Originally posted by thorvoFINALLY!! I have been waiting for this for a very long time!
Manking wouldn't change itself for the better. God has already given proof of his existence, but most people make up illogical tales that exclude him, so no matter how much proof he gives, not all humans will accept him. Also, who said women were second class citizens? an that the existence of homosexuals is negative? sure, the bible says God detests homosexu ...[text shortened]... he person. I personally, do not like homosexuality, but I am not prejudice against homosexuals.
Please, point me to the "proof of his existence"...
Originally posted by TheSkipperlol, couldnt you have just asked for it? anyways, one way is the Bible. if u dont believe the bible then here is another way: by nature and everything aroudn us. if u believe in evolution, well, i dont know what else to say. personally, I have asked God for some things and he has granted them to me. also, i feel peace whenever i ask him for protection. but the bible and nature are two very important points. As far as the bible, it is reliable. compare it to history and it is totally accurate.
FINALLY!! I have been waiting for this for a very long time!
Please, point me to the "proof of his existence"...
Originally posted by thorvoNone of that is proof, it isn't even very convincing evidence. You should really understand something before you live one more day on this planet: Just because you are really, really convinced of something does not make it true. Besides, the whole point of Christianity is to have faith, if you have proof you don't need faith.
lol, couldnt you have just asked for it? anyways, one way is the Bible. if u dont believe the bible then here is another way: by nature and everything aroudn us. if u believe in evolution, well, i dont know what else to say. personally, I have asked God for some things and he has granted them to me. also, i feel peace whenever i ask him for protection. but th ...[text shortened]... t points. As far as the bible, it is reliable. compare it to history and it is totally accurate.
So, which is it? Do you have proof, or do you have faith?
Originally posted by thorvoi was being mildly facetious, and so "certainty" as such is not an issue, however:
now how in the world can you be so certain of all that?
logic would melt - to accommodate the logical fallacies (contradictions)
language would disintergrate - as above (though possibly in place of it)
"schizophrenic ... god" - old / new testament difference
toying - e.g. god giving job over to satan to play with
it wasn't meant to be a rock solid theory, but it has reasonable bases?
Originally posted by TheSkipperThe bible of course!! What more proof do you need than a text compromising translations of translations of chinese whispers, altered to suit the outcome of councils at the time, full of contradictions?!
FINALLY!! I have been waiting for this for a very long time!
Please, point me to the "proof of his existence"...
Remember, it says in the bible that it is true - so it must be true...
Also, you can see proof of god in the sublime, just look at flowers in a beautiful valley and you see god's work - he made those during creation (though not sure which of the two stories to believe ...)
Originally posted by cpbrownLet me say that the Bible has not changed over the years. And it does not have contradictions. if u think it does, then please find one.
The bible of course!! What more proof do you need than a text compromising translations of translations of chinese whispers, altered to suit the outcome of councils at the time, full of contradictions?!
Remember, it says in the bible that it is true - so it must be true...
Also, you can see proof of god in the sublime, just look at flowers in a beautif ...[text shortened]... work - he made those during creation (though not sure which of the two stories to believe ...)
Originally posted by TheSkipperTrue, I gave a very general evidence. I could go into more detail if you want but I dont have all the time in the world either. Tell me, how much proof do you have of evolution?
None of that is proof, it isn't even very convincing evidence. You should really understand something before you live one more day on this planet: Just because you are really, really convinced of something does not make it true. Besides, the whole point of Christianity is to have faith, if you have proof you don't need faith.
So, which is it? Do you have proof, or do you have faith?
And yes, Christianity has a lot of faith in it. Yet the faith isnt just believing something you know nothing about. In many religions people do a whole bunch of stuff to get them into heaven, but in Christianity all you have to do is believe. Thats the faith part. Not that there is no proof, although somethings there are thigns we dont know and do have to take by faith, but in Christianity its more believing and accepting, not doing or tryign to earn by works. Get the picture?
Originally posted by cpbrownYou still havent explained how this would happen. Give me an example. Why would language disintegrate if the Bible were true?
i was being mildly facetious, and so "certainty" as such is not an issue, however:
logic would melt - to accommodate the logical fallacies (contradictions)
language would disintergrate - as above (though possibly in place of it)
"schizophrenic ... god" - old / new testament difference
toying - e.g. god giving job over to satan to play with
it wasn't meant to be a rock solid theory, but it has reasonable bases?
1 edit
Originally posted by thorvoas you clearly believe that the bible is coherent, then these assertions culd not make sense to you. The point was not meant to be serious, and the language one probably the least easy to back up - however my motivation for writing that part was that due to the contradictions, the meaning of the words (if they remained "true" ) would have to lose literal meaning - if you take the bible as a metaphor anyhow then this is not an issue, since then you're choosing your own truth.
You still havent explained how this would happen. Give me an example. Why would language disintegrate if the Bible were true?
As for the contradictions, you don't need to read far to find them, there are in fact two chronologically contradictory creation stories in the first few chapters of the bible. the first is the one you're well aware of and will most likely think is what actually happened. the second, is the one where god made man ... before he made any plants or animals (the lack of plants is justified as there was no " man to till the soil" (the fact that man only began to labour the fields after the fall which was not a "planned" outcome seems to make this justification wavy at best)). he then makes all the animals etc, and since there is no suitable partner, he eventually creates woman. Now this is in direct contradiction to the first creation story - and there you have it, a blindingly obvious contradiction in the first few lines of the bible.
as for the fact that the bible hasn't changed - are you aware of the hundreds of different translations of the bible at the moment? are you aware that as a former catholic, my bible has books in it, which the people who broke away from the church in the past - deleted, so as to try and make more sense? (known as the apocrypha) - so your bible (if you're not r. catholic) is lacking many books which you wouldn't even have heard of before?
Do you have a cheap bible or one with annotations? because if you've got a decent copy, then you'll see that the entirety of the ascension passage of mark's gospel was added on later after is writing, by scholars who believed the original ending (the end of 16:8) to be too abrubt.
so how can you possibly claim that the bible has not changed? that is a claim founded on blind ignorance of their own religion.
Originally posted by eatmybishopGod exists in the vacuum of human understanding and description.
let's just say that somehow god proves he is real and every word of the bible is true, do you think:
a) humanity would change overnight?
b) it is the only way all of mankind would change for the better?
He is king there, unchallengable and as real as everything else that
we know.
However, man has brought him into the realm of the known. He is
not welcome there. He is troublesome and whiney.
Originally posted by cpbrownOk i think I see now what you meant about the language. As for the contradictions, I foudn a website that explains it pretty well. It would take me too long to write it all out and the site does a good job at explaning things. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401sbs.asp
as you clearly believe that the bible is coherent, then these assertions culd not make sense to you. The point was not meant to be serious, and the language one probably the least easy to back up - however my motivation for writing that part was that due to the contradictions, the meaning of the words (if they remained "true" ) would have to lose literal mea ...[text shortened]... as not changed? that is a claim founded on blind ignorance of their own religion.
True, there are a lot of translations of the Bible, but what I was meaning, and sorry if I was unclear, was that there are translations that have not changed what the Bible originally said. Some translations have portions taken out, others added. But do you think there is not one translation that says the same thing (in another language of course) that the original bible said? Even though some translations arent very good, there are some that are good and havent changed the Bible.
If your bible has other books, and I think ive heard of some of them, but cant remember them, are they sound with the rest of the Bible? are they inspired by God or were they just written by men (without God's inspiration)?
My bible is NIV version. How do you know that scholars added on to the original ending? maybe they did, but from what point or verses to what verses did they add?
Originally posted by thorvoTo be clear, the Roman Catholic Church not only acknowledges that there are contradictions and
Ok i think I see now what you meant about the language. As for the contradictions, I foudn a website that explains it pretty well. It would take me too long to write it all out and the site does a good job at explaning things. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401sbs.asp
inaccuracies in the Bible, but acknowledges that the authors of the various books engaged in
deliberate editorial processes in forming their various texts. The authorized translations of the
RCC have copious footnotes (dozens on every page) explaining many of these errors, misinterpretations,
inaccuracies, creative embellishments, and so forth.
If you are looking for a defense of inerrency, the RCC is not the place to go. As religious institutions go,
they are at the forefront of Biblical scholarship.
Nemesio
why do a few say take it to the spirituality forum, after all, isnt this a debate forum, so therefore, we should debate anything and everything?
i dont believe in god and am not religious in anyway, i guess my original question should have been if god (one that came from no specific religion) proved himself and heaven to be true would we all follow him...?
including the bible in my original question brings up too many questions, i.e. why would the existence of a god be a christian one, also, the bible contains too many contradictions to be true in its entirety
Originally posted by eatmybishopa) Yes, if God proved his existence and the Bible's correctness to everyone.
let's just say that somehow god proves he is real and every word of the bible is true, do you think:
a) humanity would change overnight?
b) it is the only way all of mankind would change for the better?
b) If God exists, proving it to humans would help us change for the better. It's not the only way though.