Liberal Christians only believe some "fundamentalism?

[AlAyeti]

There are now political Christians wanting to "re-claim" Christianity from whatever the "Right" is, or has done to it. Claiming that their way of Christianity is more like what Jesus would want.

But many of these Liberal positions hold to funadamentalism on the poor, the needy and anti-war and violence, but oppose Biblical truth on many other issues.

Why do Liberal Christians deny the truths of the New Testament on marriage and children as defined by Jesus himself?

Liberals will teach about condom usage but decry the Biblical truth about abstaining from sex until marriage as something ignorant or intolerant?

Why are not Liberal Christians funding missionaries to go to Muslim and other countries to spread the Gospel exactly the way Jesus described and exactly the way it is presented in the Gospels?

How can Liberal Christians support a womans right to kill her unborn child and encourage a woman to go and do it, while at the same time, denying the same rights of choice on the matter be given equal recognition to the father of the child?

How and why can Liberal Christians call themselves Christians while only preaching and teaching some immutable Christian positions and not all?

[bernee51]

SAB original comments in black; ours in green.

Must be something wrong with my computer Al...all mine are in black

And who is the mysterious 'ours' with whom you are associating?

[AlAyeti]

Bernee, the color is from the website.

///

"Christian skepticism" is redundant. How many Bibles have footnotes denoting where scholars "question" the verse as it has come down through the manuscripts? How many denominations are there? "Protestant" is literally a Christian skeptic!

Skepticism is nothing fearful. Christianty is the most skeptical and questioning belief system in history; as can be observed from the debate never ceasing posed by so many "believers. Nothing stagnant for sure.

Facts for skeptics of the new testament

(from www.equip.org)

It’s hard to imagine how one can reconstruct the text of something written two thousand years ago. The skepticism, though, is based on two false assumptions about how an ancient document such as the New Testament was transmitted over time. The first assumption is that the transmission was more or less linear — one person told a second who talked with a third, and so on, leaving a single message many generations removed from the original. The second assumption is that the text was transmitted orally, in which case it is more easily distorted and misconstrued than if it had been written. Neither assumption, however, applies to the text of the New Testament. First, the transmission was not linear, but geometric — that is, one original birthed 50 copies, which generated 500 copies, and so on. Second, the transmission was done in writing, and written manuscripts can be tested in a way oral communications cannot.

How Many and How Old? Confidence that the original text has successfully been reconstructed depends on two factors: how many copies exist and how old they are. If the numbers are few and the time gap wide between the original manuscript (called the autograph) and the oldest copy, then the original text is harder to reconstruct. If, however, many copies exist and the oldest are close in time to the original, the scholar can be more confident that the exact wording of the original can be pinpointed.

To get an idea of the significance of the New Testament manuscript evidence, let’s first look at the manuscript evidence for other ancient, nonbiblical texts. Josephus’s first-century document The Jewish War survives in only nine complete manuscripts dating from the fifth century AD — four centuries after they were written.1 Tacitus’s Annals of Imperial Rome is one of the chief sources for the history of the Roman world during New Testament times, and yet it survives in partial form in only two manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages.2 Thucydides’s History survives in eight copies. There are ten copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars and seven copies of Plato’s works. Homer’s Iliad has the most impressive manuscript evidence for any secular work with 647 existing copies.3

Note that for most documents of antiquity only a handful of manuscripts exist, some facing a time gap of 800–2,000 years or more. Scholars, nevertheless, are confident they have accurately reconstructed the text of the originals. In fact, virtually all of our knowledge of ancient history depends on documents like these.

The Biblical Manuscript Evidence. The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is stunning by comparison. The most recent count (1980) shows 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts. These are represented by early fragments, uncial codices (manuscripts written in all uppercase Greek letters and bound together in book form), and minuscules (manuscripts written in lowercase Greek letters).4

Among the nearly 3,000 minuscule fragments are 34 complete New Testaments dating from the ninth to the fifteenth centuries AD.5 Uncial manuscripts providing virtually complete New Testaments date back to the fourth century and earlier. Codex Sinaiticus is dated c. AD 340.6 The nearly complete Codex Vaticanus is the oldest, dated c. AD 325–50.7 Codex Alexandrinus contains the whole Old Testament and a nearly complete New Testament and dates from the late fourth century to the early fifth century.

The most fascinating evidence comes from the fragments. The Chester Beatty Papyri (papyri are manuscripts written on paperlike material made from papyrus reeds) contain most of the New Testament and are dated mid-third century.8 The Bodmer Papyri II collection includes the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John and much of the last seven chapters. It dates from AD 200 or earlier.9

The most amazing find of all, however, is a small portion of John 18:31–33, discovered in Egypt. Known as the John Rylands Papyri and barely three inches square, it represents the earliest known copy of any part of the New Testament. The papyri is dated on paleographical grounds at AD 117–38 (though it may be even earlier).10

Keep in mind that most papyri are fragmentary and only about 50 manuscripts contain the entire New Testament. The manuscript evidence is nevertheless exceedingly rich, especially when compared to other works of antiquity.

Ancient Versions and Patristic Quotations. The accuracy of the manuscripts can also be checked by comparing them with two other groups of texts known as the ancient versions and the patristic quotations. By the third and fourth centuries the New Testament had been translated into several languages, including Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian. Translations of the Greek manuscripts (called versions) help modern-day scholars answer questions about the underlying Greek manuscripts.

In addition, there are ancient extrabiblical sources — catechisms, lectionaries, and quotes from the church Fathers — that contain large portions of Scripture. Biblical authority Bruce Metzger notes, “If all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, [the patristic quotations] would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.”11

The Verdict. What can we conclude from this evidence? Professor Daniel Wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the New Testament text in the manuscripts, this number is very misleading. Most of the differences are completely inconsequential — spelling errors, inverted phrases, and the like.12 Of the remaining differences, virtually all can be sorted out using vigorous textual criticism. In the entire 20,000 lines of text, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.13 This means that the Greek text from which we derive our New Testament translations is 99.5 percent pure.

Using these facts, the point to press home with the skeptic is this: If we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds, we’d also have to reject every work of antiquity prior to AD 1000, since there is less manuscript evidence for their authenticity than for the New Testament.

Has the New Testament been changed? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.

[melikio]

Al, if you cannot admit that there are some gaps in many arguments made FOR the Bible, then your credibility will be diminshed.

None can argue with YOUR "faith", but saying that you have "proved" various things about the Bible are ABSOLUTES, means (reasonably) that you should be scrutinized (and will be).

As far as religion goes, there are a lot of things I "believe", that only "faith" can support.

And the "Bible" is not always controversial because people don't WANT to believe; the Bible is often challenged because SOME who read/use it, attempt to PUSH the ABSOLUTES (which they accept by "faith") upon others.

-Mel-

[AlAyeti]

Mel, I just presented other points of view.

I don't see any "wiggle room" to do to Christianty what is attempting to be done to it by ist detractors outside of it and hypocrites within it.

Al, if you cannot admit that there are some gaps in many arguments made FOR the Bible, then your credibility will be diminshed.

I am a skeptic about skeptics. That should only be fair.

None can argue with YOUR "faith", but saying that you have "proved" various things about the Bible are ABSOLUTES, means (reasonably) that you should be scrutinized (and will be).

And have you seen me shake in my boots? No. Questioning is a two-way street.

As far as religion goes, there are a lot of things I "believe", that only "faith" can support.

Sorry I disagree 100%. I don't see "faith" as not believing what your eyes can see.

And the "Bible" is not always controversial because people don't WANT to believe; the Bible is often challenged because SOME who read/use

Many skeptics read the Bible and get along just fine without hating it and trying to abolish Christian truth. Some refine it.

The main person to reject this common
belief was later known as the founder of modern astronomy, Nicolas
Copernicus. He believed the Earth and other bodies circled the sun.
This ideas was not new, but when others mentioned it before they were
rejected. Nicolas Copernicus was born in Torunac, Poland around 1473
and died in about 1543. He was an astronomer and a mathematician and
also studied a little bit of medicine and canon law. Canon law means
studying the books of the Bible. Copernicus wrote a 400 page treatise,
called De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, or On the Revolutions of
the Celestial Spheres. Completed in 1530, he talked about the theory
of the Earth rotating around its own axis daily and rotating around
the Sun, and to help prove it he had mathematical explanations to it
all. Copernicus was the first person in history to create a system
combining mathematics, physics and cosmology. He delayed publishing it
for thirteen years because he was afraid he would get into trouble
with the church. When it was finally published in 1543 it got hostile
review because everyone thought and believed that the Earth was the
center of the universe. Many people, such as William Shakespeare,
feared the theory because they thought it would destroy social order
and create chaos. Well others thought it helped justify some radical
theological views.

[melikio]

Sorry I disagree 100%. I don't see "faith" as not believing what your eyes can see.

Things aren't necessarily as they appear to be.

-Mel-

[redstang281]

On what basis can the bible be claimed to be the word of god?
redstang281 wrote:
Not to mention the Bible's verifiability with history, it's scientific accuracy's, it's prophetic proofs, and it's continuity

inspite of being written by over 40 people over 1500 years all testify to it's divine origins.
The Bible's verifiability with history -- this one is a bit of a negative proof. There are many books, not inspired by God, which are consistent with known history. So, the Bible's alleged verifiability with history does not prove anything.

It proves that it can be trusted. Then, if everything we can check it on is correct the things that we can't check it on should be given the benefit of the doubt.

However, one single historical error would disprove its literal divine inspiration.

When was Jesus born? Before 4 BCE. Matthew 2, "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king."

Herod the Great died in 4 BCE. OR After 6 CE. Luke 2, "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from

Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed." (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 CE, ten years after king Herod's death.

Well the Bible has been questioned on other things that later turned out to be in it's favor. It used to be that there was no other record of the Hittite people so many considered this an error on the old testament. Then when records were found it showed the Bible had been correct all along. I've read that there is a latin source discovered in 1764 that describes Quirinius governing Syria twice. Once during the time period you mention and the second at an earlier time coinciding with Herod's death. Considering that scholars who have verified Luke's authenticity site his accuracy with references to thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands with no mistake I think he can be trusting on Quirinius.

scientific accuracy It would be really great if someone could point out where God revealed some scientific truth in the Bible that could be explained in no other way but divine revelation.

Ok, here are a few.

The hydrologic cycle.

Job 36:27-28 - For he draws up the drops of water, he distils his mist in rain which the skies pour down, and drop upon man abundantly.

The existence of mountains at the bottom of the sea.

Jonah 2:5-6 - The waters closed in over me, the deep was round about me; weeds were wrapped about my head at the roots of the mountains. I went down to the land whose bars closed upon me for ever; yet thou didst bring up my life from the Pit, O LORD my God.

The earth rotates. This verse depicts people on opposite sides of the world when Jesus returns, some are sleeping during their night and others are working during their day.

Luke 17:34-35 - I tell you, in that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. There will be two women grinding together; one will be taken and the other left."

Meanwhile, this proof, like the historical one, is a negative one. A single scientific error would again disprove the Bible's literal divine inspiration.Ostriches are not cruel and inattentive parents, as this verse implies. Lamentations 4 wrote: Even the sea monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness. They are, in fact, careful and attentive parents. The male scoops out a hollow for the eggs, which are incubated by the female during the day and the male at night. After the eggs are hatched, they are cared for by the mother for over a month, at which time the chicks can keep up with running adults.

This was copied from SAB which is a very bad source. Ostriches do exhibit an alarming amount of "bad parenting", certainly enough to see why they were used as an example in the Bible. Ostrich families usually are one male, a dominate female and one to four other hens. Each hen lays up to eleven eggs in one common nest. Then the lesser hens leave the eggs and don't bother incubating them. Because only about twenty eggs can be incubated the dominate hen pushes the rest out. Not very nice huh? Not only that Ostriches neglect protecting their nests so much that only a few nest ever produce any eggs. If that weren't enough on some occasions due to environmental pressures Ostriches will break up the family group and leave their young week olds to fend for themselves.

Is a bat a bird?Deuteronomy 14 wrote:
Of all clean birds ye shall eat. But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, and the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind, and every raven after his kind, and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, the little owl, and the great owl, and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant, and the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

All this shows is that the Bible didn't use our modern terms of species classification.

Isaiah, with a little help from God, makes the sun move backwards ten degrees. Now that's quite a trick. All at once, the earth stopped spinning and then reversed its direction of rotation. Or maybe the sun traveled around the earth in those days!2 Kings 20 wrote:
And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.

After all he is the creator of the universe, I suspect he can intercede in it's entire movements and turn it backwards at will. From Isaiah's perspective the sun did move back. Even still today we speak of the sun's movement from our own perspective. The weathered man spoke of the sun rise this morning. There's no error here.

prophetic proofs See my definition of Fulfilled Prophecy and show me a Biblical prophetic proof that measures up.

The Bible predicts evolutionists! The verse below shows that at the end times people will scoff at faith because they believe in uniformitarianism (all things continue as they were). Not only that it shows that uniformitarianism will be the prevailing opposing view to creationism and flood geology!

2 Peter 3:3-7 - First of all you must understand this, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own passions and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation." They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Unfulfilled prophesy

Wrong, "this generation" is the generation that starts to see the signs of the times. Not necessarily the audience Jesus was preaching to at the time.

But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remains, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; (1 Corinthians 7) There must be a special Biblical meaning to the time is short.

This verse isn't saying anything about Christ's return. From reading the chapter it looks to me that Paul may be referring to his time to give them instruction is short. That would seem to fit sense the entire passage is about Paul's instructions to them on marriage and not on prophecy.

But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer. (1 Peter 4) and a special biblical meaning to at hand.

If you read the below verse of this chapter you will see that Paul isn't sure with what generation the end times will begin.

Paul says "if it begins with us". Jesus intention was for his followers to be ready at all times not knowing when he would return but only knowing the signs to look for when it is coming soon. I think what Paul means by saying "at hand" the stage is set and Jesus could possibly return at any moment.

1 Peter 4:17 - For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. (1 John 2) So we've been in the last time for some 2000 years or so.

Sure, I don't see why that is a problem. What we would consider the early time of the Bible lasted for a few thousand years.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John (Revelation 1) Yet many Christians hold that the events described in Revelation are yet to come.

They are yet to come, by shortly it means that when they come the events in Revelation will happen very quickly.

Ezekiel 26 and 27 prophesied that Tyre would be completely destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar, never to be built again. Yet it wasn't destroyed, as is evident from Acts 12.

Actually, Nebuchadrezzar was not the only nation God was bringing against Tyre. The prophecy includes many nations over a period of time. Nebuchadrezzar didn't not finish the job as is clear in Ezekiel 29:18.

Ezekiel 28:7 - therefore, behold, I will bring strangers upon you, the most terrible of the nations; and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of your wisdom and defile your splendor.

Genesis 49 says that all of Israel's kings will be from the tribe of Judah, yet Israel's first king was from the tribe of Benjamin.

The prophecy is not that every King will be from the tribe of Judah, but the prophecy is that "the scepter shall not depart from Judah". Saul was able to be King because Judah hadn't been given the scepter yet. The prophecy didn't start until David became King, then all the following were from the tribe of Judah until Christ came.

Genesis 49:10 - The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. (Romans 10) Paul says that everyone, even in his day, had the gospel preached to them. Even the Native Americans, Asians, Pacific Islanders? In any case, if Paul is right about that, then Jesus is a false prophet, since he said he would return before the gospel was preached to everyone. Augustine reasoned from this verse that there could be no antipodes (humans that lived in the southern hemisphere) since they could not have had the gospel preached to them.

It's not talking about missionaries preaching the gospel. Paul is quoting Psalm 19 which is saying that the amazing heavens prove the reality of God's existence and they are what's presented for the whole world to see. The reason Paul mentions it in Romans 10 is because he's addressing the Jews present situation now that salvation is offered to the Gentiles. The Gentiles are offered Salvation because they turned their backs on it even when God revealed himself to them in many ways.

1-4 - "To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard; yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun,

continuity the evident truth is that the vengeful tribal god of the early Hebrews is not all that consistent with the loving Father god of Jesus or the cosmic sacrificial Christ of Paul.

Sure he is. That's clear to see if you study the Bible. First off, he is not a tribal God in that he was invented by the tribe. God chose the Israelites. Second, Jesus claims to be the "I AM" of the old testament, showing his agreement with the nature of the hebrew God with that of his own. Third Paul many times uses versus in the old testament to back up his agreements all throughout his epistles. The old testament is the new testament concealed, and the new testament is the old testament revealed. If you think the old testament God is very different the only thing you need to do is read through any of the stories and you will see the same forgiving nature he has for his chosen. Take Abraham or Jacob for example, they messed up many times yet God still remained true to them and was with them. They were saved by faith just the same as we are today.

[melikio]

That's clear to see if you study the Bible.

No. What is clear, is that any given person can come away from that book with a unique view of what is written.

Christians argue, skeptics argue, biblical scholars argue...and few if any know everything in all of the arguments.

Isn't all this arguing becoming a bit fruitless overall? (It is to me.)

I'm just one person though; I don't define anything absolutely for anyone...not even myself.

All I can see now where it concerns any of "Christianity" are faith, hope and love. The rest has become practically meaningless for me (there are billions of ideas and biblically-based proclamations and opinions). If I'm "right" about anything, then it's likely chance or divine-providence that got me there (neither of which I will ever fully understand).

The only thing clear about the Bible to me, is that people can glean both positive and negative things from it. Beyond that, I'll have to lean on God's grace (in faith).

-Mel-

[redstang281]

redstang, I can see your point of view and much of it is valid enough for me.

Thanks, that's a kind thing to say.

But I have to tell you, that what propels your faith is not something that transfers very well through words alone. God gives each person a "spiritual" view of reality, and I used to believe that it was the same for everyone, I later found that it was NOT. (Just read the Bible, pray for understanding and everything should line up. Right? No so.) People need more than just being told what is “right”, they need to SEE it represented in or by your life (and the “Christians” you speak of).

I was once a born-again, hope-to-be-straight, conservative, Bible literalist Christian. I only describe myself THAT way, because I want to emphasize the reality that people certainly DO NOT ALL see God, the Bible and Christianity in the exact same way/s (they never will).

Your faith is reasonably supportable and I'm sure in certain ways commendable, but it remains a reality that not all will accept or believe in what you've graciously shared (and likely for a lot of reasons only the Creator would fully understand). There is a LOT more to this life that what just "Christians" are relating; that's not a put-down, merely a single perspective garnered through over 40 short years of observing life in all the usual ways. I may be human and have a lot in common with most Christians, but the journey I took to get to where/what I believe, is obviously different from yours (unless we happen to live in perfectly parallel realities, across from one another).

I know atheists who have BECOME Christians, and I know devout and serious Christians who have become atheists. And if we are on one side or the other looking in, it really is easy to think/believe we have understood how their lives may be mapped. We think we know what they NEED, and we believe that what works for us (or told should work for them) is the way to go.

I have learned in certain painful ways, that love often wears many different hats. And ultimately, one needs to consider what those who seek God MUST believe (accept). Also, it must be considered that who and what you garner your answers from, will indeed differ. The DIVERSITY of thought (as it pertains to "faith" itself) and the specific parameters of such thoughts are truly unfathomable.

Here, you will find what I'm certain is NOT a complete list of various belief/faith systems: http://adherents.com/

I didn't know how important certain teachings of Jesus would be, until my faith seemed to fall apart later in life; that concepts such as faith, hope and love would be like spiritual flotation devices for my soul. The standard "Christianity" at various points became MEANINGLESS to me. And while I still adhere to most concepts of the Christian worldview, I NO LONGER avoid or ignore all of the sincere and good questions many atheists have to ask.

Some of us seek those answers as children, and faith alone satisfies us for much or all of our lives; that isn't true for everyone. If I believe what I read from the Bible, I realize that my soul accepts and understands the importance of a particular aspect BY "FAITH". Honestly, I cannot relate to all of the intellectual and historical data surrounding that which supposedly "proves" the Bible (as we know of it) to be true. There are real questions in many a person's heart, that research, debate and prayer either cannot or do not answer.

I've argued for years with atheists, who wanted no more than to see the END of religion. But through all of that, I realized that a faith stronger than what I possessed before I began to question things, was required. My prayers changed from asking for a tiny detail here or there, to "God, please show me something I can LIVE BY."

One morning, as I awoke, I heard a question: "What gives my life meaning?" My heart did more searching on that one than my mind did. In real-time the answer came very fast, but in my heart it seemed to take longer. Here was the answer:

"...the people I love, and the opportunities I'm blessed with to show the same..."

It was like prayer in reverse; I didn't ask for such a deep spiritual encounter, but there it was first thing in the morning. Words cannot describe it as fully as I experienced it.

My faith before all of that, had certainly changed, but I was no less spiritual than before; I still sought real answers to big questions. And yeah, it was fairly shocking/disturbing when I realized that the words of the "Bible" for whatever reason/s, did not resonate within my heart and mind as they once did.

That (painfully) allowed me to ask more questions about what I thought was true (or believed) than I once could/would have. And while I don't ascribe to any/every belief, I DO UNDERSTAND (more than I ever could) why some people aren't or have decided to NOT be "Christian" or literal adherents of the Bible.

The whole losing my faith thing was so humbling, that I have learned to NOT point my fingers at people in judgment, anger or disappointment at what they do or do not "believe". My standard for assessing people has become "LOVE" (the 1Cor13 type). I recognize it, and I honor it; I believe it originates with God, and that Jesus was paving the way to God with the same.

I have learned that arguing religion is not nearly as fruitful as living in LOVE the "religion" one is committed to. That is, if selflessness stems from or is encouraged by the religion and type of love pursued, I know that is helpful and good for mankind.

Now all of this may certainly not be as solid as what I once pulled from the Bible, but it does minimize much of the emotional and cognitive dissonance and controversy in my own heart and mind. In short, a lot less confusion and conflict within, and a better focus upon what really mattered to me in the first place; that was love. And that's what pulled me toward Jesus in the first place.

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint. You're right that not everyone will see things the same way. Unfortunately God does not reveal the same things to everyone, possibly due to the conditions of this world or other factors that only he knows. However, he has put it in my heart to share my faith and that's what I feel compelled to do. Maybe some will just think I'm crazy, but maybe I can help some people too.

[redstang281]

redstang281 wrote:
Yes, on God's authority, on Jesus's authority.

Are you claimig that the bible is the word of god because it says so in the bible, and if is says so in the bible then it must be true because the bible is the word of god?

I believe the claim in the Bible because of the reasons I listed in the other post and also because of the proof I have seen in my life of Christ's work to transform someone. Not that I'm perfect by any means, but he has changed my whole attitude.

redstang281 wrote:
Not to mention the Bible's verifiability with history, it's scientific accuracy's, OK lets start with these two...some evidence to support these claims would be appreciated.

The scientific one is already going in another message.

For historic, well most of the Bible deals with history. So I'm not really sure where you want me to start with that? Most of the events throughout the Bible can be checked with history to see their fulfillment and accuracy. Unlike most "Holy" books the Bible risks it's claims in history where people can check them for themselves. It's not like the stories of men about people and events that happened long before anyone lived or recording anything. Many archeological finds have been made using the Bible as a guide.

And if I can show evidence where the bible is clearly not historically or scientifically accurate, what does that mena for the bible?

Well, then us fundie's are wrong. But I've read a lot of skeptic material and haven't seen anything so far that wasn't just misunderstandings.

redstang281 wrote:
it's prophetic proofs, Again which prophetic proofs. And what of the 'prophecies' that did not eventuate?

I'm not aware of any. If you know a few good ones I'll research it. Pick two or three of the best alleged failures you can find.

redstang281 wrote:
and it's continuity inspite of being written by over 40 people over 1500 years all testify to it's divine origins.

Que? How does that testify to its 'divine origins'?

Look at any story made up by man. Take hollywood movies for example. If there is a successful movie and a sequel is made, how often does the sequel depart far from the original? How many movies have holes in the plot? These are all works of men done within years of each other. Unlike other "Holy" books, the Bible was not written within one man's life. The entire Bible was written over a period of 1500 years yet it's one message and one continual theme. I for one do not believe that one man living a thousand years after another man would not decide to change things his way when adding his part to the text. The fact that the Bible is one message testifies that it had a single author, the Holy Spirit.

redstang281 wrote:
But then, if it's not in your heart to believe it you just won't believe it.

Ah so you have to want to believe it for it to be believable. That makes sense.

Not really, what I'm saying is if your heart is right with God he will reveal the rest to you. He will open your eyes and allow it to make sense to you.

redstang281 wrote:
To kill someone may not be a desirable thing but sometimes it is necessary only because of the world we live in.

I disagree - no wilful taking of human life is justified.

You may disagree. However, I decide to trust God with his judgements. I think a mass murderer should be taken out of society permanently and not kept alive in a prison cell to kill and rape other people while tax payers support him the rest of his life.

You are "trusting god to his judgements"...then judging yourself that a mass murder should be killed...to save money.

Interesting.

The Bible seems to say that's for the good of society. That makes sense to me. A mass murderer only seems to drag society down. I say witness to him to give him the chance to be forgiven and then send him out of this world.

redstang281 wrote:
If it's really God and not the devil. The only way to know is to test what someone says based on scripture.

So if I quote an appropriate verse of 'scripture' then kill someone, its OK. I get it.

No, you as an individual are not supposed to kill someone. As far as I have read there are no Bible verse that can support killing outside of capital punishment.

redstang281 wrote:
Meditation is more effectve...

Can meditation share your concerns or problems with the creator of the universe who can then use his will to help you in the best way possible?

Yes.

So what results can you share with me?

and, unlike prayer, there are easily measurable results.

Well I think that's a little unscientific. There's too many variables to make a statement like that.

Not at all. There are clear scientific studies into the efficacy of meditation. There are none, that I know to be genuine,

that can do that for prayer.

Well I don't know how to measure something of God with an instrument of man's like science. That's like measuring a three dimensional object in the second dimension. I guess the studies you are reference to with meditation are typically the ones that show it's benefit for relaxation and other medical related issues? That seems reasonable enough for me. Prayer is something different though. Prayer is essentially meditation focused on God, and in Christian's case the God of the Bible. Prayer is not always for the gain of the individual, it is also used to get direction from God for his will for us. I've seen God answer my prayers before, though I have nothing concrete to offer you for proof.

Quote:
I have an excellent relationship with god and I am far from having a christian belief.

Which god?

God does not have a name.

So tell me about your god, what you know about him, and how you know it's true.

redstang281 wrote:
I guess one not even deserving a capital letter.

Why does acapital letter make any difference. Is you god more powerful because of an upper case 'G'

Well I capitalize people's names, even my pets names. I figure God deserves a capital letter too being he holds the universe in his hand.

redstang281 wrote:
Many people refer to another deity as God, but my belief is there is only one God, the God of the Bible.

The god of the bible? He is a cruel, murdering genocidal tyrant that incited his believers to rape, kidnap and murder.

Nah, I don't believe that god exists. Not enough evidence and to many contradictions.

How could someone incite anyone to do anything if they don't exist? We've already covered the murder/kill topic, but where does the Bible encourage rape or kidnapping? What contradictions are you talking about. I'll do my best to clear them up.

redstang281 wrote:
Quote:
But I do not believe this. Why should I?

Because he is the only way and because I care about you and don't want you to go to hell.

I know he is not the only way and thank you for caring about me. Have noi fear...I am not hell bound.

How do you know?

redstang281 wrote:
He changed my life and gave me hope of salvation.

That is great. I have had many life changing revelations in my life experience. I have no 'hope' of salvation. For one I do

not believe 'hope' is a sensible emotion - it is borne out of fear.

What's wrong with doing something out of fear? Fear of the right things is healthy. I'm afraid of getting ran over, so I don't walk out on the highway. Fear teaches us how to avoid death. Believe, me Hell would be something to fear. Right now at least God is involved somewhat in the world. When he withdrawls all together I do not want to be here.

Knowing Christ is not completely done out of fear anyway. It's also out of desire to be satisfied from the emptiness of the world. To be filled with the spirit and have the void in your heart finally restored to what God created it for.

And I am not in need of salvation.

Why not? You have done nothing wrong? I sure have even though I'm praying and trying to change all my faults.

redstang281 wrote:
We do it because of what God has done for us because of our faith and we want to help others too.

That is admirable. However, because it is right for you does not mean it is right for everyone. That sort of sociocentric belief clearly leads to division and conflict.

I disagree. It is right for everyone to have food, water, shelter, and other essentials of life. Everyone needs those things and everyone wants them. In addition to those base level needs there are also other needs that are built into human nature such as companionship, love, fun, acceptance, etc.. that everyone yearns for as being a member of the human race. Then problem is there is a lot of confusion out in the world as to the best way to meet those needs.The Bible gives us a lot of insights into how Christians promote those out of love. We feel those are the best guides we have available and if we didn't promote our best guides to people then we wouldn't be loving.

[redstang281]

Christians argue, skeptics argue, biblical scholars argue...and few if any know everything in all of the arguments.

Isn't all this arguing becoming a bit fruitless overall? (It is to me.)

A lot of things in the Bible are clear and all reasonable people do not debate them. But you are right there are some areas that are debating feircly. From my experience I can say that most of the time those areas are being debating upon for more reasons then just what the Bible is saying. Usually people are trying to twist the text to maintain some church denominational doctrine or some other bias. It doesn't mean that you yourself if you approach it honestly can not find the real meaning.