they weren't all written 100 years later. Many of them were written in the lifetime of those present.

Paddington
05-09-2012, 10:10 AM
Yes....agreed!

Christianity terrorizes the human mind into thinking they will be eternally tortured, and the only way to save themselves is to give up your one and only life.

And then like you said, all the people that kill others to "save" them or because God told them to do it for whatever reason.


BTW....I used to be a Christian myself, I believed the bible with all my heart and everything that goes along with it.

However, once I actually used my brain, I realized it was a complete LIE!

What we are doing is warning people of the TRUTH of what's going to happen to them. It would be cruel if we DIDN'T warn people.

Paddington
05-09-2012, 10:15 AM
Most Christians live their life according to some book put together by a bunch of guys and take it as the word of God instead of actually following in the footsteps and the teachings of Jesus which very very few Christians are willing to do. If a Christian is really truly a Christian then they would emulate Christ as much as possible.

It's not just some book put together by a bunch of guys. Here are some facts about the Bible that you should know:


The bible was written by God through 40 men in 3 languages over a 1,500 year period. These men lived in different parts of the world, some were rich, some were poor, some were educated, some were not, most didn't know each other, nor did they necessarily have access to the other's writings and yet it fits together as if it were written by one person, because it was written by God. It has no true errors or contradictions. There are countless prophecies which have been predicted and fulfilled perfectly in scripture. All of these prophecies were written hundreds of years before they were fulfilled. That’s how the wise men knew about Jesus’s birth in the first place, from the prophecies in the Old Testament.

habsheaven
05-09-2012, 10:36 AM
....But they weren't all written 100 years later. Many of them were written in the lifetime of those present.

I was referring to the writer Aristides, not Jesus. His writing about Jesus is done 100 years after Jesus died. Just like the others. Aristides was not a witness to anything that he wrote about Jesus.

habsheaven
05-09-2012, 10:42 AM
It's not just some book put together by a bunch of guys. Here are some facts about the Bible that you should know:


The bible was written by God through 40 men in 3 languages over a 1,500 year period. These men lived in different parts of the world, some were rich, some were poor, some were educated, some were not, most didn't know each other, nor did they necessarily have access to the other's writings and yet it fits together as if it were written by one person, because it was written by God. It has no true errors or contradictions. There are countless prophecies which have been predicted and fulfilled perfectly in scripture. All of these prophecies were written hundreds of years before they were fulfilled. That’s how the wise men knew about Jesus’s birth in the first place, from the prophecies in the Old Testament.

I can take poems written with a nature theme, by a thousand different authors from all different backgrounds and different locations, compile them into a book of poetry and voila, it all "fits". That does not prove it was all written by one source. For all these countless prophecies, there is no proof that any of them came true.

hawk2618
05-09-2012, 10:58 AM
Just put a Canadian jersey on in your casket,you're sure to get to heaven!!!!

shrewsbury
05-09-2012, 11:50 AM
Just put a Canadian jersey on in your casket,you're sure to get to heaven!!!!

will i get all the fries with gravy i can eat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Paddington
05-10-2012, 07:54 PM
I was referring to the writer Aristides, not Jesus. His writing about Jesus is done 100 years after Jesus died. Just like the others. Aristides was not a witness to anything that he wrote about Jesus.

The News Reporters aren't usually eyewitnesses to the events they report either. Neither are the Teachers and Professors. The Biblical writers were eyewitnesses. Many of the Historians were alive at the time. So you have eyewitness testimony and historical writings as well as church history. It's about as documented as can be.

theonedru
05-10-2012, 08:01 PM
The News Reporters aren't usually eyewitnesses to the events they report either. Neither are the Teachers and Professors. The Biblical writers were eyewitnesses. Many of the Historians were alive at the time. So you have eyewitness testimony and historical writings as well as church history. It's about as documented as can be.

So can we see all this Jesus talk of him in present 1st person text then please that exists all over the place

shrewsbury
05-11-2012, 08:50 AM
[QUOTE]So can we see all this Jesus talk of him in present 1st person text then please that exists all over the place[QUOTE]

i wold love to see this too.

Paddington
05-14-2012, 11:43 AM
The Bible is the first person, eyewitness testimony. Also there is church history and secular history. Here is some secular History. Also, if you would like to read the church history there is a...

habsheaven
05-14-2012, 11:56 AM
"The Bible is the first person, eyewitness testimony."

Are you going to continue contradicting yourself throughout this entire thread? None of what you listed is "first person, eyewitness testimony". You can post it all you want and call it whatever you want (apparently that is how religious dogma works) that still doesn't make it so.

shrewsbury
05-21-2012, 09:25 AM
i think we should remember jesus was not a "star when he was on earth, it was his followers that made christianity what it is today.

there would be little mention of someone who is not well known outside of his own people.

Paddington
05-21-2012, 11:07 AM
"The Bible is the first person, eyewitness testimony."

Are you going to continue contradicting yourself throughout this entire thread? None of what you listed is "first person, eyewitness testimony". You can post it all you want and call it whatever you want (apparently that is how religious dogma works) that still doesn't make it so.

What I posted above are secular writings, but that time, howbeit, they aren't necessarily eyewitness writings. The Bible IS eyewitness testimony. So you have Eyewitness and Historical writings. What will it take for you to believe it?

habsheaven
05-21-2012, 11:42 AM
What I posted above are secular writings, but that time, howbeit, they aren't necessarily eyewitness writings. The Bible IS eyewitness testimony. So you have Eyewitness and Historical writings. What will it take for you to believe it?

Eye-witness testimony is: I see something, I write it down or speak about it. No writings in the Bible were written by people who actually SAW anything.

It is NOT eye-witness testimony. What will it take for you to understand that?

ensbergcollector
05-21-2012, 11:53 AM
Eye-witness testimony is: I see something, I write it down or speak about it. No writings in the Bible were written by people who actually SAW anything.

It is NOT eye-witness testimony. What will it take for you to understand that?

i am very confused by this:

the gospel of john is attributed to john the disciple which would make him an eyewitness. the gospel of matthew is the disciple matthew, which would make him an eyewitness. the gospel of luke is writing down peter the disciples telling which would make that an eyewitness account. all the letters of paul are first person which would make them eyewitness.


if you want to say you don't believe anything in the bible that's fine. you are fully allowed to do so. but you can't say no writings in the bible are written by people who actually saw anything.

jprt80
05-21-2012, 12:00 PM
I find it hard to belive that all the rapists, killers, child molesters have to do is say prayer and they are forgiven. I was once brainwashed into believing this garbage. Then I grew up and started thinking for myself. The only reason religion exists is that everyone is afraid of death. We can't bring ourselves to believe that life has an end. Guess what, the clock can and will stop ticking at some point. Use your time here on earth in a good way and let the cards fall where they may when you die. How can there be so many people; Jews, Islam, Christians (all 52 million denominations) that believe in the same God, but in different ways. NO ONE is right. Believe what you want but don't think that all of a sudden the rest of the world should see things the same way as you. I have no problems w/ religion. I can't stand people that try to convince the world that their way is right and all others are wrong.

ensbergcollector
05-21-2012, 12:02 PM
I find it hard to belive that all the rapists, killers, child molesters have to do is say prayer and they are forgiven. I was once brainwashed into believing this garbage. Then I grew up and started thinking for myself. The only reason religion exists is that everyone is afraid of death. We can't bring ourselves to believe that life has an end. Guess what, the clock can and will stop ticking at some point. Use your time here on earth in a good way and let the cards fall where they may when you die. How can there be so many people; Jews, Islam, Christians (all 52 million denominations) that believe in the same God, but in different ways. NO ONE is right. Believe what you want but don't think that all of a sudden the rest of the world should see things the same way as you. I have no problems w/ religion. I can't stand people that try to convince the world that their way is right and all others are wrong.

and yet you post on here that all people should view things your way

shrewsbury
05-21-2012, 02:40 PM
forgiveness is not that easy.
it is like seeking satori, if you think you have it, it is gone

MadMan1978
05-21-2012, 02:51 PM
forgiveness is not that easy.
it is like seeking satori, if you think you have it, it is gone


Sure it is...

shrewsbury
05-21-2012, 02:54 PM
Sure it is...

???????

MadMan1978
05-21-2012, 02:56 PM
Forgiveness comes from within

Trust me when i say that it took many years to learn to forgive once i was able to find forgiveness, other things became possible

shrewsbury
05-21-2012, 03:07 PM
Trust me when i say that it took many years to learn to forgive once i was able to find forgiveness, other things became possible

i agree, i was commenting on the fact many thinks all a rapist or murderer needs to do is ask for forgiveness, you can ask all you want, but it is your intentions that truly count

cardmasters
05-21-2012, 08:07 PM
Can't discuss to much of the bible because I did not read the whole thing but probably will one of these days.

No one knows 100% percent if they will get to heaven unless you follow everything Jesus taught. Judgment day is mention dozens of time in the bible. Read matthew 25 31-46

shrewsbury
05-21-2012, 08:26 PM
not too worried about judgement day just trying to make it through this life

jprt80
05-21-2012, 09:37 PM
I'm not trying to persuade anyone one way or another. I'm just stating my opinion. I didn't say anything about how people should view anything.

and yet you post on here that all people should view things your way

Paddington
05-24-2012, 09:06 PM
Eye-witness testimony is: I see something, I write it down or speak about it. No writings in the Bible were written by people who actually SAW anything.

It is NOT eye-witness testimony. What will it take for you to understand that?

YES it IS. The entire NT was written by Eyewitnesses. Moses wrote of the history of the world before he lived, but most were eyewitness accounts.

Paddington
05-24-2012, 09:09 PM
i am very confused by this:

the gospel of john is attributed to john the disciple which would make him an eyewitness. the gospel of matthew is the disciple matthew, which would make him an eyewitness. the gospel of luke is writing down peter the disciples telling which would make that an eyewitness account. all the letters of paul are first person which would make them eyewitness.


if you want to say you don't believe anything in the bible that's fine. you are fully allowed to do so. but you can't say no writings in the bible are written by people who actually saw anything.

:thumb:

Paddington
05-24-2012, 09:11 PM
I find it hard to belive that all the rapists, killers, child molesters have to do is say prayer and they are forgiven. I was once brainwashed into believing this garbage. Then I grew up and started thinking for myself. The only reason religion exists is that everyone is afraid of death. We can't bring ourselves to believe that life has an end. Guess what, the clock can and will stop ticking at some point. Use your time here on earth in a good way and let the cards fall where they may when you die. How can there be so many people; Jews, Islam, Christians (all 52 million denominations) that believe in the same God, but in different ways. NO ONE is right. Believe what you want but don't think that all of a sudden the rest of the world should see things the same way as you. I have no problems w/ religion. I can't stand people that try to convince the world that their way is right and all others are wrong.

You have to understand that salvation isn't based upon what WE have done, it's based upon what Christ Jesus did for us on the cross. It's not the prayer that saves you, it's placing your faith in Jesus Christ believing that He died on the cross and rose from the dead for your sins. What you are doing is accepting what He already did for you to pay for your sins. Those who don't accept it will have to pay for them themselves by going to hell.

shrewsbury
05-24-2012, 09:22 PM
[QUOTE] It's not the prayer that saves you, it's placing your faith in Jesus Christ believing that He died on the cross and rose from the dead for your sins. What you are doing is accepting what He already did for you to pay for your sins. [QUOTE]

your faith, not a prayer and a dollar bill, or a splashing of holy water, you, just you.

theonedru
05-24-2012, 09:39 PM
YES it IS. The entire NT was written by Eyewitnesses. Moses wrote of the history of the world before he lived, but most were eyewitness accounts.

How can he write anything before he was born, that's physically impossible..

shrewsbury
05-24-2012, 09:41 PM
Moses wrote of the history of the world before he lived,

um, not sure what you are trying to say

Paddington
05-29-2012, 11:34 AM
How can he write anything before he was born, that's physically impossible..

I said that he wrote of the history of the world, meaning things that happened before his birth. God revealed them to him.

shrewsbury
05-29-2012, 02:13 PM
this is an assumption based on an idea of man. no where does it state this in the new, old testament, nor even any of the so called gnostic writings.

the laws were written by moses, but it never mentions him putting together the torah or any other book.

Paddington
06-06-2012, 06:28 PM
this is an assumption based on an idea of man. no where does it state this in the new, old testament, nor even any of the so called gnostic writings.

the laws were written by moses, but it never mentions him putting together the torah or any other book.

Wrong.

Ex 17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua:

Ex 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.

De 31:24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,

De 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee

Paddington
06-06-2012, 06:29 PM
Question: Who told Moses to write the book?

stlcardinalsfan
06-06-2012, 06:37 PM
i think that if u generally beelive in god and what he has done and try to live a good life you will go to heaven. i dont think there is really a need for over the top rightousness and christain extremism. dosnt make much sense to do all of that or be like that if u still are not sure who is goign to heaven.
no one is even sure what happens after you die, i guess its just a matter of faith. maybe everyone goes to the afterlife of their choosing,no one knows.

ensbergcollector
06-07-2012, 10:19 AM
i think that if u generally beelive in god and what he has done and try to live a good life you will go to heaven. i dont think there is really a need for over the top rightousness and christain extremism. dosnt make much sense to do all of that or be like that if u still are not sure who is goign to heaven.
no one is even sure what happens after you die, i guess its just a matter of faith. maybe everyone goes to the afterlife of their choosing,no one knows.

what do you consider over the top righteousness and christian extremism?

shrewsbury
06-07-2012, 10:21 AM
paddington, the passages are referring to the laws not the books of the torah

mrveggieman
06-07-2012, 11:17 AM
what do you consider over the top righteousness and christian extremism?


Some of the stuff that I seen on here. :sign0020:

Paddington
06-12-2012, 03:18 PM
what do you consider over the top righteousness and christian extremism?

I'll answer that. He considers anyone who actually believes it to be over the top and an extremist.

Paddington
06-12-2012, 03:21 PM
paddington, the passages are referring to the laws not the books of the torah

Those ARE from the torah. The Torah are the first five books of the Bible, which were written by Moses. They probably have a different title in the Christian Bible than in the Jewish Bible, but it's exactly the same thing.

From Wiki:

Torah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah#mw-head), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah#p-search)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/K%C3%B6ln-Tora-und-Innenansicht-Synagoge-Glockengasse-040.JPG/220px-K%C3%B6ln-Tora-und-Innenansicht-Synagoge-Glockengasse-040.JPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:K%C3%B6ln-Tora-und-Innenansicht-Synagoge-Glockengasse-040.JPG)http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.20wmf4/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:K%C3%B6ln-Tora-und-Innenansicht-Synagoge-Glockengasse-040.JPG)
Sefer Torah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefer_Torah) at old Glockengasse Synagogue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glockengasse_Synagogue) (reconstruction), Cologne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne)


The Torah (/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)t (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ɔː (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)r (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ə (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English); Hebrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language): תּוֹרָה‎‎, "Instruction", "Teaching") is the Jewish name for the first five books of the Jewish Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh). In Hebrew the five books are named by the first phrase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incipit) in the text: Bere™™™™ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bere™™™™) ("In the beginning," Book of Genesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis)), Shemot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shemot) ("Names," Exodus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Exodus)), Vayikra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vayikra) ("He called", Leviticus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviticus)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah#cite_note-0)), Bamidbar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamidbar) ("In the desert," Numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Numbers)) and Devarim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devarim) ("Words," Deuteronomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuteronomy)). In rabbinic literature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_literature) the word Torah denotes both these five books, Torah Shebichtav (תורה שבכתב, "Torah that is written"), and an Oral Torah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah), Torah Shebe'al Peh (תורה שבעל פה, "Torah that is spoken"). The Oral Torah consists of the traditional interpretations and amplifications handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation and now embodied in the Talmud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud) (תַּלְמוּד) and Midrash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash) (מדרש‎) .[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah#cite_note-Jewish_Concepts_1964.2C_page_630-1)
According to Jewish tradition, all of the laws found in the Torah, both written and oral, were given by God to Moses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses), some of them at Mount Sinai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Mount_Sinai) and most of them at the Tabernacle, and all the teachings were later compiled and written down by Moses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses), which resulted in the Torah we have today. The Torah was created prior to the creation of the world, and was used as the blueprint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint) for Creation. [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah#cite_note-2) Most Modern biblical scholars believe that the written books were a product of the Babylonian exilic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity) period (c.600 BCE) and that it was completed by the Persian period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehud_Medinata) (c.400 BCE).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah#cite_note-3)

shrewsbury
06-12-2012, 03:25 PM
just for future reference wiki is not a good site to use as a reference

you are basing this assumptions on other jewish works, look at the words written, it states the laws and only the laws.

if you allow other humans to interpret for you, will you ever learn anything?

Star_Cards
06-12-2012, 03:58 PM
I'll answer that. He considers anyone who actually believes it to be over the top and an extremist.

are you saying that anyone who is religious you feel are over the top and extremist about it?

Paddington
06-14-2012, 10:41 AM
just for future reference wiki is not a good site to use as a reference

you are basing this assumptions on other jewish works, look at the words written, it states the laws and only the laws.

if you allow other humans to interpret for you, will you ever learn anything?


...But even wiki knows that the first 5 books of the bible are the torah. It doesn't take much tought here. The books themselves are all "The Law". The other OT books are referred to as "The Prophets".

Paddington
06-14-2012, 10:42 AM
are you saying that anyone who is religious you feel are over the top and extremist about it?

Nope. I'm saying that that's what he thinks.

shrewsbury
06-14-2012, 10:53 AM
you are yet again allowing people to interpret things for you, sure the jewish call these 5 books the laws, fits in nicely with the rest of the story.

but look at the words written, do not assume or play any other factors but the words.

so you believe this was written before creation and is the blueprint for creation??

really? god needs a blue print or even needs to write anything?

cavaliersfan30
06-14-2012, 10:54 AM
PRAY that the HEAT dont win!!!

Paddington
06-20-2012, 09:49 AM
you are yet again allowing people to interpret things for you, sure the jewish call these 5 books the laws, fits in nicely with the rest of the story.

but look at the words written, do not assume or play any other factors but the words.

so you believe this was written before creation and is the blueprint for creation??

really? god needs a blue print or even needs to write anything?

Nope, it was written AFTER creation by moses.

shrewsbury
06-20-2012, 10:27 AM
Moses wrote of the history of the world before he lived


Nope, it was written AFTER creation by moses.

confused

MadMan1978
06-22-2012, 10:17 AM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/165975_382972121768866_84408081_n.jpg

hmmmm really?

shrewsbury
06-22-2012, 11:56 AM
only the doubter need to touch it, the rest of us are smart enough to stay away from it

habsheaven
06-22-2012, 12:05 PM
I think that is the point of the joke. People doubt a simple statement and look to confirm it. With a much more outlandish statement they seek no confirmation. Makes you wonder.

shrewsbury
06-22-2012, 12:06 PM
i agree, blindly following anything is crazy, that is why we have a brain!

Star_Cards
06-22-2012, 12:13 PM
I never believe signs.

MadMan1978
06-22-2012, 12:20 PM
i agree, blindly following anything is crazy, that is why we have a brain!
Following blindly has killed before....started wars...and happens everyday...but yet so many follow blindly in a belief in some from of a omnipotent power. I do not believe anyone here on this forum who attends church or practices in some form or Christianity cannot believe nothing exist.

the photo was a Carlin joke but yet so true in todays world. I see it every time i attend a meeting and tak within my groups of 12 steppers. Never say they ar wrong i just dont share in that aspect.

andrewhoya
06-22-2012, 01:16 PM
i agree, blindly following anything is crazy, that is why we have a brain!

But people do it with politicians all the time. Oh, youre a Dem? You get my vote.

Wickabee
06-22-2012, 03:29 PM
But people do it with politicians all the time. Oh, youre a Dem? You get my vote.
Yes, but the second you have parties in a democracy no one can vote for the best candidate. Parties make people vote for the lesser evil.

drtom2005
06-24-2012, 05:47 PM
Let me ask you or any other atheist this. When you are going through a storm in your life who/what do you turn to for strenght?

Who do I turn to for strength? Likely the same people everyone on this site does. Family and freinds. Although, I will say card collecting does help with the hard times. Food helps too sometimes. If only Taco Bell would close, I would probably lose 20 pounds. Poetry helps. Speaking out the words releases the angry, confusion, and disbelief of the situation. William Carlos Williams is one of my favorites. People should read him more. LOL.

*censored*
06-24-2012, 06:14 PM
There's a man. I've never seen him. In fact no one has. But I'm told he's always watching. If I'm good, he'll put me on a list and reward me in time. But if I'm bad, I'll be punished.

Am I talking about God, or Santa Claus?

MadMan1978
06-24-2012, 07:32 PM
There's a man. I've never seen him. In fact no one has. But I'm told he's always watching. If I'm good, he'll put me on a list and reward me in time. But if I'm bad, I'll be punished.

Am I talking about God, or Santa Claus?


Both