Kirk Cameron : Ray Comfort says the Bible is science and evolution theory isn't
Re: Ray Comfort says the Bible is science and evolution theory isn't
As a matter of fact, even when I feel at my worst otherwise, I can always think of something to be happy about. When a crime happens, at least it wasn't worse somehow- even if that just has to mean that more people didn't die or otherwise become crime victims. At least dead victims aren't suffering. And if the perpetrators get off or they die without being punished, I know they will still have to answer for it in the afterlife. If a genocide happens, at least it was only one country and the perpetrators are usually never likely to go from country to country committing it (although it's seems ISIS may achieve that someday).
Yes, I suppose it is nice that it wasnt worst, however it disappoints me that the most intelligent creature on this planet does such things. Telling yourself that oh well, at least not more people were massacred is putting on rosy shades and ignoring the problem. I wonder what would happen if a certain person would not have died. Perhaps they would have given birth to the next genius, next great musician.
I dont believe in any afterlife, however, if there is an afterlife, it is pointless to throw him into hell forever. Torturing people is archaic and Im glad modern society has grown beyond that. Putting them in jail and protecting the public is sufficient.
I think teaching them about the christian hell, or the greek haedes and whatever else other cultures have come up with is to scare people into being good boys and girls.
Obviously it doesn2000t work because some people realize this are just ancient stories with no evidence.
Jail on the other hand is real and a criminal does his best to escape it.
The very existence of Hell is Satan's fault. When he went by Lucifer as an angel in Heaven, he thought he was better than God, and other angels followed him.
Whether some jack thing he is better than the jewish god is irrelevant.
The idea that christianity pushes is join this religion or go to hell.
So he created Hell and sent them there.
The idea that this guy wants to torture other people is despicable.
On top of that, this guy is suppose to be all knowing, so in fact, he already knew ahead of time that this guy named lucifer or satan or devil or mr 666 is going to think he is better than him.
If God had not created Hell, they would probably be running around on earth,
Im able to come up with alternatives.
It's all about love and there is no real duress to it,
Having people tortured for not serving him is not my idea of love. Just choosing to make someone human without giving them a choice is not a free choice. The jewish god decides to make me human without even asking me and I am automatically put on earth because I am a bad guy?
That doesnt make sense.
No it doesn't. It offers living water so you will never go thirsty. Daily bread so you will never go hungry. It offers, peace, hope, joy, love, prosperity, compassion and so much more. All great coercion.
What are you talking about? I am talking about this concept of hell. Christianity doesnt offer water, bread, etc.
Well, some of them may not even really have any ammo. They just want to scare you and make you think they do or go on the knowledge that you may not want to take a chance that they do. Or they might just be sticking their finger through their shirt or coat at you to make you think they have a gun. Maybe the gun doesn't even work. Maye the gunman doesn't really know how to use the gun. Even if the gunman has a loaded, working gun and knows how to use it, he is not at all like God in his situations, as I hope I have convinced you of already.
You havent convinced me of anything. You are repeating what is in the bible. You havent given any evidence that it is correct.
On top of that, this religion doesnt make any sense and you havent changed my mind.
In fact, I dont understand how it makes sense to you.
Most historians agree that someone named Jesus lived at that time. Nothing will convince you the religion is real unless you drop the barriers in your mind and heart and let God work in you.
What most historians think is irrelevant but yes, it is possible that some jew existed like I wrote. That doesnt make him a god or a son of god.
The evidence for any god is null. There isnt any outside source about Jesus. The bible is written on rags that have degraded over the ages. This is what ancient people had as writing tools.
Every culture developed their own religion and own customs that go along with it. Thats exactly what I would expect if there were no gods.
Both the rich man and this Lazarus are hypothetical, not real people.
But they could be real. It even mentions Abraham. Is this the same Lazarus as the other one? Is this the same Abraham as the other one? I dont know. The bible doesnt assign a serial number to each guy.
The Bible says there is no bad feelings in heaven and seeing people burn in torment is liable to cause some.
In other words, you dont want to feel bad and so, you dont want to see those guys burning in hell.
If that's the way God wants it, I want no different because he is all-knowing. He knows what's best.
In other words, you cant form an opinion of your own. You arent an individual. You are a yes man. You are a yes man, because you dont want to go to hell.
Re: Ray Comfort…
The oh well, at least not more people were massacred philosophy is also the philosophy of Dr. Pangloss. This philosophy has a downside that it basically allows any cruelty, inaction, or unfeelingness with the excuse that everything works out in the end. Candide examined this philosophy and came to realize that Pangloss was an idiot.
Re: Ray Comfort…
Yes, I suppose it is nice that it wasnt worst, however it disappoints me that the most intelligent creature on this planet does such things.
It can't disappoint people. You are stuck in a rut with your mere human logic. The Bible says continuously that God knows so much better than all of us. We don't know a better way than he does and we are incapable of understanding things at his level. You can't apply your logic to him. It's like a baby wanting complete say over how a country is run.
Telling yourself that oh well, at least not more people were massacred is putting on rosy shades and ignoring the problem.
There is no problem. What you are talking about was a solution. If those people were not massacred, more evil would have been spread throughout the world a lot sooner.
I wonder what would happen if a certain person would not have died. Perhaps they would have given birth to the next genius, next great musician.
Not anyone who ever died at God's hand. They were too much about themselves and their sins.
I dont believe in any afterlife, however, if there is an afterlife, it is pointless to throw him into hell forever. Torturing people is archaic and Im glad modern society has grown beyond that. Putting them in jail and protecting the public is sufficient.
Putting them in jail in the afterlife? All there is for them is Hell. Again, you are saying you know better than a God who created us all, the world, the universe, Heaven and angels. When the Bible says he is all-knowing, it means it. He knows all things much better than you or I.
I think teaching them about the christian hell, or the greek haedes and whatever else other cultures have come up with is to care people into being good boys and girls.
It's cautionary. What do you think our threats of prison time and the death penalty in various states is? It's no different than warning labels on medicine or anything not fir consumption that could be swallowed. You caution people out of love and concern (and liability for companies), not to scare.
Obviously it doesnt work because some people realize this are just ancient stories with no evidence.
What's supposed to work is telling of the benefits of and need for Christianity.
Jail on the other hand is real and a criminal does his best to escape it.
Hopefully not escape it, but earn their release or simply serve their time and get released. But jail is for earth people. It's not suitable in the afterlife and the people in Hell would have never reformed. They would have always tried to take over everything and/or sway others to their evil beliefs.
t wasn't originally meant for people.
Whether some jack thing he is better than the jewish god is irrelevant.
The idea that christianity pushes is join this religion or go to hell.
It's not irrelevant. I told you why God saw a need for Hell in the first place. How everything worked out is for the best and we are too limited in our understanding to know what is for the best in this area.
The idea that Christianity pushes is to get all the love, peace, joy and the powerful, ultimate friend in God that it offers.
The idea that this guy wants to torture other people is despicable.
He doesn't want to, He laid that choice out for them to make.
On top of that, this guy is suppose to be all knowing, so in fact, he already knew ahead of time that this guy named lucifer or satan or devil or mr 666 is going to think he is better than him.
Still, he knows better than you or i. If things went any different. it could have been catastrophic.
If God had not created Hell, they would probably be running around on earth,
-
Im able to come up with alternatives.
You realize this is about supernatural entities now, right? I was talking about Satan and his followers when he went by Lucifer in Heaven, and there were no humans anywhere yet. Are you telling me that you know any way at all to handle supernatural entities? No human does! Be thankful they are in Hell where they belong! We wouldn't stand a chance otherwise.
Having people tortured for not serving him is not my idea of love.
Hell is for people who rejected God's love, so they are getting what they deserve. God is all-knowing, so they are insolent and loving it. Screw them.
Just choosing to make someone human without giving them a choice is not a free choice. The jewish god decides to make me human without even asking me and I am automatically put on earth because I am a bad guy?
That doesnt make sense.
How could you choose anything before you became human? THAT'S what doesn't make sense. What would their be to ask? Nothing. And do you think a frog would rather be a giraffe? Animals likely don't think about things like that. They think about eating, sleeping, surviving, mating, their young, their friends/allies, their enemies. That's about it. They likely don't wish they were human or any other animal.
It's a privilege to be a human. Why would you not choose it? You could drive, vote, watch TV and movies, make Tv and movies, write books, travel as far as you want, dive in the ocean, fly to another planet, etc. As a human, you are in the best position to change your world for the better. So you are being ridiculous here.
You were automatically put on earth because your parents had sex and birthed you. That's all their is to that. That's how it's set up. If you hate that you had no choice in being human, the blame partly goes to your parents for not having safe sex or abstaining altogether.
Is anyone calling you a bad guy? Not as far as I can see. You are a misguided guy who has insisted on staying that way. Every action has consequences, but you still have time to avoid yours.
What are you talking about? I am talking about this concept of hell. Christianity doesnt offer water, bread, etc.
See? You don't understand the Bible or you wouldn't be saying that. And you are probably just thinking of the physical bread and water that you consume every day, not the philosophical bread and water that Jesus talked about.
You havent convinced me of anything. You are repeating what is in the bible.
That's where it all is.
You havent given any evidence that it is correct.
The evidence is not for people who insist on their own idea of evidence. God runs the show, not you or I.
On top of that, t2000his religion doesnt make any sense and you havent changed my mind.
It makes more than enough sense- just not for the stubborn.
In fact, I dont understand how it makes sense to you.
My heart and mind is open to God and his Word, the Bible and I realized that he knows the best and he runs the show.
What most historians think is irrelevant but yes, it is possible that some jew existed like I wrote. That doesnt make him a god or a son of god.
Right, he just was and is. What historians think is not entirely irrelevant because you doubted Jesus existed. And just because I make a good point that you can't counter doesn't mean you can just say it's irrelevant.
The evidence for any god is null.
There is, but you aren't open to it.
There isnt any outside source about Jesus.
There doesn't need to be. That is a worldly, human need in order to believe in something. But God and his word are above all that. Whether you like it or not, they are not to be held to the same standards as everything else. God is not out to satisfy anyone in order for them to believe in him.
The bible is written on rags that have degraded over the ages. This is what ancient people had as writing tools.
So what? It has been copied and translated into other languages with newer material for ages now
Every culture developed their own religion and own customs that go along with it. Thats exactly what I would expect if there were no gods.
That's exactly what expect with Godless and ungodly people- people who insist that they know the best way.
Both the rich man and this Lazarus are hypothetical, not real people.
But they could be real. It even mentions Abraham. Is this the same Lazarus as the other one? Is this the same Abraham as the other one? I dont know. The bible doesnt assign a serial number to each guy.
With close study, using your brain and God's guidance, it's easy to see that this was like an Aesop's Fable- some of which mentioned Caesar- and he was real, but none of the fables were. Get it now? This Lazarus was not, Abraham was real and this was the same one, but the story is not real. You can know all this for sure for yourself if you open yourself up to it and God.
The Bible says there is no bad feelings in heaven and seeing people burn in torment is liable to cause some.
In other words, you dont want to feel bad and so, you dont want to see those guys burning in hell.
See, here you are confusing how I feel now with how I will feel in Heaven. Those are too entirely different things. Here, I regret that those people went to Hell and more will go there, but you make your own bed and you have to lie in it. In Heaven, things are so wonderful and peaceful and loving that you aren't able to think about things like that there.
What you quoted there says nothing about what I want or don't want or what I want to see or not see. There is no reason to see Hell from Heaven, so people really don't. That was just an illustration Jesus told to make a point.
If that's the way God wants it, I want no different because he is all-knowing. He knows what's best.
In other words, you cant form an opinion of your own. You arent an individual. You are a yes man. You are a yes man, because you dont want to go to hell.
None of your reply goes with that quote. No one's opinion is better than what God knows. Unless you start understanding that, you will stay stuck in your rut. Other than what's in the Bible, i have opinions of my own and that covers more than enough territory. I am God's willing yes man because he revealed to me that his ways are best and why, and I want them for everyone, not because I don't want to go to Hell.
The oh well, at least not more people were massacred philosophy is also the philosophy of Dr. Pangloss. This philosophy has a downside that it basically allows any cruelty, inaction, or unfeelingness with the excuse that everything works out in the end. Candide examined this philosophy and came to realize that Pangloss was an idiot
Who are you, I, Canide, it's author or anyone else to say who is really an idiot? All people are blind to their own idiocies- and yes, we all have them. No one is up on everything. You are talking about a fictional doctor in a fictional novel and you look to that kind of thing to learn about real life? At least with the Bible, I've seen the evidence of what it says because I've opened myself to it, so I know it's not a fiction book.
Re: Ray Comfort…
<>
The above is a potentially dangerous slippery slope. Presuming that God caused people to be killed by a natural disaster because these people were sinners, can stigmatize victims of disaster and make people presume "they deserved it, and shouldn't be helped." The Book of Job mocks this theory. Bildad and his party p1ebcresumed that Job's constituents must have been killed because they were sinful, allegations which Job refuted. Then God shows up in a whirlwind and basically says to Bildad and the others, put your own house in order before you criticise Job. Incidentally, Job never learns the real reason for his suffering - that God and Satan were having a capricious betting session in the first chapter.
One writer expressed thankfulness that most believers reject Bildad's reasoning: "This explanation also fails the test of conscience. If we accept its reasoning, the logical conclusion is that we should never try to help people who are in pain or in need to do so would be to undo their God-decreed punishment. But any ethical human being must reject this conclusion as unacceptable. In fact, this explanation is flatly contradicted by the sacred texts of most religions themselves. All major holy books, including the Torah, the Bible and the Quran, contain passages enjoining their readers to give to the poor and the needy, feed the hungry, tend to the sick, and so on. If any of these books are divinely inspired, the justice theodicy cannot be true. It would make no sense for God to order his followers to work to counteract a punishment that he himself sent."
Adirondack's declaration that people in Hell choose to be there and deserve it utterly is also flawed. The atheist writer pointed this out in relation to Pilgrim's Progress' chapter where Christian Pilgrim meets the Man in the Iron Cage (apparently the worst earthly sinner, but not developed as a character) and the reviewer makes this impression of the scene: "In this chapter, the idea of Hell is presented only as a club to threaten the reader, with no eye to its more serious moral implications. All people sent there are described as deserving it, and no character for which the reader has developed any sympathy is sent there in the end. This fits with the all-too-common fundamentalist worldview that classifies the world into a simple dichotomy of black and white, good Christian and evil non-Christian; but it fails against the complexities of reality. If it had not been some nameless professor but Christians wife, or one of his parents (since he obviously was not raised as a believer) sitting in that iron cage, forever shut out from the promise of grace, would it have been right for him to leave them and continue on his own quest? Only a person with a severely defective conscience could condone such heartless behavior, or believe that such sadistic punishment could ever be justified for any human deed."
<
A common case of blame shifting, saying that the doctrine is not screwy, that the recipient is wrong minded.
Whenever Christians find an inconvenient piece of Scripture, they claim it's only metaphorical not literal, or only applies to one group of people. When they find a Scripture passage that is useful, they say it's universal and applies to all.
The irony of this declaration is too big to say in only a few words. The Bible is just as fictional as Candide, even though both books feature real life historical figures as characters. In the case of Candide, it features Prince Ivan of Russia and Prince Charles of Scotland, among others. Fiction can be used to make instructive moral points. Even in the above passages, Jesus educated people via fiction including the story of Lazarus and the rich man. The stories set in Narnia, Middle Earth, and Wonderland have just as much useful moral instruction as the Bible.
Incidentally, in the story of Lazarus and the rich man, the latter character's punishment is never specified as being for any particular sin, but simply for having been rich. Modern rationalisations that he either committed some bad sin or rejected the Messiah are simply after the fact conveniences not mentioned in the text.
Re: Ray Comfort…
The above is a potentially dangerous slippery slope. Presuming that God caused people to be killed by a natural disaster because these people were sinners, can stigmatize victims of disaster and make people presume "they deserved it, and shouldn't be helped."
So you're saying people would use it to apply to all natural disasters over all time, from an earthquake recorded way back in the B.C.'s to today's earthquake's, hurricaneo and so hass and tsunamis? It's possible, but very haphazard. No one can really know how sinful people's hearts are but God. He is the only one to make that judgement that a mass killing will happen because of the victims' sinfulness and we can't know if that was the case one way or he other. To say either way would be to claim you know that the disaster was or wasn't God's judgement, but no one does. I personally don't think he commits mass murder anymore. Not since the Bible times. But whenever he did, it was justified. To call me or anyone else on saying that would be to say that you know better than God.
The Book2000 of Job mocks this theory. Bildad and his party presumed that Job's constituents must have been killed because they were sinful, allegations which Job refuted. Then God shows up in a whirlwind and basically says to Bildad and the others, put your own house in order before you criticise Job. Incidentally, Job never learns the real reason for his suffering - that God and Satan were having a capricious betting session in the first chapter.
Yes, God wanted to see that Job would be faithful to him and Satan wanted to see that Job would turn on God. Job stayed faithful to God. This is a good lesson for all, and as old cliche has come of it- "So and so has the patience of Job". God might give any one of his people tests to this day and beyond.
Exactly when did Job have constituents and how would have presided over them? All he had was sons and servants. As far as the Bible says, no land that Job lived in had all it's people taken out. Anyway, I believe the point of all their discourse was to discuss whether or not God still cared about Job, if anyone. It was no doubt in that context that any genocide was brought up. It was not really to make a theory one way or the other about any genocide by God, but to illustrate to job whether it was worth it to stay faithful to God.
One writer expressed thankfulness that most believers reject Bildad's reasoning: "This explanation also fails the test of conscience. If we accept its reasoning, the logical conclusion is that we should never try to help people who are in pain or in need to do so would be to undo their God-decreed punishment. But any ethical human being must reject this conclusion as unacceptable. In fact, this explanation is flatly contradicted by the sacred texts of most religions themselves. All major holy books, including the Torah, the Bible and the Quran, contain passages enjoining their readers to give to the poor and the needy, feed the hungry, tend to the sick, and so on. If any of these books are divinely inspired, the justice theodicy cannot be true. It would make no sense for God to order his followers to work to counteract a punishment that he himself sent."
All the writer says is good and well-meant, but the fact remains that I was right in what I said and my saying it cannot be compared to Bildad's saying it because of different reasons and intentions. Using anthropomorphism, If I say to B, "A is first because you are too bumpy," I could be saying it for any number of reasons. I may just want to shquoteut B up, or I may want to get under it's skin or upset it or feed it's jealousy. If I say to B, "Well, still, you are second of 26!", I may want B to feel better about it's circumstances, or I may just want to shut B up.
Adirondack's declaration that people in Hell choose to be there and deserve it utterly is also flawed.
God declared it in the Bible way before me. So it's not flawed.
The atheist writer pointed this out
Oh, it was an atheist writer. No wonder you hang on the writer's words and most of the time, any such writer's words on Biblical subjects aren't worth a plug nickel. Was the writer there at all in the Bible times? Did the writer actually talk right to God in order to get the other side of the story and then be able to form informed opinoins? No. Obviously the writer doesn't even believe in God. So I will rightfully ignore the rest of the writer's words that you present.
<>
A common case of blame shifting, saying that the doctrine is not screwy, that the recipient is wrong minded.
I don't blame shift. Blame for what, anyway. He said the religion doesn't make sense but it does. to a baby, calculus doesn't make sense, but it does. One also has to grow and mature in their understanding and actually learn of and accept their own needs in life to even begin to understand the religion or the Bible. And you posters have not even started on the journey.
Whenever Christians find an inconvenient piece of Scripture, they claim it's only metaphorical not literal, or only applies to one group of people. When they find a Scripture passage that is useful, they say it's universal and applies to all.
Flawed understanding abounds here. Again, this the inexperienced judging the experienced.
The irony of this declaration is too big to say in only a few words. The Bible is just as fictional as Candide, even though both books feature real life historical figures as characters. In the case of Candide, it features Prince Ivan of Russia and Prince Charles of Scotland, among others. Fiction can be used to make instructive moral points. Even in the above passages, Jesus educated people via fiction including the story of Lazarus and the rich man. The stories set in Narnia, Middle Earth, and Wonderland have just as much useful moral instruction as the Bible.
The Bile is entirely true, along with mere illustrations which are obvous to the enlightened. I personally have experienced the truth of the Bible in my life.
Incidentally, in the story of Lazarus and the rich man, the latter character's punishment is never specified as being for any particular sin, but simply for having been rich. Modern rationalisations that he either committed some bad sin or rejected the Messiah are simply after the fact conveniences not mentioned in the text.
The sin was obviously that he put his money first in his life. Anyone can have a ot of money and there is no problem with that. But it should not be put first in one's life.
Re: Ray Comfort…
Is there a point to any of these statements?
Mere argument from authority is not convincing reason.
An evade-and-attack move based on ad hominem accusations. So mature.
Even when it makes obviously false or mistaken claims that contradict empirically testable truths? 2+2=5, Comrade Smith.
The Luke account nowhere says this. It's a retroactive interpretation.
Re: Ray Comfort…
Is there a point to any of these statements?
Is there a point to any of yours?
Mere argument from authority is not convincing reason.
The Bible doesn't say anyone has to be convinced. No one is so great that that anyone should bend over backwards to get them to believe anything the Bible says.
An evade-and-attack move based on ad hominem accusations. So mature.
That's right, it was mature Atheists evade the Bible's truth. That's the only evading going on here.
Even when it makes obviously false or mistaken claims that contradict empirically testable truths? 2+2=5, Comrade Smith.
It doesn't.
The Luke account nowhere says this. It's a retroactive interpretation
We are supposed to figure it out ourselves, and it helps to understand Jesus and have him guiding you and your mentors in the faith. Many of Jesus' stories are like that.
Re: Ray Comfort…
You make bold claims that everything in the Bible is true and flawless, without providing any supporting evidence or empirical tests, and get ticked when people don't believe these claims. If some Hindu started going on about how claims in the Mahabharata are true, without providing evidence or testing, would you believe him without compelling reason? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Re: Ray Comfort…
You make bold claims that everything in the Bible is true and flawless, without providing any supporting evidence or empirical tests, and get ticked when people don't believe these claims.
If anything ticks me off, it's everything in this quote before the words "and get". Time and Time again, I tell people like you that the kind of evidence that you want does not exist, but the evidence that does exist, you deem off limits to yourself.
I assume you vote or have voted. Do you just decide, "So and so is the candidate of my favored party, so I'll vote for him/her"? Many people do. But before the USA got so bad, the thing to do was look at each candidate carefully and let their history in politics, their speeches and other actions sell the candidate to you. Even if you favor a certain party, you open your mind to giving the others a chance to sell you on them. That's what has to be done with God and his word, the Bible. His relevant history is all in there, and like with any political candidate, their seems to be pluses and minuses. The more you understand God or any person, the minuses might become pluses for you.
With God you have to open your mind and your heart. You need to be willing to drop your "satisfy me" mindset and develop a pure "show me, God" one, out of interest and willingness to learn. You need to admit that there could be a way that your life could be better and that there could be a better outlook for you to have, then seriously and eagerly delve into the Bible. Talk to Christians about what God has done for them and what he can do for you. Then admit to yourself that you could use divine intervention in your life and open your mind and heart to receiving it.
Otherwise, you will just keep arguing with Christians on message boards. Not a very beneficial pursuit in life
If some Hindu started going on about how claims in the Mahabharata are true, without providing evidence or testing, would you believe him without compelling reason? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I've already seen what my God can do and what applying the Bible to your life can do. Those eastern religions and their writings only might make you feel good. It's not enough. There is no alternate religion and no holy book that is up to the Bible's standards. You get guidance for your life, the way to have a good afterlife, a friend that sticks closer than a brother and a good chunk of world and human history besides.
Re: Ray Comfort…
You make bold claims that everything in the Bible is true and flawless, without providing any supporting evidence or empirical tests, and get ticked when people don't believe these claims.
Without empirical tests, I don't see what kind of proof is left. Your track record in previous posts seems to favour feelings and intuition as "proof" of your version of Jesus. The problem with these experiences are that they are subjective and open to one's misperception about where the feeling comes from. Several people in all centuries have offered similar statements as to why they believe in Allah, Vishnu, Amaterasu, Mercury, Perkunas, and other deities. Why should any of these be more or less convincing than any of the 2000others?
I found both major POTUS candidates this year to be horribly flawed, and voted for a minor candidate instead.
The Bible is just one of many books humans have written about God. There are also the Talmud, the Book of Enoch, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and numerous others. Each has its ups and downs, and none is wholly convincing.
I occasionally have asked God for words of guidance, and there was absolutely no answer.
Then why has the world's population remained fragmented in these other gods, if the one true God is so easily provable? Why has not the population gravitated toward the one true God whom you have verifiably proven to exist?
Re: Ray Comfort…
Without empirical tests, I don't see what kind of proof is left.
The proof is when God reveals himself to you. But he won't do that if you keep your "satisfy me" mindset. You don't run the show. God does. You are nothing. I'm just about nothing myself, like his other followers, but we came into the faith right and I am now his child, so we're not absolutely nothing. You actually have no right to demand anything of him or his followers in order for you to believe. That you believe you do is why you stay on the outside. Humble yourself and accept your nothingness and that God is everything, that he wants to be your everything and that you need him to be your everything. Demanding proof is not being nothing. It's being self-entitled.
Your track record in previous posts seems to favour feelings and intuition as "proof" of your version of Jesus.
the Jesus of the Bible. I don't make up anything about him.
The problem with these experiences are that they are subjective and open to one's misperception about where the feeling comes from.
Many are called, few are chose, the Bible says. If more people answered the call, they would be chosen. To be stuck on where the feeling is coming from is to be stuck in a rut. It's easy to find out where any feeling is coming from. Just reflect on different subjects until something clicks for you.
Several people in all centuries have offered similar statements as to why they believe in Allah, Vishnu, Amaterasu, Mercury, Perkunas, and other deities. Why should any of these be more or less convincing than any of the others?
None of them should be convincing because there are no stories about what those people's god did for them that goes along with the feeling of assurance and guidance from God.
The Bible is just one of many books humans have written about God. There are also the Talmud, the Book of Enoch, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and numerous others. Each has its ups and downs, and none is wholly convincing.
God's power, assurance and guiding is only felt from the 66-book Bible, which came to man from God himself. The Bible says that and Christians have the assurance from him that it is.
I occasionally have asked God for words of guidance, and there was absolutely no answer.
Were you ready to receive him as I have said? Also, we in the faith know that sometimes, his answer is "wait" and he will eventually either help you or reveal why he won't. If he won't it might be for your protection or others'. He sees and knows more than anyone.
Then why has the world's population fragmented in these other gods, if the one true God is so easily provable? Why has not the population gravitated toward the one true God whom you have verifiably proven to exist?
Because people are stubborn and want things their way. They want a god and religion that suits them because they put themselves first in their lives. God wants to be first in our lives and he has shown that to be best.
Re: Ra
7ec
y Comfort…
I'm having a little trouble following this logic. It seems to be saying "God only gives proof of himself to people who believe in him," which is counterintuitive to the notion that he wants to be believed in, but maybe I'm misreading it.
The problem is, many mutually exclusive forms of Christianity use the "Jesus of the Bible" as their basis, so clearly this Jesus is open to multiple interpretations.
Each person is different and may see the feeling as coming from a different place. It's easy to be mistak5b4en about "where any feeling is coming from."
I once watched a program by National Geographic or a similar reporting group, where a bunch of people from some third world region gave personal life testimonies about boons granted to them by a god called Kataragama (such as this god's assistance in returning a lost child). Each told their story and demonstrated the tribute rituals they performed to praise the god afterwards. These people believed that the god Kataragama had done personal favours for them, and did not see any reason to think that the favours were granted by any other god or agency.
Clearly, followers of the Talmud, the Koran, the Mormon, and others, disagree with this, so there is some subjectivity involved. And claiming that the Bible must be legitimate because the Bible says so is the very definition of circular logic.
Any snake oil salesman can use the indefinitely-delayed-reaction excuse. "The snake oil only works on nights when the moon is full." Or "You didn't apply the snake oil right."
This is another subjective matter. A Muslim would say that you stubbornly cling to the mistaken notion that the prophet Jesus was Allah himself, and you embrace the false doctrine of Trinity because it suits you best.
The problem is, many mutually exclusive forms of Christianity use the "Jesus of the Bible" as their basis, so clearly this Jesus is open to multiple interpretations.
Each person is different and may see the feeling as coming from a different place. It's easy to be mistak5b4en about "where any feeling is coming from."
I once watched a program by National Geographic or a similar reporting group, where a bunch of people from some third world region gave personal life testimonies about boons granted to them by a god called Kataragama (such as this god's assistance in returning a lost child). Each told their story and demonstrated the tribute rituals they performed to praise the god afterwards. These people believed that the god Kataragama had done personal favours for them, and did not see any reason to think that the favours were granted by any other god or agency.
Clearly, followers of the Talmud, the Koran, the Mormon, and others, disagree with this, so there is some subjectivity involved. And claiming that the Bible must be legitimate because the Bible says so is the very definition of circular logic.
Any snake oil salesman can use the indefinitely-delayed-reaction excuse. "The snake oil only works on nights when the moon is full." Or "You didn't apply the snake oil right."
This is another subjective matter. A Muslim would say that you stubbornly cling to the mistaken notion that the prophet Jesus was Allah himself, and you embrace the false doctrine of Trinity because it suits you best.
Re: Ray Comfort…
I'm having a little trouble following this logic.
Why? It's really quite simple to understand. It may ot be so simple for many to follow up on, though.
It seems to be saying "God only gives proof of himself to people who believe in him," which is counterintuitive to the notion that he wants to be believed in, but maybe I'm misreading it.
I said you have to prepare yourself to give him a chance. I never said you had to believe in him from the getgo.
The problem is, many mutually exclusive forms of Christianity use the "Jesus of the Bible" as their basis, so clearly this Jesus is open to multiple interpretations.
Interpretations are often formed out of convenience, so people can make Jesus into how they want him. But the Bible is straightforward and not very difficult to understand. Jesus of the Bible is only that. To form an interpretation is wrong. If you do that, you risk not understanding the true Jesus. That's why there are mentors and pastors and why the Bible says you need to make sure everything you hear and understand needs to line up with it,
Each person is different and may see the feeling as coming from a different place. It's easy to be mistaken about "where any feeling is coming from."
Not the feeling Go2000d gives. It's like an inner nudging or prodding. What else could give that feeling? Go ahead and name something specific if you can.
I once watched a program by National Geographic or a similar reporting group, where a bunch of people from some third world region gave personal life testimonies about boons granted to them by a god called Kataragama (such as this god's assistance in returning a lost child). Each told their story and demonstrated the tribute rituals they performed to praise the god afterwards. These people believed that the god Kataragama had done personal favours for them, and did not see any reason to think that the favours were granted by any other god or agency.
Any good things can happen and be attributed to one's god. That doesn't mean it came from one's god. Harmless, innocent worshipers go on pure happenstance. American Indians worshiped sun gods, moon gods, etc., and when there was something like an earthquake or thunderstorm, they thought the gods must have been angry. But we know better today than to attribute things to gods who just control the sun, or just the moon, or the weather or earthquakes.
Clearly, followers of the Talmud, the Koran, the Mormon, and others, disagree with this, so there is some subjectivity involved.
Let them disagree. They would rather have things how they want them than how they really are by God. They think they know better ways than God, the one who instituted THE way, but they are headed for ruin.
And claiming that the Bible must be legitimate because the Bible says so is the very definition of circular logic.
The Bible backs itself up and God backs it up as well. He gives people assurance that the Bible is true if they only open themselves up to the possibility that it is and give it a chance. After all, it came from him and is a part of him.
Any snake oil salesman can use the indefinitely-delayed-reaction excuse. "The snake oil only works on nights when the moon is full." Or "You didn't apply the snake oil right."
Yeah, but they are all talk because they want to make money. I'm not asking anyone for money. Churches only do it for God, because the Bible says it's a way to give back to him.
-
This is another subjective matter. A Muslim would say that you stubbornly cling to the mistaken notion that the prophet Jesus was Allah himself, and you embrace the false doctrine of Trinity because it suits you best.
Allah is not God and God is not Allah. God is a Trinity and I've seen/felt their respective work. Jesus was the Son of the Trinity in human flesh. I embrace the true doctrine because I've seen what it does for others, and I've felt the power of his Spirit move as miracles have been done and people are praising God.
Re: Ray Comfort…
I waited for years for God to communicate with me but he never did.
Then why do people endless analyse and try to interpret its oblique passages? E.g., John 3:3-8:
***
Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
***
That's as clear as mud.
If it was so clear all along, why would we need all these mentors and pastors? Shouldn't the doctrine be simple enough that even the most facile halfwit would understand it?
<
People over the world, who have had similar feelings, have variously named the source as Allah, Vishnu, Perkunas, and any number of alternate options.
Pot and kettle.
They often believe in Allah, Vishnu, or whomever, because of which culture they were born in - nurture rather than nature, or environment rather than heredity. In the 19th century, American lawyer Robert Ingersoll wrote: Most of the intelligent men in Turkey are followers of Mahomet. They were rocked in the cradle of the Koran, they received their religious opinions as they did their features from their parents. The same may be said of the Christians of our country. Their belief is the result, not of thought, of investigation, but of surroundings.
This still seems to me to be circular logic. It basically says that the Bible proves it is true because its author says he only tells the truth.
And churches have *never* been given huge amounts of money, right?
Some researchers claim that God and Allah are one, or close enough to make no difference, similar to the barely-there difference between Zeus and Jupiter. People of all religions have said something like "I embrace the true doctrine because I've seen what it does for others" and "I've felt the power of his Spirit move as miracles have been done and pe1c84ople are praising God" and applied these statements to all imaginable deities, so Christianity cannot claim to be unique in this matter.
Re: Ray Comfort…
I waited for years for God to communicate with me but he never did.
That's because all you did was wait. You didn't prepare yourself as I have said.
Then why do people endless analyse and try to interpret its oblique passages?
It really has none. Any endless analysis and interpretation is done without mentoring and with self-imposed barriers in place or evil attempts to twist scripture to suit the reader.
I'll show you that the passage you quoted is not "clear as mud"
E.g., John 3:3-8:
***
Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
Your first stumbling block should be the "water and the spirit" line. Water could refer to when a pregnant woman's "water breaks" or to baptism with water. The Spirit refers more to the second birth Jesus speaks of. It's a spiritual rebirth by God's Spirit connecting to and working with your spirit.
Flesh gives birth to flesh,
This could refer to a mother having a baby, but "flesh" is also used in the Bible to refer to one's sinful nature. A sinful nature can only produce more of a sinful nature and brings out the sinful nature in others.
but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
Again referring to spiritual rebirth and how God's spirit makes a new creation of you and your spirit.
You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'
Self-explanitory.
The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
***
I believe he's speaking here to observations and attempts to figure believers out by outsiders such as you. You don't understand what we mean by anything, why we do anything, etc., if our religion is involved. You may come to your own incorrect conclusions and accept them as the true answer, but that doesn't mean you can tell anything about us.
That's as clear as mud.
Now it should be clear as crystal.
If it was so clear all along, why would we need all these mentors and pastors?
Because it's clear to them and other experienced believers. You have just shown your need for one if you want to become spiritually born. You are so consumed with outsider thinking and read so much garbage in articles and books by outsiders. When you are ready to abandon all that and do so, you will be well on your way to be ready to become born again. Leave all the atheist material for others who insist on looking it up and wallowing in it and never look on any of it again. It's only holding you back from God's truth,
Shouldn't the doctrine be simple enough that even the most facile halfwit would understand it?
Shouldn't you paint a bunch of pictures on your car? Shouldn't you acid wash or tie dye all your clothes? Shouldn't you eat what you don't like to eat? You take care of your own business and God will take care of his. God wants people to learn and grow in their faith and spirituality, and that won't happen if the Bible just reads like a set of directions, as in a recipe or a workplace handbook.
People over the world, who have had similar feelings, have variously named the source as Allah, Vishnu, Perkunas, and any number of alternate options.
No, they don't. You won't understand until you take steps to, as I have said.
Pot and kettle.
No, it isn't. That can't be said to me or believers by a chronic outsider of all walks of life because they have to experience it for themselves. They never will if they keep their self-imposed barriers up.
They often believe in Allah, Vishnu, or whomever, because of which culture they were born in - nurture rather than nature, or environment rather than heredity. In the 19th century, American lawyer Robert Ingersoll wrote: Most of the intelligent men in Turkey are followers of Mahomet. They were rocked in the cradle of the Koran, they received their religious opinions as they did their features from their parents. The same may be said of the Christians of our country. Their belief is the result, not of thought, of investigation, but of surroundings.
Christianity is the only reli2000gion God is close to. The others are meaningless to him because they are not about him. God moves and speaks for Christians and prospective Christians who give him a chance. That's all it is. And it happens all over the world. There are Christians all over the world.
-
This still seems to me to be circular logic. It basically says that the Bible proves it is true because its author says he only tells the truth.
The Bible proves to be true because it's author moves and speaks to/for people and enriches their lives.
And churches have *never* been given huge amounts of money, right?
So what? Church money, if the church operates correctly and honestly, is all for God. The snake oil salesmen's money is all for them.
Some researchers claim that God and Allah are one, or close enough to make no difference, similar to the barely-there difference between Zeus and Jupiter. People of all religions have said something like "I embrace the true doctrine because I've seen what it does for others" and "I've felt the power of his Spirit move as miracles have been done and people are praising God" and applied these statements to all imaginable deities, so Christianity cannot claim to be unique in this matter.
Yes, just sit there as an outsider for the rest of your life, being nothing but critical and skeptical. That's the way to understand everything in life. That's the way you approached driving, working and voting, right? Even with eating something new to you. Just stay ignorant of differences and similarities because you won't give God a true chance. Why should he be any different than any other God and his religion different than any other? No other God became human and took pain, suffering, humiliation and physical death for your sins. No other God conquered sin and death for you. That's the most powerful reason there is and it should blow your mind. If you are still unphased, unconvinced and not moved, and still insist on reading and being influenced by atheist writings, there is probably no hope for you, ever.
Re: Ray Comfort…
This whole post gives me a sense of deja vu. This is because I've seen posters on other boards say the exact same thing, except that some of them substitute Jesus with Allah, Vishnu, etc. Christianity fails the uniqueness test on this.
Your criteria for arguing Christianity's truth are based on subjectivity and ad hoc minute explain-aways for non-results - there are so many variables that no one can prepare against all of them.
Because it's impossible to know what the necessary preparations *are*.
The Bible is full of so many unclear passages, bizarre examples of imagery, and disturbing moral codes that it would require years of study to deduce what God wants from us. Years which most of us don't have to spare, and years which I'd rather spend kicking it up with Slug Queens and cosplayers.
You have a seeming phobia and automatic-avoidance of critiques of Christianity by non-Christians. Many religions have this strange stigma attached to reading outsiders' perspectives, claiming that they are inherently unable to analyse the faith correctly. (It does not stop you, an outsider to Islam, from criticising and anaylsing that faith, when surely a Muslim would say preemptively that your statements about Islam are not to be trusted.) Some religion doctrines, which strongly discourage their members from reading outsiders' views on the faith, even go so far as to declare it sinful to do so, and penalise members for reading these "gangrene" texts. I find this containment to reading one viewpoint to be intellectually stifling.
<>
Except that I have read posts on other boards making your same argument for various different deities, belying the idea Christianity that is somehow unique.
In other words, a spiritual experience is totally subjective, and a Jesus experience cannot be objectively differentiated from an Allah experience, a Vishnu experience, or a Perkunas experience.
A Muslim would say that Islam is the only religion God alias Allah is close to, etc., etc., and that there are Muslims all over the world. President-elect Trump agrees on the last part, which (understandably) gives him the willies.
I don't see how this claim can be proved. Healthy, wealthy Muslims attribute their success to Allah and the validity of Islam.
238
"if the church operates correctly and honestly" is something that rarely seems to have happened throughout history. See, e.g., Martin Luther's rant against Indulgences.
Prometheus had a really rotten time of it, and so did several other dead and resurrected gods, who were commonly worshipped openly i1c84n the Western world until Theodosius declared the Roman/Byzantine Empire to be for Christians only. After that, some of these cults existed secretly for a short time after. Jesus was just one of the guys until Theodosius declared him to be The Guy.
I'd rather be open to reading multiple viewpoints than reading just one group's party line. I've read a few Christian apologists (one book by Lee Strobel, several by CS Lewis, and much of the fiction of Tim LaHaye's team. Strobel's and Lewis' arguments have gaping holes, and I wonder whether they themselves were unaware of this, or were simply hoping their readers wouldn't notice. The LaHaye group's fiction is a guilty pleasure like a poorly-written adventurous b movie script, but its doctrine is pretty execrable and its God/Jesus is a premium bully. While Christians boast about their number of converts, they gloss over the numbers of ex-Christian atheists, or find some way to demonise and discredit these people.
Your criteria for arguing Christianity's truth are based on subjectivity and ad hoc minute explain-aways for non-results - there are so many variables that no one can prepare against all of them.
Because it's impossible to know what the necessary preparations *are*.
The Bible is full of so many unclear passages, bizarre examples of imagery, and disturbing moral codes that it would require years of study to deduce what God wants from us. Years which most of us don't have to spare, and years which I'd rather spend kicking it up with Slug Queens and cosplayers.
You have a seeming phobia and automatic-avoidance of critiques of Christianity by non-Christians. Many religions have this strange stigma attached to reading outsiders' perspectives, claiming that they are inherently unable to analyse the faith correctly. (It does not stop you, an outsider to Islam, from criticising and anaylsing that faith, when surely a Muslim would say preemptively that your statements about Islam are not to be trusted.) Some religion doctrines, which strongly discourage their members from reading outsiders' views on the faith, even go so far as to declare it sinful to do so, and penalise members for reading these "gangrene" texts. I find this containment to reading one viewpoint to be intellectually stifling.
<
Except that I have read posts on other boards making your same argument for various different deities, belying the idea Christianity that is somehow unique.
In other words, a spiritual experience is totally subjective, and a Jesus experience cannot be objectively differentiated from an Allah experience, a Vishnu experience, or a Perkunas experience.
A Muslim would say that Islam is the only religion God alias Allah is close to, etc., etc., and that there are Muslims all over the world. President-elect Trump agrees on the last part, which (understandably) gives him the willies.
I don't see how this claim can be proved. Healthy, wealthy Muslims attribute their success to Allah and the validity of Islam.
238
"if the church operates correctly and honestly" is something that rarely seems to have happened throughout history. See, e.g., Martin Luther's rant against Indulgences.
Prometheus had a really rotten time of it, and so did several other dead and resurrected gods, who were commonly worshipped openly i1c84n the Western world until Theodosius declared the Roman/Byzantine Empire to be for Christians only. After that, some of these cults existed secretly for a short time after. Jesus was just one of the guys until Theodosius declared him to be The Guy.
I'd rather be open to reading multiple viewpoints than reading just one group's party line. I've read a few Christian apologists (one book by Lee Strobel, several by CS Lewis, and much of the fiction of Tim LaHaye's team. Strobel's and Lewis' arguments have gaping holes, and I wonder whether they themselves were unaware of this, or were simply hoping their readers wouldn't notice. The LaHaye group's fiction is a guilty pleasure like a poorly-written adventurous b movie script, but its doctrine is pretty execrable and its God/Jesus is a premium bully. While Christians boast about their number of converts, they gloss over the numbers of ex-Christian atheists, or find some way to demonise and discredit these people.
Re: Ray Comfort…
This whole post gives me a sense of deja vu. This is because I've seen posters on other boards say the exact same thing, except that some of them substitute Jesus with Allah, Vishnu, etc. Christianity fails the uniqueness test on this.
Christianity is extremely unique in that no other god came to earth in human flesh and endured physical pain, humiliation, suffering and physical death for your sins. Allah, Vishnu, etc., did not. That was the supreme act of love for all mankind. That is the big difference. Stop blowing it off. I keep saying it and you don't acknowledge it, You'd rather foolishly reflect on all the perceived similarities and maintain them as facts in your stubborn mind.
Your criteria for arguing Christianity's truth are based on subjectivity and ad hoc minute explain-aways for non-results - there are so many variables that no one can prepare against all of them.
Only the chronically stubborn and hard-hearted. Only the ones who would probably actually accept nothing less than God revealing himself to the world and saying, "I am the Lord God. Watch me perform great miracles now. Now believe me that my own word the bible is true." -except then, you would say you imagined or dreamed all of it, or that there is some other "logical" explanation.
Because it's impossible to know what the necessary preparations *are*.
I've told you and told you what they are throughout this thread. You have zero excuse. It's all right from God's very own word. No one has any excuse.
The Bible is full of so many unclear passages, bizarre examples of imagery, and disturbing moral codes
Only as full as the sea is of giraffes. Come up with as many unappealing things to call the Bible's contents as you want, but you would be dead wrong. Don't just take it from this 30+ year Bible studier. Take it from Dwight "D.L." Moody, Beth Moore, Franklin Graham, etc.
that it would require years of study to deduce what God wants from us. Years which most of us don't have to spare, and years which I'd rather spend kicking it up with Slug Queens and cosplayers.
That all just comes in time after you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, joining his fold. He will cause you to "rather spend" some amount of your time pursuing his truth. No one gets it all before they take this step and they are not expected to or required to. It's not needed. You learn as you go, and it causes you to grow stronger and more assured in the faith as you go.
You have a seeming phobia and automatic-avoidance of critiques of Christianity by non-Christians.
I don't know how you could come to that conclusion. I read critiques all the time and I am experienced enough to identify how worthless they really are.
Many religions have this strange stigma attached to reading outsiders' perspectives, claiming that they are inherently unable to analyse the faith correctly.
Outsiders of Christianity cannot analyze the faith correctly. The other faiths can be analyzed correctly as worthless because we have the God's assuring guidance and the Bible to go by.
(It does not stop you, an outsider to Islam, from criticising and anaylsing that faith, when surely a Muslim would say preemptively that your statements about Islam are not to be trusted.)
They can say whatever they want. God has exposed them to those who are open to his truth. The criticism is not mine, but God's- who knows.
Some religion doctrines, which strongly discourage their members from reading outsiders' views on the faith, even go so far as to declare it sinful to do so, and penalise members for reading these "gangrene" texts. I find this containment to reading one viewpoint to be intellectually stifling.
I agree. But here is the thing. Christians must wait until they have gone far enough and are mature enough in their faith that nothing can change their hearts or minds. God takes them to that point himself if they allow him. Other peopl have little to nothing to do with it.
<>
Except that I have read posts on other boards making your same argument for various different deities, belying the idea Christianity that is somehow unique.
No different deities came to earth in human flesh and endured physical pain, humiliation, suffering and physical death for your sins. Do you not understand that? All for YOU, he was beaten, mocked, flogged (with sharp pieces of metal on whipping strings), having a crown of thorns stuck on his head, made to carry his own heavy execution mount in a state of physical weakness from the previous mentioned things, getting stripped to his underwear and nailed to the mount through his wrists and feet and left their to die in agony by probable suffocation- all for YOU because he loves you. He provides everything to put clothes on your ba16d0ck, food in your stomach, shelter over your head and people in your life that you have loved and who have loved you as well.
But you just blow him off and blow off his word, the Bible, after all that, just because you won't get over your own perceived similarities to other religions and that fact that you think anyone can counter anything Christians say. How could you? You don't know the anguish that you and people like you cause God when you influence others away from him and when you yourself become lost to him for all eternity. He loves YOU so much and you are depriving him of you and others who are influenced wrongly by your offline and online words against him and the Bible. Aren't you even the least bit ashamed? I sure would be. Wow. But there is still time for you to come to him before you are lost to him forever. Don't screw this up and stop giving God a virtual middle finger. Come to him. His arms are open wide for you.
In other words, a spiritual experience is totally subjective, and a Jesus experience cannot be objectively differentiated from an Allah experience, a Vishnu experience, or a Perkunas experience.
No, in other words, other religious people's words of their faith cannot stand up to the awesome power, love and salvation that God offers. There is no subjectiveness. There is only one way, one truth- Jesus Christ. So many people know and have known that and there is no denying it to us. He himself makes the differences and knows them better than anyone else, and if you don't accept that, you are taking all the wonderful things he has done for you and throwing them back in his face. Aren't you the least bit ashamed of yourself? No remorse? No sorrow for your actions against God who knows and loves YOU more than your own people in your life ever did?
A Muslim would say that Islam is the only religion God alias Allah is close to, etc., etc., and that there are Muslims all over the world.
There are also Christians all over the world. If you think we are concentrated all together in one country or area of the world, you really haven't done your homework. Muslims have no leg to stand on in saying that their religion is the only one God is close to. Jesus didn't suffer and die so people could blow him off to become Muslim. God didn't provide all those things for them that I said he provided you just so they could run off to a one-dimensional God who was created by some prophet with his own ideas.
President-elect Trump agrees on the last part, which (understandably) gives him the willies.
How do you know what gives him the willies? Whatever might, I think he will stand strong and work toward vanquishing the radical terrorist Muslims. The worldwide Christian to Muslim statistics would probably surprise you. Both religions are growing in followers every day.
-
I don't see how this claim can be proved.
Because you are sitting firmly and stubbornly on the outside, waiting to be satisfied like you believe everything revolves around you and that God and his people must "dance" for you. You can wait until doomsday for that. He is waiting to forgive you for everything though, and accept you with open arms. Come to him.
Healthy, wealthy Muslims attribute their success to Allah and the validity of Islam.
They aren't spiritually healthy. They are spiritually dead, as are you, and their attributions are meaningless because they come from those who are spiritually dead. But God can raise you to spiritual life if you are ready.
"if the church operates correctly and honestly" is something that rarely seems to have happened throughout history. See, e.g., Martin Luther's rant against Indulgences.
There are millions of trustworthy churches out there, I am proud to say. We just have to separate the wheat from the chaff as the Bible says.
Prometheus had a really rotten time of it, and so did several other dead and resurrected gods, who were commonly worshipped openly in the Western world until Theodosius declared the Roman/Byzantine Empire to be for Christians only. After that, some of these cults existed secretly for a short time after. Jesus was just one of the guys until Theodosius declared him to be The Guy.
Do you by chance watch Roman Reigns on TV? Just wondering.
Prometheus is not of a trinity, one of which came to earth and died for humans out of love for them. Neither are any others. Humans can declare anything they want, any time they want, and other humans cans give other humans credit for starting things all they want, But Jesus declared his own self to be The Guy. He needed no one else to do it just so the credit would go to them for it in anyone's mind. The credit goes to Jesus and him alone for declaring himself, no matter what any human ever wrote to the contrary. Everyone after him who preached for him just spread the word.
I'd rather be open to reading multiple viewpoints than reading just one group's party line.
You can do both. I always truthfully say I have considered other views2000 but I'm waiting for someone to prove the Bible wrong. The Bible and God himself works to prove the others wrong to those who are specially open to the proof, but no one has or could prove the Bible wrong. On that, I'm waiting to be proven wrong, but the Bible itself keeps shooting down all the so-called proof.
I've read a few Christian apologists (one book by Lee Strobel, several by CS Lewis, and much of the fiction of Tim LaHaye's team. Strobel's and Lewis' arguments have gaping holes, and I wonder whether they themselves were unaware of this, or were simply hoping their readers wouldn't notice.
Instead of using mere human logic to pick up on gaping holes, one only needs to line up the writings to God's logic- the Bible. No human writing tops it all worthwhile human writing exalts it from their first word to their last.
The LaHaye group's fiction is a guilty pleasure like a poorly-written adventurous b movie script, but its doctrine is pretty execrable and its God/Jesus is a premium bully.
I've never read LaHaye, but I can tell you that many atheists have accused God in the old testament as a premium bully. I'd bet they look down in Jesus for driving the merchants out of his own temple or calling other religious leaders of that day hypocrites, sons of vipers, etc. People today might be down on him for saying that marriage is to be between one man and one woman. It's all about flawed human reasoning used to judge who they weren't even there to witness in person just because they adopted a false understanding. So I can't take any of your words about the LaHey writings to heart.
While Christians boast about their number of converts, they gloss over the numbers of ex-Christian atheists, or find some way to demonise and discredit these people.
What should they do? Throw them a party? There is acknowledgement of ex-Christian atheists, and not by demonizing, but by making them out to be the sad cases that they are. Either Christians have failed them, they failed themselves or both every case. Very sad any way you look at it. They should not be discredited, but their potentially swaying words should just not be listened to. Who would want to be swayed to believe something that could lead them to ruin? We just need to pray that God would work to set them (back?) on the right path and help us to help them get (back?) on it.
We in the faith see that there are those who just say they are ex-Christians who are now turned off by the faith, merely in order to attack the faith and lead people away from it. They are just scum who are up to no good. There may be no more effective way to attack the faith and lead people away from it then to lie and say, "I was a Christian once, but I soon found the people in the religion and their beliefs and their Bible to be so horrible that I left in disgust and never looked back". But really, they never were even close to becoming a Christian. They are just executing their plan of attack and hoping others get on the bandwagon because their is strength in numbers and they want the religion to die out.
Re: Ray Comfort…
Many of your assertions seem to be based on making assumptions about people's minds, which amount to creating straw men. It is common for aggressive theists to make wild claims like "God's truth is obvious to everyone. Atheists and different groups of theists choose to deny this as a result of rebellious nature." These people don't seem to understand that the other people really do believe that Atheism, Islam, or whatever, is the truth.
I've had internet theists tell me "God has communicated with you, but you have chosen not to listen," which I subjectively know is simply not true. Even if it were true, these people would have to have extremely powerful and stealthy surveillance cameras monitoring me to have any way of knowing this. I can't even begin to grasp the logic they're using.
I've had internet theists tell me "God has communicated with you, but you have chosen not to listen," which I subjectively know is simply not true. Even if it were true, these people would have to have extremely powerful and stealthy surveillance cameras monitoring me to have any way of knowing this. I can't even begin to grasp the logic they're using.
Re: Ray Comfort…
Many of your assertions seem to be based on making assumptions about people's minds, which amount to creating straw men.
I never make assumptions about 1ebcpeople's minds. I am experienced in study and know whereof I speak.
It is common for aggressive theists to make wild claims like "God's truth is obvious to everyone.
Nothing wild about it. Scripture says to put it to the test in your own life and you will see how true and good God is.
Atheists and different groups of theists choose to deny this as a result of rebellious nature."
It's true, which you would see for yourself if you would or could correctly trace the rebellion back to its roots. The first deniers basically just decided, "I'm just going to go mu own way and worship who/how I want" without being concerned with a way to back up what they decided to believe. But mankind ran with that "go my own way" attitude and came to created elaborate alternate belief systems that they could spread to other people and get them hooked on it. Later in time, the concept of science was born and people developed different branches of it. Darwin only came up with Evolution in the 1800's, whereas medical science can be traced back to the third millennium B.C.. Islam came about hundreds of years before Evolution science. Buddhism developed thousands of years before that. But none of that or the people who started those things arrived even close to the dawn of mankind. God was there at that dawning. Therefore, he is the only true God and the other gods just came out of people's heads. In the earliest times, it was nothing but rebellion, but because of the alternate belief systems and the earth's population increase, it came to pass that many people never heard of God or his Scripture.
These people don't seem to understand that the other people really do believe that Atheism, Islam, or whatever, is the truth.
What we understand (correctly) is that people believe what suits them. How else would you explain the Heaven's Gate cult and their fate? Simply put, a crackpot led them to believe that if he and they committed suicide together, they would be sailing through the cosmos and it would be wonderful. What about the Jonestown mass suicide in which the leader interestingly committed suicide separately and differently from the rest? Or the Branch Davidians? Another thing we understand (correctly) is that all atheists really have an awareness of God. They just choose to deny him, no matter what anyone says the actual definition of "atheist" is.
I've had internet theists tell me "God has communicated with you, but you have chosen not to listen," which I subjectively know is simply not true.
You can't know it's not true. What is your proof that it isn't? Answer me that without asking, "What is your proof that it is" or "the burden of proof is on you". If you continue on believing this way until it's too late, you will not like your afterlife.
Even if it were true, these people would have to have extremely powerful and stealthy surveillance cameras monitoring me to have any way of knowing this. I can't even begin to grasp the logic they're using.
It's some of the things you say and the fact that we are using our expertise in Bible study and knowing how God works.
Re: Ray Comfort…
Oh, the irony
It is common for aggressive theists to make wild claims like "God's truth is obvious to everyone.
I have put the question of God's truth to the test and seen it fail. But maybe I've made a mistake in my methodology.
"Atheists and different groups of theists choose to deny this as a result of rebellious nature."
Primitive developed many different superstitions to explain a mysterious universe.
Many different creation myths around the world ascribe the creation to different deities. Ymir the Frost Giant was there at the dawning, but was killed and dismembered by the Asgard tribe.
Science is learning about the world through observation and testing, rather than through superstition and argument from authority. Evolution has existed for millions of years but was not well understood until Darwin in the 1800s. A few writers in the 1700s tried to make sense of evolutionary theory but failed. Darwin, whose own grandfather was one of these, went searching for more material and put together a better thesis. Even the ancient Greeks came within stabs of figuring out evolution on occasion.
In an alternate universe chronicled by the Jewish author Harry Turtledove, Pleistocene life survived in the Americas into the modern age (in place of the Amerindians who never existed there), leading to Samuel Pepys' formulation of evolutionary theory in the 1660s, as published in A Proposed Explication of the Survival of Certain Beasts in America and Their Disappearance Hereabouts. He based it on his observations of American apes, woolly mammoths, saber tooth tigers, and glyptodonts in the London Zoo.
That is simply not the case in my example. I have searched for evidence of God, found none, and concluded that God does not exist, at least in the way that standard Christians describe. As I have only ever had a small part of the world to do research in, I may have missed something, but cannot be blamed for not having access beyond my means.
I've had internet theists tell me "God has communicated with you, but you have chosen not to listen," which I subjectively know is simply not true.
I can indeed know it not to be true, because it's my subjective life, and no such communication has ever been made available to me. You can't prove that aliens who look like the Looney Tunes Martian have never contacted you.
Even if it were true, these people would have to have extremely powerful and stealthy surveillance cameras monitoring me to have any way of knowing this. I can't even begin to grasp the logic they're using.
Again, you have no idea what I have or have not experienced in my life, and it just 16d0so happens that a God-contact is not one of my experiences.
Re: Ray Comfort…
Oh, the irony
What irony?
I have put the question of God's truth to the test and seen it fail. But maybe I've made a mistake in my methodology.
The jist of the only thing you ever said about it was that you just prayed then waited for an answer. I told you all about that. Until you are in his fold, the only prayer he will hear from you is the prayer of salvation. You must tell him sincerely that you repent of your sins and accept him as your Lord and Savior. Then you can pray for something and receive an answer.
Primitive developed many different superstitions to explain a mysterious universe.
which doesn't go against anything I've said.
Many different creation myths around the world ascribe the creation to different deities. Ymir the Frost Giant was there at the dawning, but was killed and dismembered by the Asgard tribe
.which doesn't go against anything I said.
Science is learning about the world through observation and testing, rather than through superstition and argument from authority.
The science of the Bible (including man's very existence) all came from the authority. "From dust we were created, to dust we shall return"
Evolution has existed for millions of years but was not well understood until Darwin in the 1800s. A few writers in the 1700s tried to make sense of evolutionary theory but failed. Darwin, whose own grandfather was one of these, went searching for more material and put together a better thesis. Even the ancient Greeks came within stabs of figuring out evolution on occasion.
which doesn't go against anything I said. I know the concept is supposed to have been at work in real life for millions of years. I was referring to the designing of the concept. So Darwin capitalized on others' ideas and just revised them to sound better, and that's science? I have revised my own writings. Is that supposed to be science?
In an alternate universe chronicled by the Jewish author Harry Turtledove, Pleistocene life survived in the Americas into the modern age (in place of the Amerindians who never existed there), leading to Samuel Pepys' formulation of evolutionary theory in the 1660s, as published in A Proposed Explication of the Survival of Certain Beasts in America and Their Disappearance Hereabouts. He based it on his observations of American apes, woolly mammoths, saber tooth tigers, and glyptodonts in the London Zoo.
All this begs some questions:
1. How could anyone chronicle an alternate universe?
2. How could anyone observe those prehistoric animals?
That is simply not the case in my example. I have searched for evidence of God, found none, and concluded that God does not exist, at least in the way that standard Christians describe.
Never mind what any people describe. You are guaranteed to not get it wrong if you get it from the Bible. Nobody finds evidence of God. He reveals himself to those who are open to receiving the revelation and not explaining it away or blowing it off.
As I have only ever had a small part of the world to do research in, I may have missed something, but cannot be blamed for not having access beyond my means.
Anyone can get their hands on a Bible and read it. I've heard of people receiving salvation and becoming a part of God's family just from reading the Bible and letting God work in them.
I c5b4an indeed know it not to be true, because it's my subjective life, and no such communication has ever been made available to me. You can't prove that aliens who look like the Looney Tunes Martian have never contacted you.
Many are the times that we were daydreaming when someone said something right to us, so we missed it, unless they snapped us out of it and repeated what they said. So people close themselves off and become oblivious to communication attempts, when they are made available.
What do aliens have to do with anything?
Again, you have no idea what I have or have not experienced in my life, and it just so happens that a God-contact is not one of my experiences.
I know what you have said and I know the realm of my expertise. It's really no wonder that God-contact is not one of your experiences.
Re: Ray Comfort…
The theory here seems to be "God only offers proof of his existence to those who already believe in him.
The Bible is full of inaccurate statements regarding science, archaeology, culture, and other matters. Some New Testament books refer to Old Testament books incorrectly. Much of the Bible is incoherent and nonsensical.
The Bible is full of inaccurate statements regarding science, archaeology, culture, and other matters. Some New Testament books refer to Old Testament books incorrectly. Much of the Bible is incoherent and nonsensical.
Re: Ray Comfort…
he theory here seems to be "God only offers proof of his existence to those who already believe in him.
This must be the fifth time you've said that. I said you have to open to him- to believing in him.
The Bible is full of inaccurate statements regarding science, archaeology, culture, and other matters. Some New Testament books refer to Old Testament books incorrectly. Much of the Bible is incoherent and nonsensical.
All wrong. All your information is from those who refuse to understand and whose hearts are cold to the right understanding. They got you in the rut you are i5b4n.
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: Ray Comfort says the Bible is science and evolution theory isn't
Yes, it all boils down to emotions.
If you feel bad, you need something to lift up "your spirits". Religion can do that.
If a family member or close friend dies, you want to believe that he is in heaven rather than say "that is my friend, he is now worm food.".
If some guy on the other side of the planet dies and you read it in the news, it is just information. You have no emotional attachment. It is unlikely that I will buy a plane ticket and go to the funeral, it is unlikely that I will cry. I will feel bad a little but will likely forget it the next day.
As an atheist, I would go to a funeral friend but of course, I am not going to walk around and state he is worm food. I would rather say he lived a good life, he was a good friend,
Emotions are a good thing but sometimes, you have to master them rather than let them rule your life.
If you feel bad, you need something to lift up "your spirits". Religion can do that.
If a family member or close friend dies, you want to believe that he is in heaven rather than say "that is my friend, he is now worm food.".
If some guy on the other side of the planet dies and you read it in the news, it is just information. You have no emotional attachment. It is unlikely that I will buy a plane ticket and go to the funeral, it is unlikely that I will cry. I will feel bad a little but will likely forget it the next day.
As an atheist, I would go to a funeral friend but of course, I am not going to walk around and state he is worm food. I would rather say he lived a good life, he was a good friend,
Emotions are a good thing but sometimes, you have to master them rather than let them rule your life.
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: Ray Comfort says the Bible is science and evolution theory isn't
A huge problem I see with a lot of religious people though is that they think that their religion is the right way to believe and focus too much on following the religion instead of using their own minds.
Religion has always been about being right and when there is competition, they have to say that the competition sucks.
As an atheist, I have the same attitude. I would like to be right and I tend to go with evidence and science has a huge load of evidence while there are thousands of religions and none of them perform any experiments.
Science tends not be bring people together since most people arent interested in it. However, there are other things that can do the job such as sports, music, talking about computers, talking about cars, a diner.
I think some people are afraid to go by how they really think and feel when it's against their religion. But that should be a huge sign that they are doing something wrong and are letting the religion take over them.
I think that religion makes people do silly things, like not drink alcohol (muslim, mormon), not drink coffee, pepsi, coca-cola, tea (Mormon. Mormons have recently allowerd pepsi and coca-cola), not eat pig (judaism, islam), not use phones or cars (certain jewish sects, amish), claim health benefits for cutting organs (judaism, islam) while there are no health benefits and there are major danger for babies, claim health benefits for not eating pigs (judaism, islam).
The problem with abrahamic religions is that they are a package deal. They offer heaven for an affordable price yet they have lines like:
That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. (Luke 12:47)
==So what is a servant? A slave? I dont want to make someone work for me against their will and I dont want to beat them up. And christians say that Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao are atheists and have killed millions. As if that is my fault. Sure, we have something in common called atheism. Im sure we all like coca-cola as well.
These are two adversaries who have disputed over their Lord. But those who disbelieved will have cut out for them garments of fire. Poured upon their heads will be scalding water
-Surat Al-Haj 22:19
==When I read stuff like this, the question is, why would I want to join this religion? It comes from ancient barbaric times.
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Egyptian
==Anthon Tr111canscript? Reformed Egyptian? 12 million people believe this Mormon none sense. Absolutely no archeological evidence for any ancient jews and no golden plates, no Jesus of America.
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: Ray Comfort says the Bible is science and evolution theory isn't
Yes, talking about space exploration in a social environment is possible. A lot more people are interested in that as opposed to quantum physics. I was once explaining the concept of evolution to someone at work because he had misunderstood but it is pretty rare that such things come up in conversations. He though that using your nails, such as to scratch, would make them adapt and grow sharper. I explained to him that what you do with your body does not change your DNA.
However, I am more of a physics and chemistry kind of guy. It is more lower level compared to something like biology or building space ships. I think most people arent interested in it. I have been often asked why I do chemistry. The first guess is is it to make money.
They are probably ultra-religious and very deep into it. I have had a few muslims ask me if I eat pork. I just say some none sense and turn the conversation into something else.
I would say that being an atheist that does not believe in an after life is hard as well. I just focus on the before death part. I am lucky to have been born. Lots of others wont have that chance, lots of people will die at a young age or even worst, being born before the 20th century.
From what I read recently, this entire brimstone (sulfur) thing in hell comes from ancient jews burning sulfur at Gehenna (which is also the Islam name for hell). They burned it so that the smell of the SO2 would cover up the smell of the garbage dump and dead criminals over there.
Modern Gehenna looks like this
http://biblicalgeographicdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/gehenna.jpg
Greeks also burned sulfur to keep pests away from their fields. It was regarded as a gods purifier. Some said that gods breath smells like SO2. Perhaps this is why sulfur rained down on Sodom and Gomorah, to purify it.
For me, sulfur is chemical element with 16 protons in its nucleus. It is just below oxygen and has similar chemical properties. These days, megatons of sulfur is burned to make SO2 and a catalyst is used to further oxidize it to SO3 which is then made into sulfuric acid. It is a major industrial product used in many other industries. Perhaps the jews can put that in their bible :)
However, I am more of a physics and chemistry kind of guy. It is more lower level compared to something like biology or building space ships. I think most people arent interested in it. I have been often asked why I do chemistry. The first guess is is it to make money.
And there are people that are only interested in religion, or are only exposed to it and actually don't know how to talk about anything else
They are probably ultra-religious and very deep into it. I have had a few muslims ask me if I eat pork. I just say some none sense and turn the conversation into something else.
There are Christians that don't come across as judgmental, but some still try to convince non-believers that their lives would be better with God in their life, as if a non-believer's life is so terrible that they feel they to hold on to something that most likely doesn't exist.
I would say that being an atheist that does not believe in an after life is hard as well. I just focus on the before death part. I am lucky to have been born. Lots of others wont have that chance, lots of people will die at a young age or even worst, being born before the 20th century.
Pretty much. Nothing seems modern about it at all.
One of the main things that gets to most people in my opinion is the belief in an after life such as Heaven and reun2000iting with passed loved ones. And also there's places like hell that people use to judge others and make them feel bad about themselves
From what I read recently, this entire brimstone (sulfur) thing in hell comes from ancient jews burning sulfur at Gehenna (which is also the Islam name for hell). They burned it so that the smell of the SO2 would cover up the smell of the garbage dump and dead criminals over there.
Modern Gehenna looks like this
http://biblicalgeographicdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/gehenna.jpg
Greeks also burned sulfur to keep pests away from their fields. It was regarded as a gods purifier. Some said that gods breath smells like SO2. Perhaps this is why sulfur rained down on Sodom and Gomorah, to purify it.
For me, sulfur is chemical element with 16 protons in its nucleus. It is just below oxygen and has similar chemical properties. These days, megatons of sulfur is burned to make SO2 and a catalyst is used to further oxidize it to SO3 which is then made into sulfuric acid. It is a major industrial product used in many other industries. Perhaps the jews can put that in their bible :)
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: Ray Comfort says the Bible is science and evolution theory isn't
Yes, that's right, Charles Darwin. It's me, Ray "bloody" Comfort!
Re: Ray Comfort says the Bible is science and evolution theory isn't
As a matter of fact, even when I feel at my worst otherwise, I can always think of something to be happy about. When a crime happens, at least it wasn't worse somehow- even if that just has to mean that more people didn't die or otherwise become crime victims. At least dead victims aren't suffering. And if the perpetrators get off or they die without being punished, I know they will still have to answer for it in the afterlife. If a genocide happens, at least it was only one country and the perpetrators are usually never likely to go from country to country committing it (although it's seems ISIS may achieve that someday).
The very existence of Hell is Satan's fault. When he went by Lucifer as an angel in Heaven, he thought he was better than God, and other angels followed him. God had to have a place to banish them to for punishment. So he created Hell and sent them there. So Hell was actually supposed to be just for them, not people. If God had not created Hell, they would probably be running around on earth, causing a lot more trouble for people than they already do. If they were just sent floating around in space, they would still come here and cause trouble. Hell binds them. Hell binds everyone there.
God created us to take care of this planet that he created and to serve him. We get fee choice whether or not to serve him, but he can use anyone for anything whether they realize it or not. Before we get that free choice, we get to choose whether to accept and follow him or not. He wants everyone to accept and follow him, but he loves everyone so much, that if they choose against him, he will allow it. The Bible contains the warning on what happens if we choose against him and die without doing so, or live all the way to the Rapture without doing so. So he loved everyone enough to make those warnings available, because he does not want us to go to Hell or to be stuck on this world after the Rapture (which then, you will live in scary, deadly times and then go to Hell when you die- unless you are one who take God up on the last chance that he offers to the post-rapture earth people. It's all about love and there is no real duress to it,
No it doesn't. It offers living water so you will never go thirsty. Daily bread so you will never go hungry. It offers, peace, hope, joy, love, prosperity, compassion and so much more. All great coercion.
Well, some of them may not even really have any ammo. They just want to scare you and make you think they do or go on the knowledge that you may not want to t1908ake a chance that they do. Or they might just be sticking their finger through their shirt or coat at you to make you think they have a gun. Maybe the gun doesn't even work. Maye the gunman doesn't really know how to use the gun. Even if the gunman has a loaded, working gun and knows how to use it, he is not at all like God in his situations, as I hope I have convinced you of already.
Most historians agree that someone named Jesus lived at that time. Nothing will convince you the religion is real unless you drop the barriers in your mind and heart and let God work in you.
Oh, that Lazarus. You have brought up a part of the book in which Jesus is just telling a bunch of stories to his disciples. Both the rich man and this Lazarus are hypothetical, not real people. In the story, Abraham was in heaven and so was Lazarus, hence the angels and the great chasm. Being that this is just a story, the inhabitants of the places probably can't really see each other in reality. The Bible says there is no bad feelings in heaven and seeing people burn in torment is liable to cause some. The whole story is just to make a point that material wealth is not evidence of God's favor and poverty is not evidence of God's displeasure.
There is no helping those in Hell, nor should there be. God says they made their bed, now they must lie in it. If that's the way God wants it, I want no different because he is all-knowing. He knows what's best.