• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christianity Is Only Popular Because Of Its Idle Threats

InChrist

Free4ever
So God judged the adults in those cultures to be evil and then decided that the innocent babies were or would be evil too, based on the sins of their parents?
Sorry but what's moral about that, exactly?
That is an incorrect summation. The adults and entire cultures were evil beyond change, an environment unhealthy and unsafe for children; therefore judgement was due (after years warning, BTW). The children were innocent and therefore taken immediately to heaven.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I can agree with you about this; mere belief is inadequate. Certainly, just believing something without valid reasons or having blind faith could lead to one very easily being wrong.

The Bible is not vague in claiming to be God’s Word. Do you know how many hundreds times the phrases, “Thus says the Lord” or “The word of God” are used throughout the scriptures? Have you researched how extremely meticulous and careful the scribes and copyists were who penned and passed down the manuscripts because they knew they were handling God’s Word? How is it that over 40 authors from different geographical locations could write the books of the Bible, in three languages, from a wide variety of occupations, over a period of fifteen centuries and yet the complete collection of scriptures is cohesive with a unity which is beyond human ability? How much time have you spent investigating the historical, archeological, and prophetic aspects of the scriptures?

I am sure God does not intend humans He created in His image to have a baseless, unreasonable faith.
The Bible can and should be tested for its reliability by anyone who is sincerely serious to know about God and the reliability or accuracy of the Bible. Many have done so and found the evidence which they needed to conclude that the Bible is reliable and of supernatural origin from God, as revelation to His created beings.


“It’s from Professor Robert D. Wilson, Princeton University professor—this is some years ago. He was, you would have to say, at least one of if not the greatest language experts and scholars of all time! He was fluent in more than 40 Semitic languages. “


“The result of those 45 years’ study, which I have given to the text, has been this: I can affirm that there is not a page of the Old Testament concerning which we need have any doubt.

[Now he gives you an example.] “There are 29 ancient kings, whose names are mentioned not only in the Bible but also on monuments. [I mean, there are more kings than that, but these, in his day, they had found 29 of them whose names were mentioned on monuments of their own time.] There are 195 consonants in these 29 proper names. Yet we find that in the documents of the Hebrew Old Testament there are only two or three out of the entire 195 about which there can be any question of their being written in exactly the same way as they were inscribed on their own monuments [which archaeologists have to date discovered]. Some of these go back 4,000 years and are so written that every letter is clear and correct.”

Compare this accuracy with the greatest scholar of his age, the librarian at Alexandria in 200 BC. He compiled a catalogue of the kings of Egypt, 38 in all. Of the entire number, only three or four are recognizable. That is even the names of the kings.] He also made a list of the kings of Assyria; in only one case can we tell who is meant; and that one is not spelled correctly. Or take Ptolemy, who drew up a register of 18 kings of Babylon. Not one of them is properly spelled; you could not make them out at all if you did not know from other sources to what he is referring.

“If anyone talks about the Bible, ask him about the kings mentioned in it. There are 29 kings referred to, and ten different countries among these 29, all of which are included in the Bible and on monuments. Every one of these is given his right name in the Bible, his right country, and placed in correct chronological order, spelled correctly. Think of what that means!”
How Reliable Is the Bible?


“This is from Sir Frederick G. Kenyon, who was one of the great authorities in the field of textual criticism. He writes: “No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading. It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, of quotations from it, from the oldest writers of the church is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.” He goes on: “It is reassuring at the end, to find that the general result of all these discoveries of manuscripts and all this study is to strengthen the proof of the authenticity of the scriptures and our conviction that we have in our hands in substantial integrity, the veritable Word of God.”

How Reliable Is the Bible?
Why did you use an unreliable source that got so much wrong?

The Bible is not that old. There are fragments from older than 1,000 BCE, but it was not really started until about 800BCE. And you appear to be unaware of the countless self contradictions in the Bible.

Yes, the Bible got some facts right, but it also got quite a few wrong.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That is an incorrect summation. The adults and entire cultures were evil beyond change, an environment unhealthy and unsafe for children; therefore judgement was due (after years warning, BTW). The children were innocent and therefore taken immediately to heaven.
No, that is just a claim of the bible. That does not make it a fact.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
That is an incorrect summation. The adults and entire cultures were evil beyond change, an environment unhealthy and unsafe for children; therefore judgement was due (after years warning, BTW). The children were innocent and therefore taken immediately to heaven.
Sounds spot on to me, given what you've just said to confirm it.
 
A tually in 2022 Christianity is mocked , not popular, since even many U.S. households do not even know the Christ. The true GOD is no longer taught at home, and not at school. As governor of MA in 1788, Samuel Adam's states publically, "..
the function of public education is to teach the Protestant religion." A nation created by, protected by, and preserved by the ONE TRUE ETERNAL GOD, can not expect HIS help when we abandon HIM
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
A tually in 2022 Christianity is mocked , not popular, since even many U.S. households do not even know the Christ. The true GOD is no longer taught at home, and not at school. As governor of MA in 1788, Samuel Adam's states publically, "..
the function of public education is to teach the Protestant religion." A nation created by, protected by, and preserved by the ONE TRUE ETERNAL GOD, can not expect HIS help when we abandon HIM
Don't worry. We did not abandon any "true GODTM". The US was never a "Christian nation" in the way that Samuel Adams wanted and that is a good thing. The US is a secular nation that is majority Christian. There have always been minority rights and sometime in the future the Christians will be grateful for those.
 

Balthazzar

N. Germanic Descent
I don't get why people do that because the Bible is clearly not a "mix-n-match" on what you follow, especially and particularly when it comes worshiping the God of Abraham. "I am thy Lord thy God." According to some Jews that is the First Commandment, with "thou shalt have no other gods before me" being the second. Anyway you count it the message is very clear. To worship Jehovah (or whatever other name) you must renounce and forsake all other gods. His son is very strict when it comes to associating himself with the God of Abraham and enforcing the Law, up to stating he has NOT come to do away with or lessen any part of the Laws and Prophets.


Consider the context in which it was said, and Lord being a title and God being used as a defined authority figure or "Chief" over whomever it was used to make the point. There were lots of Lords spoken of in the scriptures, and then the verification of this made with the whole Lord of Lords bit in there also. God of Abraham means many things between the tribes, but at the end of the day, it was used to connote Supreme Authority and rule.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Consider the context in which it was said, and Lord being a title and God being used as a defined authority figure or "Chief" over whomever it was used to make the point. There were lots of Lords spoken of in the scriptures, and then the verification of this made with the whole Lord of Lords bit in there also. God of Abraham means many things between the tribes, but at the end of the day, it was used to connote Supreme Authority and rule.
I am aware of the historic context of lordship.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
A tually in 2022 Christianity is mocked , not popular, since even many U.S. households do not even know the Christ. The true GOD is no longer taught at home, and not at school. As governor of MA in 1788, Samuel Adam's states publically, "..
the function of public education is to teach the Protestant religion." A nation created by, protected by, and preserved by the ONE TRUE ETERNAL GOD, can not expect HIS help when we abandon HIM
Even sinners love those who love them. Ask Job how well being loyal works out.
 

Balthazzar

N. Germanic Descent
I am aware of the historic context of lordship.

I wasn't sure given your post. I think this confuses a lot of people when reading the Bible. Lord's, Princes, Kings, etc all titles that get intermingled in interpretation by both readers and teachers. I think it safest to assume that position rather than attribute any to a single entity or God/god.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I wasn't sure given your post. I think this confuses a lot of people when reading the Bible. Lord's, Princes, Kings, etc all titles that get intermingled in interpretation by both readers and teachers. I think it safest to assume that position rather than attribute any to a single entity or God/god.
The lord thing doesn't really make sense outside it's historic context because we don't really have anything comparable anymore.
 

Balthazzar

N. Germanic Descent
The lord thing doesn't really make sense outside it's historic context because we don't really have anything comparable anymore.

Mostly - Around here anyway. There are some circles and areas that still use the terms Lord and Lady, Duke and Dutchess, etc. Historic context can seem difficult to dig up though. I think that understanding is helpful in the readings of biblical texts, even if I don't understand or know the historic reality of those holding the titles themselves. Historically I find the terms vague, but only based on my lack of knowing the accurate context. I'm not above ignorance, so on that ignorance I must use a broader scope, if only to understand the implications being conveyed. Biblically speaking
 
Top