Christianity requires no proof?

[schrackman]

Once again, you miss the difference between faith and science. Yes, the scientific method is used to constantly question and extend our knowledge. As we learn more, we question more, and learn more again. As technology gets better, we can test even more things, challenge even more things, getting closer and closer to the truth. All of this depends on logic, being able to actually make new predictions that can be tested logically. This is how we build on knowledge.

I didn't confuse faith and science, I posed a question for you regarding faith in the form of a scientific inquiry, and you shrunk from answering it. Why all of a sudden are you so adverse to assumptions?

The major difference, as I see it, is that you are totally invested in the search for absolutes, of things that never change, things you can latch onto and never let go. Unfortunately, the universe we live in is all about change. To the logical, change is a challenge, something to be welcomed. To the faithful, it is something to be avoided and defended against. Worse yet, each religion and subset of religion latches on to different things and defends different things.

Even you depend upon absolutes, things that you need to remain constant. How much sense would physics make to you absent the physical laws in our universe? As for change, that's not a problem at all. Unless of course it seeks to contradict the absolutes, that is, the laws of God.

By the way, I'm pretty sure if Christianity did not have any absolutes then unbelievers would complain of how inconsistent God is.

How is what you believe really any different from what, for example, the Romans believed? Neither group can defend their position any better than the other. Each has their own absolutes, neither can "disprove" the other's absolutes. This is faith.

Actually, Christian writers of the first couple centuries did a pretty good job in refuting the pagan religions and defending their own. You might wish to do a little research and reading on them sometime.

[walterick]

Physasst, would you consider singling out a section of that list you provided and asking Ray to respond specifically to that one part? I think it is the length of your post that he is reeling from the most if you could take it down to one example he may find it easier to respond. And I would like to hear his response.

[walterick]

Okay, I am condensing several posts here

You were saying that the way you know God cares is through divine revelation, and you explained that divine revelation is "The Scriptures, otherwise known as the Bible." So, the Bible told you that God cares. My next question: How do you know the Bible is right?

"Furthermore, God doesn't allow us to do as we please, at least not with impunity."

Okay, let's stop right there. These are two very different concepts. I said "God allows us to do as we please." This is observable. Your response was, effectively, "no he doesn't, because he punishes us." A punishment is not a limitation on freedom. You have to see that we are free to do whatever we want! The fact that there might be a punishment after the fact does not change our ability to perform the act in the first place.

And then we'll discuss these punishments you alledge next... You are saying, effectively, that God burns us in hell for doing things wrong. Again... our core, fundamental argument here is... how do you know? What evidence do you have in the universe indicating that God punishes people after they die? Or that hell exists? Is your collection of writings from those 1st century middle easterners your only evidence?

"No Rick, Jesus did not say "we" are all Gods."

Well, let's take a look:

The scripture in question is John 10:34. The context is, Jesus has just said "I and the Father are one." (10:30) The Jews are about to stone him for saying that he is God. Jesus replies, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

It sounds to me like he is saying that everyone is god, and it is written in the law that way, so it must be true. Therefore, if everyone is god, how could he be blaspheming by saying he is the son of god? (a slight retraction of his earlier statement that he is God.) Your response was: "God was using sarcasm." I reeeeally reeeally don't think this interpretation of scripture flies. Given the context that Jesus is about to be stoned, which explantion is more likely; Jesus is saying "The law says you are gods, and the law is never wrong, therefore I am not blaspheming" or Jesus is being sarcastic, and saying "you are arrogant," in an attempt to save his own life?

"Consequently, Adam is the one who brought sin into this world since he was the first to transgress the law that God gave him. Adam created sin when he disobeyed God."

Next question: Is it possible for something to go "not according to plan" for God? The almighty perfect Creator? This is my main argument against the Christian idea that we are sinful and that a devil exists. Because they both posit that things happened against God's will, or as an unexpected foulup in the machinery of his own design. Neither is consistent with the idea of a perfect, omnipotent God.

"But I understand it is much easier to blame God than take responsibility for one's own sin."

Oh, I take responsibilty for ALL my sin! Every last delicious drop of it! I enjoy my sin, very much. I am not blaming God for the sin in my life. I am saying that the concept of a hell is inconsistent with the idea of a God full of Love for the children he is burning (okay, for his children that are burning through the process he created for them.) You do realize that according to Christian thought, the vast majority of all people ever have burned in hell! And this as the result of the efforts of a God who loves them! Oops!

"Do you now you wish to fault God for being so gracious as to even forgive someone on his deathbed?"

No, I am not trying to fault God. Nice try at changing the point at hand though ;) I am saying that the Christian stance that you can commit the worst acts known to man and still go to heaven at the last minute is not consistent with any sort of "justice" we have ever known. You are calling it "mercy and pardon." What if a human judge were to forgive a killer/murder/rapist/genocidal maniac at the last minute before execution, because that judge wanted to be "merciful." Is that being just? (which you say God is)

"The logic or rationale in hell is that ultimately no ungodly, impenitent person will go unpunished. They will not escape having to pay for their evil deeds"

But you just said God excuses people who commit ungodly, evil deeds! If God shows "mercy and pardon" for people who commit sin, then those ungodly, impenitent people have gone unpunished! You contradict yourself! If your logic for the existence of hell is to make sure all ungodly sinners get punished, but it's not the case that all ungodly sinners get punished, then there is no logical case for hell. Unless you can think of another one.

"The problem that some unbelievers have, however, is that they just can't be satisfied one way or the other. If God sends people to hell, then they take him for a cruel, sadistic monster. On the other hand, if they don't think God is doing or has done anything about evil in this world, then it must be evidence that he just doesn't care. It's one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenarios in which some unbelievers try to ensure that God will never win in their mind either way."

Sorry Ray, but you're whining here a little bit. There is a fundamental contradiction in the thinking of Christians about God. 1) "If God sends people to hell, then they take him for a cruel, sadistic monster." Yes, that's true. Since God can't be both loving and cruel, then he must not be burning people in hell. 2) "On the other hand, if they don't think God is doing or has done anything about evil in this world, then it must be evidence that he just doesn't care." Also true! We can see that God doesn't care because we are free. There is no evidence of punishment for sin in our world. You can have as much sex as you want before marriage. Kill all the people you want. God never comes down and gets us. So, he doesn't care. Which is to say he has no preference. Lacking in any verifiable punishment from God on Earth, Christians then formulate the belief that they will be punished after they die! (when we can't see it!) This is where evidence and logic leave the stadium, and pure, creative speculation and fear mongering take over. "I can't show you, but I'm going to tell you that you're going to be punished for that after you die! So come join our church."

[walterick]

You are arguing a lost cause here.

Yes, but I must try

[physasst]

Physasst, would you consider singling out a section of that list you provided and asking Ray to respond specifically to that one part? I think it is the length of your post that he is reeling from the most if you could take it down to one example he may find it easier to respond. And I would like to hear his response.

Well, there are so many....but we'll start with this one, and work our way through..

According to Matthew 1:18-21 Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit and was thus the product of a virgin birth. But this is contradicted by Romans 1:3, which states that Jesus was conceived by the seed of David according to the flesh--as you will see the New Testament authors are a disagreeable lot.

AND for your viewing pleasure, one of the best scenes from any television show in the past decade......President Bartlet, discussing the bible...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI

[GB1]

Hi Michael,

You wrote:



While I realize there are probably some pastors or churches who might tell people what you just wrote above, this is not what the Bible teaches in respect to faith.

Consequently, the real problem for many lies in the fact that many people erroneously equate believing without seeing as believing without evidence. The latter is what we would call blind faith, and is not the kind of faith the Scriptures speak of.

Do you not think it would be an irrational thing for God to expect faith from any of us without providing us good reason to believe?

Religion is an interesting subject, regardless of your personal beliefs or stance.

I do a lot of reading on history and based on what I've read and seen so far, I must agree with the general statement of this thread: "requires no proof." Besides the miracles that Jesus performed and that a large number of people witnessed at that time, and the resurrection that the disciples witnessed, Christianity really heavily leans on faith. But a lot of the customs and writings developed from ~ 50 AD to 1700 AD do, in my opinion, kind of violate common sense. It's nice to be able to have a conversion about stuff here w/o someone looking at you like you're the devil or something.

Gb

[mwfanelli2]

Michael, it’s not that I mind people voicing their objections, but when a person lists 50 or more in one post it’s a tad difficult to respond to them all, don’t you think?

Besides, I know a shoddy Bible interpretation about as well as you can spot a bad physics student. I certainly pointed yours out, didn’t I?

OK, I'll buy that. But remeber, you are talking only about your interpretation of Christianity.

Correction, God cannot be blamed for bad things that happen when those bad things are the direct result of bad choices that men make.

Then God can't be given the credit when good happens due to good choices that men make. So that burning building where three people were rescued last week by firemen... the survivors should be saying "Thank Joe and Tom (or whoever)" instead of "Thank God."

That would be like blaming a kid's parents for his stealing a candy bar from a store, even though the parents had consistently taught the child that stealing was wrong and that he shouldn't do it. Where's the logic in that, Michael?

You haven't answered the question. God should not be given credit for saving people when their own choices led to the save. God types grab people at their lowest points. If a person finally learns to control alcoholism it's Gods hand that did it when in actual fact is was the will of that alcoholic and the people who supported him. God had nothing to do with it.

As I said before, of course faith cannot be proven logically when Scriptures are misconstrued, taken out of context, or when one builds straw men arguments.

Here is another of your implicit assumptions. The scriptures are NOT special, they are the words of man written by man. They are no different than the Sunday Times. You can't use the "holy" scriptures to prove that the scriptures are holy. In fact, you can't logically prove anything with scriptures until you logically prove that the scriptures are indeed inspired by god.

But of course that’s what people will do when they don’t wish to even inquire as to whether or not faith can be logically proven.

Once again, demanding that people believe in "holy" scriptures to prove a logical argument is illogical from the start!

Everyone, forgive the bad grammer and spelling, I'm getting ready to give the last final exam of the semester and am rushing through this.

[reverberation]

Everyone is the son of God and should conduct themselves as such. There are numerous references in the bible to this fact. The bible is a book that has been under attack since it was written. There are only general truths left in it. This is one of them. Another huge truth that is overlooked is the only commandment given by Jesus, which brings every other commandment into doubt, deservedly because they are obviously bs. Love one Another. Simple and to the point, hello GOD, got the message, please smack the devil upside his sniveling head for the lust ********. I really could care less. Mediocrity is a drain on the soul. The soulless do not notice for theirs is a world imbued with mediocrity.

The thing about people who excel is that they must become acquainted with their suffering. They must embrace the path, they really follow the path of Jesus, to one extent or another.

[livin4lax09]

man i wish i had the time to read all this. This is a topic I love debating, and I'm certain there's a bunch of great info in here, and you guys manage to separate your emotions from the debate, which is the way I like to see it done.

[schrackman]

man i wish i had the time to read all this. This is a topic I love debating, and I'm certain there's a bunch of great info in here, and you guys manage to separate your emotions from the debate, which is the way I like to see it done.

I agree, Brent. Everyone is keeping a level head and that is appreciated by me.

Rick, I have your response written up but it is quite lengthly. I'm gonna have to do some trimming for brevity's sake.

Michael, I'm onto you next.

Right now I've stayed up way past my bedtime, and I'm gonna go hit the sack.

[schrackman]

Hi Rick,

I did some major trimming, but even still my reply seems very lenghtly to me. Sorry, I guess that's how these discussion go after a few pages.

You were saying that the way you know God cares is through divine revelation, and you explained that divine revelation is "The Scriptures, otherwise known as the Bible." So, the Bible told you that God cares. My next question: How do you know the Bible is right?

There are several ways one may gauge that the Bible is right. Fulfilled prophecy, manuscript evidence, archaeological confirmation, just to name a few. The Bible has enough examples of these that one may safely rely on its contents as being divinely inspired, and therefore worthy to be trusted. But how do you know that the Bible is not right?

"Furthermore, God doesn't allow us to do as we please, at least not with impunity."

Okay, let's stop right there. These are two very different concepts. I said "God allows us to do as we please." This is observable. Your response was, effectively, "no he doesn't, because he punishes us." A punishment is not a limitation on freedom. You have to see that we are free to do whatever we want! The fact that there might be a punishment after the fact does not change our ability to perform the act in the first place.

I know, I did not word myself very well. I should have instead worded my response as such: Yes, God does permit us to do as we please, but not with impunity. I think that would clarify my position a bit better.

And then we'll discuss these punishments you allege next... You are saying, effectively, that God burns us in hell for doing things wrong. Again... our core, fundamental argument here is... how do you know? What evidence do you have in the universe indicating that God punishes people after they die? Or that hell exists? Is your collection of writings from those 1st century middle easterners your only evidence?

That collection of writings from those first century middle easterners, mind you, has the best manuscript evidence of any document in antiquity, bar none. So it is not in your best interests to make the implication that they are not a reliable source of information, divine or otherwise. And so, yes, my evidence for hell ultimately rests upon the authority of the Scriptures.

Well, let's take a look:

The scripture in question is John 10:34. The context is, Jesus has just said "I and the Father are one." (10:30) The Jews are about to stone him for saying that he is God. Jesus replies, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

It sounds to me like he is saying that everyone is god, and it is written in the law that way, so it must be true. Therefore, if everyone is god, how could he be blaspheming by saying he is the son of god? (a slight retraction of his earlier statement that he is God.) Your response was: "God was using sarcasm." I reeeeally reeeally don't think this interpretation of scripture flies. Given the context that Jesus is about to be stoned, which explanation is more likely; Jesus is saying "The law says you are gods, and the law is never wrong, therefore I am not blaspheming" or Jesus is being sarcastic, and saying "you are arrogant," in an attempt to save his own life?

This is why I tried referring you to Psalm 82. One cannot comprehend Jesus’ defense by ignoring the context in which those words were originally spoken. In that Psalm God was not addressing everyone, as you suppose he did, but rather he was speaking to his chosen people, the Jews, to whom he entrusted with keeping his law. The question then becomes just why did God refer to the Jews as “gods” in this Psalm? Was it really because he considered them “gods”? No, it could not have been that because elsewhere we read:

I am the first, and I am the last, and beside me there is no God…Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God. I know not any. (Isaiah 44:6, 8)

So in Psalm 86 God was not literally referring to the Jews as “gods.” He was speaking figuratively, sarcastically, and the reason Jesus used it as his defense (along with the evidence of his good works) was precisely because it incriminated the Jews as having acted under the pretense of keeping the law when in fact they were perverting it by their false accusations of blasphemy (see Lev. 24:10-16). Also keep in mind that Jesus’ claim to being God while at the same time being human was not without biblical precedent. God had, at times, appeared to the patriarchs in human form (called a "theophany," e.g. Gen. 32:24, 30), not to mention the fact that the prophets anticipated that God would come as a man (e.g. Isa. 9:6). That he claimed “the scripture cannot be broken” was simply his way of affirming the truth of what the Psalm was speaking about in reference to law-breaking Jews who lived under the pretense of keeping the law. This scenario was similar to when the Jews wanted to stone an adulterous woman. They were unable to carry out the execution because Christ exposed their own guilt.

Next question: Is it possible for something to go "not according to plan" for God? The almighty perfect Creator? This is my main argument against the Christian idea that we are sinful and that a devil exists. Because they both posit that things happened against God's will, or as an unexpected foul up in the machinery of his own design. Neither is consistent with the idea of a perfect, omnipotent God.

The problem here is that you’re starting from a presupposition of determinism rather than the Jewish concept of God as contained in the Bible. Sure, if one interprets “God’s will” as something that cannot be avoided by man, but then observes man acting contrary to God’s will, he will undoubtedly arrive at the conclusion that God is somehow flawed, and therefore relinquish himself from believing in this God.

In the Bible, however, an omnipotent God is depicted as having delegated authority to man, giving him the power of choice to either comply with his will or disobey it. The latter doesn’t change what God’s will is for man, it only makes man a steward of God’s will and therefore accountable for the choices he makes whether for or against God’s will. We can liken this to a business owner who hires someone to manage his store. The owner sets the policies for his business and expects his manager to abide by them. If not, then the owner has the right to impose consequences for non-compliance. I realize analogies are never perfect, but I think you can get the gist of what I’m trying to say. The implication is that we don’t incriminate the business owner for when his manager fails to comply with his policies; likewise, we don’t incriminate God simply on account of man’s disobedience to his will.

Oh, I take responsibilty for ALL my sin! Every last delicious drop of it! I enjoy my sin, very much. I am not blaming God for the sin in my life. I am saying that the concept of a hell is inconsistent with the idea of a God full of Love for the children he is burning (okay, for his children that are burning through the process he created for them.) You do realize that according to Christian thought, the vast majority of all people ever have burned in hell! And this as the result of the efforts of a God who loves them! Oops!

Rick, taking personal responsibility means that one remorsefully accepts that which he has done wrong. What you wrote above is not taking personal responsibility for your sin; instead, what you wrote is called reveling in your sin. I’m sure you can concede that there is quite a difference between the two.

Besides, I wasn’t intimating that you blamed God for sin but that you blamed him in a way that demonized him or depicted him as malevolent simply because he does punish sinners with hell. Some people have the audacity to do this even to human authorities, precisely because they do not wish to take personal responsibility or be held accountable for their actions. These have nothing but contempt for human justice, and the same can be said of those who demonize God for his justice. So I am unmoved by your emotional plea, that a God of love would not, out of love for the righteous and a sense of true justice, separate and incarcerate the wicked in hell.

No, I am not trying to fault God. Nice try at changing the point at hand though ;) I am saying that the Christian stance that you can commit the worst acts known to man and still go to heaven at the last minute is not consistent with any sort of "justice" we have ever known. You are calling it "mercy and pardon." What if a human judge were to forgive a killer/murder/rapist/genocidal maniac at the last minute before execution, because that judge wanted to be "merciful." Is that being just? (which you say God is)

Well, first of all our judges have no authority to grant pardons but our President does, and the only constitutional restriction to a pardon is in the case of impeachment. Other than this, a President may pardon whomsoever for whatever reason he sees fit, though most presidents follow a set of legal recommendations. A syllabus I found concerning the case of Andrew Jackson granting a pardon to George Wilson in 1833 reads as thus:

The power of pardon in criminal cases had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance. We adopt their principles respecting the operation and effect of a pardon, and look into their books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to be used by the person who would avail himself of it. A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.

I like the description a pardon is an act of grace. Thus clemency is not merited because it is based on mercy, and not what the convicted offender rightly deserves. And so it is with God. On the basis of his grace and mercy he exempts men from the punishment due to their sin. But unlike men God is not so indiscriminate or arbitrary about who he pardons. He requires that men meet his criteria of repentance and faith in order for his forgiveness to follow. In this way he ensures their amendment of life, whereas in the case of our legal framework we have no assurance that the pardoned criminal will be reformed of his ways.

But you just said God excuses people who commit ungodly, evil deeds! If God shows "mercy and pardon" for people who commit sin, then those ungodly, impenitent people have gone unpunished! You contradict yourself! If your logic for the existence of hell is to make sure all ungodly sinners get punished, but it's not the case that all ungodly sinners get punished, then there is no logical case for hell. Unless you can think of another one.

Rick, impenitent means that such sinners refused to repent. Consequently, it is these who are punished, not those who exercise repentance. Repentance is the criteria that God expects to be met before he grants the forgiveness of sins. The ungodly who are impenitent, therefore, are those who will go to hell, not the ungodly who are penitent. So my logic for hell stands.

Sorry Ray, but you're whining here a little bit. There is a fundamental contradiction in the thinking of Christians about God. 1) "If God sends people to hell, then they take him for a cruel, sadistic monster." Yes, that's true. Since God can't be both loving and cruel, then he must not be burning people in hell.

The real logical fallacy here is that you have built a straw man argument. You have argued for a God that is not the God of the Bible. Consequently your conclusion about him is erroneous because your premise was false to begin with. The God of the Bible is both a God of mercy and a God of justice. And what determines which end of the spectrum a man winds up is entirely dependent upon whether or not he complies with God’s criteria of repentance and faith for the forgiveness of his sins and salvation of his soul.

2) "On the other hand, if they don't think God is doing or has done anything about evil in this world, then it must be evidence that he just doesn't care." Also true! We can see that God doesn't care because we are free. There is no evidence of punishment for sin in our world. You can have as much sex as you want before marriage. Kill all the people you want. God never comes down and gets us. So, he doesn't care. Which is to say he has no preference. Lacking in any verifiable punishment from God on Earth, Christians then formulate the belief that they will be punished after they die! (when we can't see it!) This is where evidence and logic leave the stadium, and pure, creative speculation and fear mongering take over. "I can't show you, but I'm going to tell you that you're going to be punished for that after you die! So come join our church."

Rick, I question whether you really want evidence of God punishing sinners in the here and now. Why do I suspect this? Because I have spoken with plenty of atheists and unbelievers who, when they read of such events in the Bible such as Noah’s flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the conquest of the peoples in the land of Canaan–instances in which God punished sin on earth–they are not only quick to deny such things ever happened but in the same breath denounce God as evil and malevolent because he is said to have punished sin his own way. So it is as I stated, unbelievers and skeptics create a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” argument against God, so that in their own minds God can in no wise win. And that’s the way they like it. But if you ask me, this is the height of irrational thinking.

[schrackman]

Hi Michael,

OK, I'll buy that. But remember, you are talking only about your interpretation of Christianity.

Perhaps. But it is the right one.

Then God can't be given the credit when good happens due to good choices that men make. So that burning building where three people were rescued last week by firemen, the survivors should be saying "Thank Joe and Tom (or whoever)" instead of "Thank God."

If those choices coincide with what God has said is good, then certainly God can be thanked as well as the individual who did good, because God is the author of all that is good. Not only this, but God is known for influencing people to do what is good at just the right time. Take for instance the Persian king Cyrus. Ezra 1:1 says that God stirred up the spirit of the king so that the Jewish people were permitted to rebuild their temple. Interestingly enough, over 150 years previous to this event the prophet Isaiah not only predicted Cyrus by name but also predicted specifically what he would do for the Jewish people, precisely because God was in his doing good.

You haven't answered the question. God should not be given credit for saving people when their own choices led to the save. God types grab people at their lowest points. If a person finally learns to control alcoholism it's Gods hand that did it when in actual fact is was the will of that alcoholic and the people who supported him. God had nothing to do with it.

And just how do you know God has nothing to do with things like this? Let me tell you a story…a lady I used to work came to talk to me about her husband. He had been an alcoholic for years and it was tearing up their marriage. Everyone at work that she talked to said to divorce the bum. But I encouraged her to not to do this and told her I would pray for him that somehow God would help him to change. And I also told her that in the meantime she just needed to trust the Lord and be patient, and not do anything hasty like divorce her husband. A few weeks later her husband was taken to the hospital. Apparently his excessive drinking became more than what his body could bear, and after major surgery on his stomach the doctor told him he had to quit drinking or die. So he quit, and to this day they have a great marriage. So when I see my prayers answered like this it has a tendency to confirm for me the exact opposite of what you’re saying. I have a lot more stories like this, but I’m almost sure that in your eyes they’d all just be considered statistical coincidences.

Now, back to what I stated previously using parents as an illustration. Does it really seem rational to lay fault on God for the bad things people do when God instructs us in what is right and good? For example, the Bible teaches that God honors marriage but condemns fornication and adultery. So then, if two people decide to commit fornication or adultery, which is contrary to God’s will, does it seem reasonable to blame God for their bad choices? And if they choose to abstain from sex until marriage, does it not seem reasonable to credit God with this good since it coincides with his stated will?

Here is another of your implicit assumptions. The scriptures are NOT special, they are the words of man written by man. They are no different than the Sunday Times. You can't use the "holy" scriptures to prove that the scriptures are holy. In fact, you can't logically prove anything with scriptures until you logically prove that the scriptures are indeed inspired by god.

If you go back and read what I wrote, I didn’t make that assumption in my statement. My assertion was simply that when someone utilizes a false premise for an argument regarding what the Bible teaches, the conclusion is going to be false as well. One need not assume that the Sunday Times or the Scriptures are anything special in order to frame a fallacious argument from either of their contents.

Once again, demanding that people believe in "holy" scriptures to prove a logical argument is illogical from the start!

I didn’t demand you do anything of the sort. I have been trying to get you to inquire to see for yourself as to whether or not faith can be logically proven, that is, whether or not there is good reason to believe.

So I’m going to go back to my original question and word it just slightly different, and hope that you will answer it: do you not think it would be an irrational thing for Christianity to expect faith from any of us without providing us good reason to believe?

[schrackman]

Hi physasst,

Well, there are so many....but we'll start with this one, and work our way through.

According to Matthew 1:18-21 Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit and was thus the product of a virgin birth. But this is contradicted by Romans 1:3, which states that Jesus was conceived by the seed of David according to the flesh--as you will see the New Testament authors are a disagreeable lot.

So Paul said Jesus was conceived of the seed of David? Well, let’s see if this is really true or if the author of the above objection is arguing falsely.

Matthew 1:18-21 reads:

But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”

Romans 1:3 reads:

…concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh.

So apparently Paul didn’t say Jesus was conceived by the seed of David. He said he was “born” of the seed of David. So if the author of this objection doesn’t know the difference between being “conceived” and being “born,” then it sounds to me like he needs a refresher course on the birds and the bees. Either that or he just can’t read.

Like I said...shoddy Bible interpretations.

[mwfanelli2]

This has to be fast...

So I’m going to go back to my original question and word it just slightly different, and hope that you will answer it: do you not think it would be an irrational thing for Christianity to expect faith from any of us without providing us good reason to believe?

Religions make promises, they do not provide good reasons." Christianity provides a promise, not proof, of life after death. Reminds me of the old folk song "There'll be pie in the sky when you die." It promises you that the wicked around you will be punished and you, the good, will be given everlasting joy for your troubles (or 40 virgins, or a good reincarnation, or whatever depending upon your religious style). These are promises, not proof. It is pretty much "You just wait and see, when you're dead you'll know I was right."

Other stuff:

Science doesn't like absolutes. Why? Science is logical but not logic. What does that mean? In math, 2+2=4 is an absolute in certain (but not all) decimal number lines. Mathematics is a form of logic. In science, the game is much more complex and can't be framed as a branch of logic.

You use logic (mostly math) to advance science in a logical manner, knowing full well that what you believe now will not always be true. A good example of this is Steven Hawking: he fought hard to prove that black holes never have anything escape from them. But, he later saw that his old theory was starting to make incorrect predictions. It turns out that quantum effects at the event horizon are significant. Who knew? Black holes indeed change, they "evaporate" due to quantum effects. There are no absolutes, there is nothing in science you can point to and say "That will always be correct."
.
The bible has NEVER been proven to be inspired by god. That is not what history does. What predictions were made that have now proven to be true? What observations and experiments were done to test these predictions? No, the bible is the word of god only if you choose to believe that it is.

How can I prove the bible is not the word of god? That's a logically flawed question, you can never use logic to prove a negative. I say the world is run be evil little pixies who are invisible and undetectable. Prove to me that isn't true. See the problem?

Once again, you use the bible to give me examples. If I gave you quotes from old copies of Playboy, it would be no different. Sorry, but they are all words written by men regardless of what book they are collected in.

You also keep dodging the issue of good and bad. If God can inspire men to do good, then he can inspire men to do evil. Good and evil are relative terms that have nothing to do with the supernatural. I can be inspired to write or paint beautiful works for the benefit of a beautiful woman (a muse perhaps). The intentions are hardly "godly"! I can also choose to lead a life of crime due to an evil parent. Or maybe it is, as I believe, a matter of genetics.

I have never understood why the faithful always try so very hard to prove that their faith is not really faith but has "reasons." I often think that many are embarrassed by faith. I have much more respect for those Jehovah Witnesses that used to come calling when I was young than the millions of people who look, to me at least, that they don't believe that faith is enough.

[walterick]

Well, this level headed pagan is going to return to the boards next week to continue this... lengthy... debate after the holidays. You all have a great weekend/holiday and I'll see you in a week.

And don't post any spam while I'm gone ;)

[mwfanelli2]

Well, this level headed pagan is going to return to the boards next week to continue this... lengthy... debate after the holidays. You all have a great weekend/holiday and I'll see you in a week.

And don't post any spam while I'm gone ;)

Merry Christmas to you. oops...!

[schrackman]

Well, this level headed pagan is going to return to the boards next week to continue this... lengthy... debate after the holidays. You all have a great weekend/holiday and I'll see you in a week.

And don't post any spam while I'm gone ;)

Have a great time, and if you're traveling be careful! There's all sorts of nuts on the roads this time of year, and they haven't any patience or manners. See ya when you get back, and have a Merry CHRISTmas!

[schrackman]

Hi Michael,

Religions make promises, they do not provide good reasons. Christianity provides a promise, not proof, of life after death…

The bible has NEVER been proven to be inspired by god. That is not what history does. What predictions were made that have now proven to be true? What observations and experiments were done to test these predictions? No, the bible is the word of god only if you choose to believe that it is...

I have never understood why the faithful always try so very hard to prove that their faith is not really faith but has "reasons." I often think that many are embarrassed by faith. I have much more respect for those Jehovah Witnesses that used to come calling when I was young than the millions of people who look, to me at least, that they don't believe that faith is enough.

On the contrary, fulfilled prophecy is just one proof or evidence given by God for his having inspired the Scriptures. And his intent is to provide you specifically with good reason to place your personal faith in Jesus Christ for your salvation. In other words, God wants you to have full confidence in what he says, not blind faith.

I gave as just one example Isaiah’s prophecy concerning king Cyrus. This isn’t your National Enquirer or Nostradamus kind of prophecy. Isaiah names names and specifics of what the king would do, over 150 years before the king was born and before the events actually took place.

There is also the prophecy of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke concerning the complete destruction of the Jewish temple, the slaughter of its inhabitants and their being carried off into captivity, as well as Jerusalem being “trodden down” by the Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. This occurred in 70 AD with the invasion of Jerusalem by the Roman general Titus, and nearly 2000 years later the Jews still have yet to rebuild a temple or completely occupy Jerusalem absent Gentile inhabitants. Critics try to claim the Gospel writers wrote this prophecy after the event by claiming late dates for the Synoptic Gospels, despite the fact that fragments from Matthew’s Gospel have been found to date to at least 60 AD and that they originally belonged to a codex. This then means that the original scrolls from which Matthew’s words were copied must have been written earlier still.

Consequently, this evidence provides us a very early date for the writing of Matthew’s Gospel, much too early for myth to develop and much too early to casually dismiss Jesus’ prophecy as having been written after the fact. And so basically what we have here is a truly historical account of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, whose manuscript evidence surpasses that of any other document of antiquity. And we have all this precisely because God wants you to have full confidence in what he has said concerning his Son, and assurance for your placing faith in him. In other words, your faith doesn’t have to become the equivalent of a gamble; rather, you can reasonably justify your faith on the basis of the biblical evidence.

While some “church leaders” may be quite content with people who are church members just for the sake of being told they must believe without questioning, I on the other hand believe that God is not so irrational as to demand such a thing from anyone without giving them good reason to believe.

[mwfanelli2]

Hi Michael,

On the contrary, fulfilled prophecy is just one proof or evidence given by God for his having inspired the Scriptures. And his intent is to provide you specifically with good reason to place your personal faith in Jesus Christ for your salvation. In other words, God wants you to have full confidence in what he says, not blind faith.

Prophecy doesn't cut it as proof or evidence. Even astrologers get things right once in a while. Also, interpretation of prophecy takes a skill and delusion that one hears almost every night on Coast-to-Coast.I'll say to you the same thing I said to a "ghost hunter" I had in my class last year: "Where are the predictions I can actually test? Where is in information I need to investigate the claims?" Saying "you just wait 200 years and you'll see I'm right" is hardly logical.

I gave as just one example Isaiah’s prophecy concerning king Cyrus. This isn’t your National Enquirer or Nostradamus kind of prophecy. Isaiah names names and specifics of what the king would do, over 150 years before the king was born and before the events actually took place.

Yeah, 200 years later with the proper "interpretation"! I wonder how much backpedaling was done to make the stories match. OK, here is my holy prophecy: those evil little pixies I mentioned previously, well, 200 years from now they will reveal themselves and you'll see I'm right. Just how logical is that? And please, don't tell me that my prophecy doesn't count because I'm not a character in the man-written bible.

There is also the prophecy of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke concerning the complete destruction of the Jewish temple, the slaughter of its inhabitants and their being carried off into captivity, as well as Jerusalem being “trodden down” by the Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. This occurred in 70 AD with the invasion of Jerusalem by the Roman general Titus, and nearly 2000 years later the Jews still have yet to rebuild a temple or completely occupy Jerusalem absent Gentile inhabitants.

My goodness, do you truly not see what you are doing? This is all "evidence" no better than conspiracy theories. Just wait and you'll see I'm right is NOT, I repeat NOT, logical proof. You, as a Christian, are being PROMISED that this prophecy will come true. You have CHOSEN to accept it as true with no proof. What can I do with information? Just sit around and wait? Come on now!

Critics try to claim the Gospel writers wrote this prophecy after the event by claiming late dates for the Synoptic Gospels, despite the fact that fragments from Matthew’s Gospel have been found to date to at least 60 AD and that they originally belonged to a codex. This then means that the original scrolls from which Matthew’s words were copied must have been written earlier still.

Other "believers" can't affect the basic fact one way or another. This is all no different than the interpretations of the writings of Nostradamus. You say your prophecies are inspired by God. I say they are not. Stalemate, with no logical way to decide between these opinions other than "wait a few hundred or few thousand years.".

And so basically what we have here is a truly historical account of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, whose manuscript evidence surpasses that of any other document of antiquity. And we have all this precisely because God wants you to have full confidence in what he has said concerning his Son, and assurance for your placing faith in him. In other words, your faith doesn’t have to become the equivalent of a gamble; rather, you can reasonably justify your faith on the basis of the biblical evidence.

Once again, the bible is nothing special. You can not logically prove anything using the bible than I can quoting a spiderman comic book. All are written by man, for man, with NO, NONE, NADA, proof of divine inspiration other than the simple fact that you choose to believe what was written by man in the bible is holy without proof.

While some “church leaders” may be quite content with people who are church members just for the sake of being told they must believe without questioning, I on the other hand believe that God is not so irrational as to demand such a thing from anyone without giving them good reason to believe.

Wow, we sort of agree, a little bit. The problem is simple, as I stated before: there are no logical reasons to believe, there are only promises and predictions of the future you and others choose to believe. That same tendency can be found with other cults, from Jim Jones to Heavens Gate. They also believed the "logic" they were handed and believed that it was all much more than random promises. The chose to believe the promises just as you and other Christians do.

I know this may cause trouble, but I see little difference between Christianity and other cults. Yes, your cult leader is dead but think of this: if it were proven that Christ was fictional, Christianity would collapse. You believe in the mystic Jesus and must have that to continue.

I once asked a Buddhist what would happen if Buddha was shown to never have lived. The answer was simple, there would be great sadness but Buddhism isn't based on Buddha or any other man. The same goes for the Hindu faith, my Indian student this year said basically the same thing about her gods while saying that would never happen. Eliminate Jesus, and you have no more religion. Yeah, I know, that will never happen!

We have a major disconnect here. I used to argue these types of things with the narrow black tie people who used to show up on my doorstep. They too tried to "prove" what they were saying. They couldn't do it, they had a weird version of what logical evidence was, and soon started to avoid me! As a kid, that was great.

Look, I have no problem with you believing whatever you want. My objection to religion is when y'all get together and create violence, havoc, and anti-social behavious in the name of your particular God. Or when you try to insert religion into science classes, passing logical nonsense off as equal. It's faith, accept that. Faith is not better or worse than logic or science, it's just different. They don't compete, they are two different ways of looking at the world we inhabit. I chose the logical, you chose the supernatural. So what?

[schrackman]

Hi Michael,

Sorry for the late reply. Holidays are over, relatives are gone. Now I can get back to writing.

Prophecy doesn't cut it as proof or evidence. Even astrologers get things right once in a while.

Well sure, because probability, cold reading, and notoriously vague/generalized predictions are the real tools of their trade, which enables these astrologers to appear to be somewhat accurate at times. Biblical prophets, however, had no need of such chicanery precisely because they were divinely inspired of God. And because they were inspired they got the details right every time, usually long before the predicted events ever occurred so that the above false methods of prediction cannot be ascribed to them.

Also, interpretation of prophecy takes a skill and delusion that one hears almost every night on Coast-to-Coast. I'll say to you the same thing I said to a "ghost hunter" I had in my class last year: "Where are the predictions I can actually test? Where is the information I need to investigate the claims?" Saying "you just wait 200 years and you'll see I'm right" is hardly logical.

There’s no special skill in interpreting biblical prophecy–either history confirms what the prophecy foretells or it doesn’t. Looking back we can easily see how history has shown a fulfillment of such biblical prophecies that were not only specific and detailed but given in such advance notice that one may reasonably believe that divine revelation was involved.

Yeah, 200 years later with the proper "interpretation"! I wonder how much backpedaling was done to make the stories match. OK, here is my holy prophecy: those evil little pixies I mentioned previously, well, 200 years from now they will reveal themselves and you'll see I'm right. Just how logical is that? And please, don't tell me that my prophecy doesn't count because I'm not a character in the man-written bible.

“I wonder how much backpedaling was done to make the stories match”? That’s not an argument, that’s called poisoning the well. You shouldn’t ask for logic if you’re going to abandon it yourself.

My goodness, do you truly not see what you are doing? This is all "evidence" no better than conspiracy theories. Just wait and you'll see I'm right is NOT, I repeat NOT, logical proof. You, as a Christian, are being PROMISED that this prophecy will come true. You have CHOSEN to accept it as true with no proof. What can I do with information? Just sit around and wait? Come on now!

Correction…the disciples of Jesus were promised it would come true, and it did in 70 AD, thirty-seven years after Jesus told them about it. The manuscript evidence we have containing this prophecy predates the events by at the very least 10 years, and since it is a copy we are assured that it derived from a still yet earlier, original source Gospel. So the fact of the matter is, Michael, there is no dancing around this fulfilled prophecy. The only question is, what do you intend to do with the evidence before you?

Other "believers" can't affect the basic fact one way or another. This is all no different than the interpretations of the writings of Nostradamus. You say your prophecies are inspired by God. I say they are not. Stalemate, with no logical way to decide between these opinions other than "wait a few hundred or few thousand years."
No different than Nostradamus? Well, let’s see if this is true:

But it is quite different than Nostradamus. Did Nostradamus name New York? Hitler? John F. Kennedy? No, he did not. This is what people read into his prophecies because Nostradamus was patently obscure in his writings. Jesus, however, names Jerusalem, and what precisely would happen to it and its people. Isaiah named individuals, cities, peoples and nations, and predicts what they would do or what would be done unto them. You don’t have to wait a few hundred years to see prophecy fulfilled; on the contrary, you only need to look back in history to see how accurate and detailed Bible predictions have been.

Once again, the bible is nothing special. You can not logically prove anything using the bible than I can quoting a spiderman comic book. All are written by man, for man, with NO, NONE, NADA, proof of divine inspiration other than the simple fact that you choose to believe what was written by man in the bible is holy without proof.

As a man of science, you know full well the ramifications of predictions that pan out. Yet, when you are shown Bible predictions that have come true you then claim these aren’t proof at all despite your lack of refutable evidence. The truth of the matter is this: it’s not that the Bible doesn’t provide you evidence for faith, it’s that you choose to ignore the evidence because it's more convenient that way.

Wow, we sort of agree, a little bit. The problem is simple, as I stated before: there are no logical reasons to believe, there are only promises and predictions of the future you and others choose to believe. That same tendency can be found with other cults, from Jim Jones to Heavens Gate. They also believed the "logic" they were handed and believed that it was all much more than random promises. The chose to believe the promises just as you and other Christians do.

I don’t disagree that what you wrote above may be true of many different religious groups, but you are gravely mistaken by applying it to Christianity. I have been attempting to show you that the Christian faith is not a faith that requires no evidence, that it does not irrationally demand our faith but rather gives men a reasonable justification for placing their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior. Of course, I can only share those good reasons with you; it will be up to you to decide what to do with them.

I know this may cause trouble, but I see little difference between Christianity and other cults. Yes, your cult leader is dead but think of this: if it were proven that Christ was fictional, Christianity would collapse. You believe in the mystic Jesus and must have that to continue.

I once asked a Buddhist what would happen if Buddha was shown to never have lived. The answer was simple, there would be great sadness but Buddhism isn't based on Buddha or any other man. The same goes for the Hindu faith, my Indian student this year said basically the same thing about her gods while saying that would never happen. Eliminate Jesus, and you have no more religion. Yeah, I know, that will never happen!

And do you know why it will never happen? It’s because we have the Gospels, which, again along with the rest of the New Testament, possesses the best manuscript evidence of any document of antiquity. To you this may not mean much but to the informed it means we actually do have a collection of genuinely historical texts that consist of eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life, death, and yes, his resurrection, all of which was recorded within a generation of those who knew him and walked with him. In the world of bibliography this means Jesus was a real, historical figure and not some fictional character. The same can’t be confidently said for Buddha, however, seeing that writings concerning his teachings and life didn’t even begin to appear for well over 400 years after he allegedly lived, which of course then provides plenty of time for myth to develop around the character himself. But this cannot be said of Jesus. One has to deal with the fact that Jesus actually lived and that the Gospels are the genuine testimony of his life and works by those who knew him personally.

Look, I have no problem with you believing whatever you want. My objection to religion is when y'all get together and create violence, havoc, and anti-social behaviors in the name of your particular God. Or when you try to insert religion into science classes, passing logical nonsense off as equal. It's faith, accept that. Faith is not better or worse than logic or science, it's just different. They don't compete, they are two different ways of looking at the world we inhabit. I chose the logical, you chose the supernatural. So what?

But this is a false dichotomy. I can chose both the logical and the supernatural simply because the former supports the latter when one looks objectively at the evidence that God gives for faith. Once again, it would be an irrational thing for the God of the Bible to demand faith from man without giving him a reasonable justification for doing so. Try reading the first chapter of the Gospel of Luke sometime, and see how Luke proposes to assure Theophilus of “those things most assuredly believed among us.” Luke didn’t rely upon a blind faith; rather, he relied on written documents recorded by those who were eyewitnesses of Jesus. Luke didn’t just tell Theophilus to believe him just because “I say so.” No, Luke instead investigated all the evidence for himself and then compiled it all to form his Gospel, which, incidentally, agrees with the other Gospels, thus corroborating their testimonies regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as historical fact.

[mwfanelli2]

Biblical prophets, however, had no need of such chicanery precisely because they were divinely inspired of God. And because they were inspired they got the details right every time, usually long before the predicted events ever occurred so that the above false methods of prediction cannot be ascribed to them.

ONLY because you choose to believe they were "divinely inspired of God." You are also using circular logic: "My prophets are divinely inspired of God which proves that they are divinely inspired by god." Huh?

There’s no special skill in interpreting biblical prophecy–either history confirms what the prophecy foretells or it doesn’t.

OK, lets accept this for now. This is the basis of FAITH! There is no proof there, no way to test the predictions, propose alternatives, logically argue the results. You choose to ACCEPT, to wait, you do not use logic.

I should mention that others have brought up arguments similar to this. One of the many places I lived was western North Carolina for almost 7 years. You know, smack in the middle of the Bible Belt. Many years ago I spent several weeks looking at all types of prophecies in the bible and looking up the history (what I could find). Many were dead wrong or as vague as any Nostradamus prediction. After all that work, I gleefully presented my results. The verdict: Satan was influencing my mind and introducing doubt. Never again, there is no logic there.

“I wonder how much backpedaling was done to make the stories match”? That’s not an argument, that’s called poisoning the well. You shouldn’t ask for logic if you’re going to abandon it yourself.

Good grief, gadzooks! What you are presenting IS NOT LOGIC. AGAIN, IT IS NOT LOGIC. UFO people can not prove anything with tons of eye witness reports. This is not a court room where you have a preponderance of evidence. You really need to investigate the basics of formal logic, or Bertrand Russel for mathematical logic. Logic is not just some willy-nilly statements tossed into the void! I use mathematical logic to work with physics, Socrates used formal logical. There are entire other branches I know almost nothing about. NONE match anything you have presented.

You do realize that the second coming of Christ was a prophecy that has changed more times than can be counted. At first, the followers of Jesus thought it would be in their life time. Then is was the next generation. The last formal statement I remember was November of 1996. Now there is talk of the "end times are close." Unless I was asleep at the time, nothing has happened. I predict that the tropics will freeze in the future. Now, lets all just wait.

These are, once again, PROMISES, items of faith. Prophecy is not logic.

But it is quite different than Nostradamus. Did Nostradamus name New York? Hitler? John F. Kennedy? No, he did not.

Listen to more late night radio. Fans of "The Big N" make very convincing arguments about predictions, very specific, that have come true. Many times, the parallels with real people, places, and conditions are spot on. The Big N is no better than biblical prophets.

To look back in history, you have to do this, be it the Big N or the Big J, with an open mind. The historical picture is not even close to as accurate as what you are pushing. The signs of the end times have been seen with clarity for thousands of years. The actual historical record for Jesus himself indicates that many of the places assumed in the Bible may not be correct.

As a man of science, you know full well the ramifications of predictions that pan out.

They "pan out" by presenting predictions that can be EXPERIMENATLLY tested, poked, prodded, push to the limits. If a scientist ever said "wait and see" he'd be laughed back to the loony bin. As I have mentioned before, several times, String Theory, the latest area of excitement, doesn't even qualify as science. Why, no predictions that can be, once again, EXPERIMENATLLY tested, poked, prodded, push to the limits. And, they won't keep panning out as more and more predictions are made. Remember the black hole example I gave way back in this thread?

The truth of the matter is this: it’s not that the Bible doesn’t provide you evidence for faith, it’s that you choose to ignore the evidence because it's more convenient that way.

See above, YOU ARE NOT PRESENTING LOGICAL EVIDENCE, you are pulling a UFO-style "how can we be wrong when we have so many eye witness reports." Maybe OK for a civil suit in the courts, certainly not even close to a logical proof.

[I don’t disagree that what you wrote above may be true of many different religious groups, but you are gravely mistaken by applying it to Christianity. I have been attempting to show you that the Christian faith is not a faith that requires no evidence, that it does not irrationally demand our faith but rather gives men a reasonable justification for placing their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior. Of course, I can only share those good reasons with you; it will be up to you to decide what to do with them.

No. What you are doing is saying "Here are some promises that I believe have been dead-cold accurate. Sure, you can't apply logic to them, sure they can't be tested, but hey, you should accept these things to and see the light."

Big next paragraph...

Sigh. You just don't have a clue what formal logic really is and what it requires. That's not an insult, just a very frustrating problem.

But this is a false dichotomy. I can chose both the logical and the supernatural...

Yes, yes yes! My Jeep friend (another thread) is a physicist and a devout Catholic. She can balance both logical and supernatural world views at the same time. But she never mixes the two. She has no need to "prove" her faith. I balance logic and the "emotional" world view of literature and poetry. I'd never say that Dante has to be logically proved. You, on the other hand, have a driving need to recast your supernatural beliefs as formal logic. Worse yet, I really don't believe you even see what you are doing!

...Try reading the first chapter of the Gospel of Luke sometime, and see how Luke proposes to assure Theophilus of “those things most assuredly believed among us.” Luke didn’t rely upon a blind faith; rather, he relied on written documents recorded by those who were eyewitnesses of Jesus. Luke didn’t just tell Theophilus to believe him just because “I say so.” No, Luke instead investigated all the evidence for himself and then compiled it all to form his Gospel, which, incidentally, agrees with the other Gospels, thus corroborating their testimonies regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as historical fact.

Exactly! Another hardy yes, yes, yes! This is EXACTLY what UFO supporters do. Written documents of what people have seen and given testimony for are used to "prove" their point "logically." That may work in a court, it is not formal logic. And like a court, the results drawn can be wrong.

I see this thread is getting stuck just like the other one did. I have enjoyed it but unless I read something new, I'm going to sit back and just watch for a while.

Here's one down your alley! My niece is on one of those Navy ships that Iran "attacked" today. I am worried quite a bit. Thank god she wasn't hurt. Damn god for putting her in danger. God? what god? A choice that can not use logic to choose which is right.

"Sorry for the Inconvenience" - God

(from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy)

[walterick]

I am going to jump back into this conversation when I have a little more time. But I have a quick question for Ray - is there any evidence substantiating the claims of the Bible from outside the Bible? It seems you are using the Bible to this point to validate its own claims. Have there been any Biblical predictions that have come true since the Bible? Or have they all happened within that book? Finding evidence outside the Bible verifying what is inside the Bible would be powerful evidence indeed!

[schrackman]

I am going to jump back into this conversation when I have a little more time. But I have a quick question for Ray - is there any evidence substantiating the claims of the Bible from outside the Bible? It seems you are using the Bible to this point to validate its own claims. Have there been any Biblical predictions that have come true since the Bible? Or have they all happened within that book? Finding evidence outside the Bible verifying what is inside the Bible would be powerful evidence indeed!

Hi Rick,

Actually, I didn’t point to the Bible to prove the Bible; rather, I referenced Bible prophecies and asserted that history has shown a fulfillment of them. In the case of Cyrus, this is not hard to do. First, let’s look at the biblical prophecy concerning him. God, through the prophet Isaiah, stated:

Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut.

Isaiah prophesied during the reigns of four kings of Judah (Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah), all of whom lived previous to the Jews’ being taken captive by Babylon. Consequently, Isaiah mentions Cyrus by name nearly 150 years before the Persian king ever lived and describes him as a subduer of nations. The Cyrus Cylinder confirms the king’s success:

I am Cyrus, king of the world, the great king, the powerful king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters of the world.

Isaiah also predicted (45:13) that Cyrus would permit the captive Jews to return to their land, saying:

…he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts.

The Cyrus Cylinder confirms the king’s own policy to permit those deported into Babylon to return to their own lands. The British Museum, which holds the cylinder, states:

Cyrus claims that he has restored temples and cults in neighboring countries and has returned their deported people and gods. Therefore this object is often linked to Cyrus' permission for the exiled Jews at Babylon to return to Jerusalem, as related in the Bible in the Book of Ezra.

The Book of Ezra, by the way, contains the only extant historical record of Cyrus’ decree concerning the Jews’ rebuilding the temple and city. And this too God predicted through Isaiah, saying:

Who saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. (Isa. 44:28)

While the Cyrus Cylinder does not make specific mention of this, Josephus does by way of an epistle that king Cyrus wrote to Sisinnes and Sathrabuzanes:

I have given leave to as many of the Jews that dwell in my country as please to return to their own country, and to rebuild their city, and to build the temple of God at Jerusalem on the same place where it was before. I have also sent my treasurer Mithridates, and Zorobabel [i.e. Zerubbabel in the Bible], the governor of the Jews, that they may lay the foundations of the temple.

The letter goes on to tell of how Cyrus gave order to restore the temple vessels taken by the Babylonians and how he intended to fund the materials for the foundation of the temple out of his own revenues, which is likewise stated by the biblical book of Ezra (chapter 6) when giving an account of Darius' decree to confirm Cyrus’ decree.

So yes, I do think this is powerful evidence for fulfilled prophecy, and fulfilled prophecy is meant to give us confidence in God's Word, and if we can have confidence in what God says then accepting Jesus Christ, the Savior, becomes elementary.

[jgredline]

schrackman
Excellent and Praise the Lord Jesus Christ for your commitment and patience... (I know this is not a politically correct statement, but it always brings me great joy seeing Gods word being proclaimed..)

''Christianity requires no proof?''
Besides all the fulfilled prophecies that have come to pass in the scriptures, there are many other proofs...Lets start with the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ...There has been many a skeptic the past 2000 years that has tried to disprove the resurrection, yet Christianity still lives..Why? If the resurrection could have been disproved during the first century of the church, then Christianity would have been dead....Instead there were hundreds who died for their faith...Why? Why would anyone die for a lie? Some of the most brilliant minds in History have set out to disprove the bible and or resurrection. People like C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, Newton and all of these came away ''Christians''...If one contradiction could be found in the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures or even one failed prophecy; Then those who do not believe in God would have reason not to believe...

I will also say that ''religion'' itself is not of God. I know many Religious people who claim to be Christians and do not know Jesus...
Mormons and Jehovah's Witness as examples are religions, not Christianity nor are they Christians...

To define a Christian is simple really...This is where we need to start.
A Christian is simply a person who has submitted himself to the Lordship Of Jesus Christ and has received him as his savior by Grace through faith alone...A Christian is someone who has a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ...

Anyway, I off on a tangent...but wanted to share my position...

[mwfanelli2]

schrackman
Excellent and Praise the Lord Jesus Christ for your commitment and patience... (I know this is not a politically correct statement, but it always brings me great joy seeing Gods word being proclaimed..)

We don't do politically correct here!

Besides all the fulfilled prophecies that have come to pass in the scriptures, there are many other proofs...

As stated many times in this thread, "prophecy" is not logical proof. Art Bell does two "prediction shows" at the end of each year. They are then evaluated the following year to see which has come through. Nobody waits hundreds of years yet, over the course of a single year, he gets a higher hit rate than Christianity ever does. I guess all these late-night callers are prophets as well.

Lets start with the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ...There has been many a skeptic the past 2000 years that has tried to disprove the resurrection, yet Christianity still lives..Why? If the resurrection could have been disproved during the first century of the church, then Christianity would have been dead....

Once again, you can NOT prove a negative. That is logical nonsense. Why are so many Christians ignorant of the very basic concepts of logic while claiming to use it?

Instead there were hundreds who died for their faith...Why? Why would anyone die for a lie?

You mean like Muslim suicide bombers? As you state, no one would die for a lie. I guess Allah really is the truth.

Some of the most brilliant minds in History have set out to disprove the bible and or resurrection. People like C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, Newton and all of these came away ''Christians''...

Once again, you can not prove a negative. Why is that such a tough concept? As for Newton, sorry to say but he was a great believer in the world of spirtits and ghosts which he clung to until his death. Newton was reprimaned by the church many times

If one contradiction could be found in the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures or even one failed prophecy; Then those who do not believe in God would have reason not to believe...

There are many contradictions in the bible! My goodness, keep up with biblical scholars! Many of the books in the Old Testament are actually intertwined threads of at least two, maybe as many as five, different authors. That's why they are so convoluted and contradictory. Also, many books were left out when the early church put the bible together.

I will also say that ''religion'' itself is not of God. I know many Religious people who claim to be Christians and do not know Jesus...
Mormons and Jehovah's Witness as examples are religions, not Christianity nor are they Christians...

LOL so much I think I'm going to burst. Yep, typical. Only MY religion is true, all the others are false. Wonderful example of blind faith! Thank you!

A Christian is simply a person who has submitted himself to the Lordship Of Jesus Christ and has received him as his savior by Grace through faith alone...A Christian is someone who has a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ...

No problem with this. That is the very definition of faith. It has absolutely nothing to do with logical proof.

Anyway, I off on a tangent...but wanted to share my position...

That's what Off-Topic is for!