The Basic Doctrines of Christianity Have Not Changed

[lvdyou]

There are no contradictions in the Bible that's why you can't find any. It is the perfect word of God in 66 books.

You can quote all the verses of the NT from the church fathers of the 1st and 2nd century except for 11 verses so you are believing a lie.

The basic doctrine has not changed:

1. Nature can't start up from nothing, since that which does not exist can't cause anything.
2. Nature can't always have existed because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so.
3. Ergo, the uncreated Creator exists, therefore you are without excuse (Rom. 1.20)
4. Since a loving God is accessible there are only 3 contenders: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism.
5. Islam though is false because it has no evidence for its claim 6 centuries after the cross claiming Jesus didn't even go to the cross.
6. Hinduism is false since obviously you are not coming back as a frog, and Brahma is said to be amoral. How can God's standards be below our own?
7. Without knowing anything else thus Christianity must be true.
8. Christianity is true because the Apostles testified to having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings for which there is no naturalistic explanation: group hallucinations are impossible and people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie.

You're going to Hell that is all.

[lvdyou]

The truth is not unreasonable but it is unloved.

[Janx]

1. Nature can't start up from nothing, since that which does not exist can't cause anything.
2. Nature can't always have existed because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so.
3. Ergo, the uncreated Creator exists, therefore you are without excuse (Rom. 1.20)

Hi lvdyou,

I'll take the easy one here.

This is called special pleading. You are saying that God has a quality that the universe cannot possess without sufficient reason. If we can imagine God to be without cause then we can imagine the universe to be without cause.

Therefore we are with much excuse.

The rest of your claims are baseless. Have a good night!

[lvdyou]

You're special pleading and making your decisions based on "imagining" this or that such as the universe without a cause after it was shown why the universe must have a cause: Nature can't always have existed because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so.

It is evident there is no signs of intelligence of the universe itself, simply cause and effect. To suggest otherwise has no basis. Whereas the uncreated Creator that has been proven in 1 & 2 must have a mind because a mind is needed to create a mind as it is with us, the lesser can't create the greater, and no evidence to the contrary.

3 to 8 have basis and that basis was given in each point.

[Janx]

You're special pleading and making your decisions based on "imagining" this or that such as the universe without a cause after it was shown why the universe must have a cause: Nature can't always have existed because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so.

Once again Lvdyou.

If you can imagine a creator without a cause then you can imagine a natural event without a cause. You have not shown what makes your creator special while denying this property to nature.

Hence special pleading.

[bernee51]

There are no contradictions in the Bible that's why you can't find any. It is the perfect word of God in 66 books.

You can quote all the verses of the NT from the church fathers of the 1st and 2nd century except for 11 verses so you are believing a lie.

The basic doctrine has not changed:

1. Nature can't start up from nothing, since that which does not exist can't cause anything.
2. Nature can't always have existed because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so.

This assumes the existence of universe exactly as we perceive it. Who is claiming this?
You are overlooking the existence of an emergent universe.

3. Ergo, the uncreated Creator exists, therefore you are without excuse (Rom. 1.20)

A conclusion based on incorrect premises is always going to be incorrect.

4. Since a loving God is accessible there are only 3 contenders: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism.

What about Jainism or Sikhism
5. Islam though is false because it has no evidence for its claim 6 centuries after the cross claiming Jesus didn't even go to the cross.
6. Hinduism is false since obviously you are not coming back as a frog, and Brahma is said to be amoral. How can God's standards be below our own?[/quote]

I will leave others to deal with the first two...WRT coming back as a frog...how do you know that is does not or cannot happen?

WRT Brahma and standards...are you confusing amoral with immoral?

7. Without knowing anything else thus Christianity must be true.

I know that Christianity, like all belief systems, is a manner by which we humans attempt to bring meaning and legitimacy to existence in the face of the apparent suffering we perceive.

8. Christianity is true because the Apostles testified to having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings for which there is no naturalistic explanation: group hallucinations are impossible and people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie.

On what do you base alleged fact of the appearance of a resurrected Christ in a group setting?
If the apostles did not believe it was a lie then, for them it was not, therefore they did not die for a lie...regardless of what actually happened.

If you believe your god exists and act as if it does then, for all intents and purposes, for you, it exists.

For me it remains a myth...just like all the others.

You're going to Hell that is all.

Mans ideas of heaven have made a hell of this abundant paradise.

[dianaiad]

There are no contradictions in the Bible that's why you can't find any. It is the perfect word of God in 66 books.

No?

Odd. I can find a few....and I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God, (as far as it is translated correctly). But you ARE begging a rather large question here. Two, in fact.

First question begged: ARE there no contradictions in the Bible? and
Second question begged: nobody can find any?

Odd. I don't have any problems at all finding one or two. (shrug)

You can quote all the verses of the NT from the church fathers of the 1st and 2nd century except for 11 verses so you are believing a lie.

er, what? Are you beginning this thread in the middle of a conversation?

The basic doctrine has not changed:

1. Nature can't start up from nothing, since that which does not exist can't cause anything.

Interesting. You, then, are not an 'ex nihilo' believer?

2. Nature can't always have existed because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so.

Who's claiming that it 'has always existed?" Is THAT what you think the 'Big Bang" theory is all about?

3. Ergo, the uncreated Creator exists, therefore you are without excuse (Rom. 1.20)

Wow. That's a leap. It's a syllogism that makes me slightly dizzy, anyway.

4. Since a loving God is accessible there are only 3 contenders: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism.

What? I know of quite a few theistic faiths that posit an 'accessible, loving God'...some considerably more accessible than Christianity, Hinduism or Islam portray Him as....

5. Islam though is false because it has no evidence for its claim 6 centuries after the cross claiming Jesus didn't even go to the cross.

er....Oh, Dear.

6. Hinduism is false since obviously you are not coming back as a frog, and Brahma is said to be amoral. How can God's standards be below our own?

"obviously?" What's 'obvious' about that? You are claiming that Hinduism is false because you don't believe in Hinduism. You realize that, right? As to Brahma being 'said to be immoral,' Who said? By what standards are you judging his morality?

In effect, you are claiming that Hinduism is 'obviously' false because you don't believe in it, and that Brahma was immoral because he didn't live up to Christian moral standards.

I do hope that you see the problem with this thought path.

7. Without knowing anything else thus Christianity must be true.

heh. Islam is false because nobody can prove it to be true, AND it denies that Jesus 'went to the cross' (i.e., that it denies Christianity as Truth.)

Hinduism is false because, since as a Christian you don't believe in reincarnation (at least, not in being reincarnated as a frog), and because Brahma was 'said to be immoral' according to Christian standards of morality.

Therefore, 'without knowing anything else, Christianity must be true." Oh, what a lovely, question begging, circular group of statements you have just gifted us with! How fun IS this?

8. Christianity is true because the Apostles testified to having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings for which there is no naturalistic explanation: group hallucinations are impossible and people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie.

You're going to Hell that is all.

(snort)

Now I not only believe that the Bible is the Word of God, I also believe that there WERE apostles and prophets, that Christ WAS/IS the Messiah, the Son of God, the Savior. I'm a rather strong believer, in fact. As in, about as hard headed as they get. Just ask anybody in here.

But if I were not; if I were just beginning to investigate the idea, and my first exposure to Christianity was this post and your reasoning, I probably wouldn't be. Your presentation here is so off the wall as to be....er....well, you lost me at "There are no contradictions in the bible that's why you can't find any."

[lvdyou]

By accessible I mean that a larger percentage of the population has access to and the Bible has been brought to.

Hence, only the 3 religions, but as was shown only the 1 succeeds as being both accessible and personal, for only did Jesus enter His creation.

[bernee51]

By accessible I mean that a larger percentage of the population has access to and the Bible has been brought to.

Hence, only the 3 religions, but as was shown only the 1 succeeds as being both accessible and personal, for only did Jesus enter His creation.

You stated... Since a loving God is accessible there are only 3 contenders: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism.
What in Hindusim mentions a loving god?

Islam has 99 descriptors for god and not one mentions it being loving.

So Christianity is the only religion (of the three) that claims god is loving)...yet the god from which the god of christianity evolved was apparently anything but loving.

According to Advaita Vedanta we each enter our creation " the creation is both accessible and personal.

[lvdyou]

A loving God is accessible, but also personal. Only in Christianity is God both personal and accessible.

God doesn't not evolve. He is timeless, spaceless and unchanging, perfect in will and righteous in all He does.