How is the Bible the Word of God?

[catch22]

There is another poster on here named Leibowde84. He/she is a very civil and intelligence person and claims to be a Christian. Normally I do not question claims to being a Christian but instead only argue for what Christ's definition of being a Christian is. The person in question believes the bible is inspired but rebels whenever I mention the being born again passages or concepts. I like the person, and so am trying to walk a fine line between helping and judging. I thought maybe a fellow born again persons perspective might be of value to them. They are posting in this thread. If you would not mind could you maybe give them the benefit of your born again experience in whatever format you think appropriate?

If they'll hear it, sure. I'm always willing to share, but they have to be willing to listen. To me it's obvious, Christ's conversation with Nicodemus makes it very clear (John 3 for example). It'd be a slippery slope for a Christian to argue otherwise.

However, he does list his faith as "Secular Christian," which can vary in meaning. Even Richard Dawkins says this about himself (for example: Richard Dawkins: 'I am a secular Christian' - Telegraph

I sort of take this term to mean someone who enjoys church tradition or the overall interactivity of fellowship, church going, and the positivity this lifestyle brings -- whilst not really entertaining the notion of divinity or the supernatural. In other words, it's just "nice and happy. I like nice and happy. But all the hocus pokus, yeah I don't buy any of that."

I mean, Dawkins probably likes going to Christmas parties and enjoys holiday music. But to him, it would be a cultural thing, not a spiritual thing.

Our friend would need to elaborate, I suppose.

 

[catch22]

To me, the above is about as nasty and narrow-minded as it can get. You are judging another person on a standard you've established as the criteria for God's judgement, and that is terribly pathetic. Not everyone whom is Christian uses the words "born again", and yet you seem to think they're going to hell in a hand-basket because they don't use that expression.

The Christian faith is a lot more than just clich'e expressions, and what you are proposing is simply political correctness on steroids. If a person believes in God and Jesus, is that not enough for you to consider that person to be a Christian? Who made you the judge on this? Is saying "born again" some magical password whereas if you say it, it's an express to heaven?

In fairness, this is nothing 1robin has established, but Christ has. Jesus made it clear in John 3, no one enters the kingdom of heaven unless they are born again through water and Spirit. Flesh is flesh, spirit is spirit. He also said He is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one will reach the Father except through Him.

Non-Christians deny that fact. To us Christians, it is truth.

1robin is expressing concern. It's an act of love and concern for someone claiming to be a Christian, but appearing ignorant on the simple topics of salvation, nothing more. You shouldn't jump so quickly to immediate judgment, lest you yourself are being judgmental, no?

 

[metis]

In fairness, this is nothing 1robin has established, but Christ has. Jesus made it clear in John 3, no one enters the kingdom of heaven unless they are born again through water and Spirit. Flesh is flesh, spirit is spirit. He also said He is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one will reach the Father except through Him.

Non-Christians deny that fact. To us Christians, it is truth.

1robin is expressing concern. It's an act of love and concern for someone claiming to be a Christian, but appearing ignorant on the simple topics of salvation, nothing more. You shouldn't jump so quickly to immediate judgment, lest you yourself are being judgmental, no?

I did not judge him-- only his judgmental approach, and that's a big difference.

Secondly, reread what I posted last and also what you wrote above in your first paragraph. Do you see any difference? Does one have to mouth "born again" like magic words in order to be saved? So, if one doesn't say "born again" are they doomed to hell?

And I would suggest that "salvation" should be left to God-- after all, didn't Jesus say "Judge ye not..."? And Matt. 25 says that belief about Jesus and God ain't enough-- moral actions are needed and immoral actions are to be avoided. Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount mostly talks about actions-- not p.c. belief.

 

[catch22]

I did not judge him-- only his judgmental approach, and that's a big difference.

Secondly, reread what I posted last and also what you wrote above in your first paragraph. Do you see any difference? Does one have to mouth "born again" like magic words in order to be saved? So, if one doesn't say "born again" are they doomed to hell?

One has to be born again in order to have eternal life, yes. Otherwise, one would merely do what flesh does -- die.

No, it's not a magic word or a passphrase to a cool kids club. It's a teaching of the Messiah, and considering He is the one who judges all, then it would be ideal to listen.

Many believe in God. Few are born into the kingdom. There's a lot of scripture about this... the path is wide to destruction, but narrow to salvation... many are called, few are chosen. You claim to know Me, but I don't know you... The church of Laodecia and spitting out the luke warm followers... Etc.

Demons believe in God. Where do you think they're headed?

And I would suggest that "salvation" should be left to God-- after all, didn't Jesus say "Judge ye not..."? And Matt. 25 says that belief about Jesus and God ain't enough-- moral actions are needed and immoral actions are to be avoided. Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount mostly talks about actions-- not p.c. belief.

Salvation is in God's hand, it's His power and His glory. I don't save people, humans don't save people. We can deliver the gospel, we can be living sacrifices... we can do what we're called to do. I don't think I said otherwise. I'm not sure how to relate these final comments to the topic at hand, sorry. Are you suggesting that being born again isn't necessary for salvation?

The breadth of that parable in Matthew 25 goes beyond just works. It's about the heart. Had those unrighteous known the Lord, their deeds wouldn't ever be called into question -- they would have been a given, as it was with the righteous. I mean, unless you're considering that not visiting people in prison means you cannot ever get in heaven?

It's clearly for those who don't follow God but maintain the "I'm a good, moral person" argument. Similarly, you could declare Christ is false, deny Him, whilst devoting your life to feeding the hungry and helping the sick. Would the works alone be enough to get passed the King in the moment of judgment? Not likely.

 

[metis]

One has to be born again in order to have eternal life, yes. Otherwise, one would merely do what flesh does -- die.

No, it's not a magic word or a passphrase to a cool kids club. It's a teaching of the Messiah, and considering He is the one who judges all, then it would be ideal to listen.

Many believe in God. Few are born into the kingdom. There's a lot of scripture about this... the path is wide to destruction, but narrow to salvation... many are called, few are chosen. You claim to know Me, but I don't know you... The church of Laodecia and spitting out the luke warm followers... Etc.

Demons believe in God. Where do you think they're headed?



Salvation is in God's hand, it's His power and His glory. I don't save people, humans don't save people. We can deliver the gospel, we can be living sacrifices... we can do what we're called to do. I don't think I said otherwise. I'm not sure how to relate these final comments to the topic at hand, sorry. Are you suggesting that being born again isn't necessary for salvation?

The breadth of that parable in Matthew 25 goes beyond just works. It's about the heart. Had those unrighteous known the Lord, their deeds wouldn't ever be called into question -- they would have been a given, as it was with the righteous. I mean, unless you're considering that not visiting people in prison means you cannot ever get in heaven?

It's clearly for those who don't follow God but maintain the "I'm a good, moral person" argument. Similarly, you could declare Christ is false, deny Him, whilst devoting your life to feeding the hungry and helping the sick. Would the works alone be enough to get passed the King in the moment of judgment? Not likely.

You really are missing the point, and please stop the sermonizing as I'm very familiar with the teachings.

 

[1robin]

If they'll hear it, sure. I'm always willing to share, but they have to be willing to listen. To me it's obvious, Christ's conversation with Nicodemus makes it very clear (John 3 for example). It'd be a slippery slope for a Christian to argue otherwise.

I completely agree. I gave them that whole chapter and the response was that someone was putting words in Christ's mouth, so I started with the statistical data for the textual veracity of the bible and where the known errors are and how they got there but then they bailed on that tactic.

However, he does list his faith as "Secular Christian," which can vary in meaning. Even Richard Dawkins says this about himself (for example: Richard Dawkins: 'I am a secular Christian' - Telegraph

That is like saying I am a living corpse. Your right, their label does say that but I am surprised Richard Dawkins said it. The core of Christianity is the affirmation of the divine, the core of secularism is the "soft" denial of it, atheism being the hard denial.

I sort of take this term to mean someone who enjoys church tradition or the overall interactivity of fellowship, church going, and the positivity this lifestyle brings -- whilst not really entertaining the notion of divinity or the supernatural. In other words, it's just "nice and happy. I like nice and happy. But all the hocus pokus, yeah I don't buy any of that."

Tell you what their latest arguments have me confused what they are saying. Hold off on talking to them until I find out what they are actually saying to me on this specific issue.

I mean, Dawkins probably likes going to Christmas parties and enjoys holiday music. But to him, it would be a cultural thing, not a spiritual thing.

Still makes no sense to me. You can be an agnostic and celebrate Christmas without self contradiction.

Our friend would need to elaborate, I suppose.

I agree, let me attempt this. I will get back to you.

 

[catch22]

You are a highly emotional, and irritable poster, Metis. I wonder why you are here, at times.

If I thought you understood, I wouldn't take the time to be thorough.

 

[metis]

You are a highly emotional, and irritable poster, Metis. I wonder why you are here, at times.

If I thought you understood, I wouldn't take the time to be thorough.

I get sick and tired of people coming here and judging others, which I do believe is both arrogance and also is in opposition to what Jesus and many other sages in other religions have taught. I get damned sick and tired of some people coming here and playing "God". And If you find me irritable, then that can be easily solved by putting me on "ignore".

As far as the "sermon" comment I made to you, I am sorry for stating that because you don't have cause to know my background, so please accept my apology.

 

[1robin]

To me, the above is about as nasty and narrow-minded as it can get. You are judging another person on a standard you've established as the criteria for God's judgement, and that is terribly pathetic. Not everyone whom is Christian uses the words "born again", and yet you seem to think they're going to hell in a hand-basket because they don't use that expression.

I see the old Metis has resurfaced. I did not establish what the criteria are to be a Christian. I stated what Christ said the criteria are. I was even happy to go through how we can have confidence that what the bible said are Christ's words. You can deny it is true but you cannot say I invented it or that it is not mainstream Christian doctrine. Christ was narrow minded and exclusive. Truth is as well in most cases. Truth is an exclusive concept.

The Christian faith is a lot more than just clich'e expressions, and what you are proposing is simply political correctness on steroids. If a person believes in God and Jesus, is that not enough for you to consider that person to be a Christian? Who made you the judge on this? Is saying "born again" some magical password whereas if you say it, it's an express to heaven?

The Christian faith has been well established, well scrutinized, and well confirmed for almost 2000 years and being born again has been among it's core doctrines. It does not matter what I think but I cannot help coming to conclusions as it helps with debate. I am not the judge, the judge is who said we MUST be born again. Lets say you believed the myriad of verses that claim or infer this central fact of Christian doctrine. It would be so important it would justify all kinds of judgments, even running afoul of forum rules, even pressing people on the subject. If it resulted in just one person in the process being saved would it not be worth it. However I don't do any of that. I have tried to get off that particular subject with that person many times. I have told them it is between them and God. However once I mentioned what my conclusion was I can't stop them from bringing it up. Actually I am going to have to reverse the direction I just mentioned because I wanted to know something but up until now I have been trying to get off the topic.

So nothing you said here actually applies to anything I actually did.

 

[1robin]

First of all, just because you constantly post supposed assurances that Christianity has been proven to be true, that approach simply does not prove it's true in any way. You keep posting the same stuff over and over again as it it's all a gimme, but it simply is just a magnification of your beliefs. Beliefs are fine-- we all got 'em-- but beliefs are not necessarily facts, and for some reason you can't seen to tell the difference between the two in this arena.

Quote a single statement in over 10,000 posts where I have stated Christianity has been proven true on an objective basis.
I assume that is what your talking about since you can't possibly know what has been subjectively proven to me or anyone else.

This is not to say that your beliefs are wrong, btw, and if these beliefs make you a better person, I'm all for that, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

I am not talking about what beliefs make who better than who. I am talking about personally experiencing God in an event of the exact nature described in the bible. I know what the truth is. However my experiences are not common ground for debate. I make arguments that end in a high probability, but my experience supplies me and hundreds of millions of Christians with proof. I can't figure out exactly what your objecting to. Is my confidence in my own experiences objectionable to you? Do you lack that level of certainty and resent anyone claiming to have it? I don't get it.

Faith is a very personal thing, at least at first, and it's in an area that is in most cases virtually unfalsifiable, as I've mentioned on many occasions. We cannot even find conclusive evidence there is a God, and yet some go to great lengths supposedly telling others what this God is all about. Talk about a "house of cards".

Faith is a personal thing, but I do not know why your mentioning that.

Therefore, some of us take a "many paths to God" approach, not implying that each approach is equally valid, but just facing the reality that none of us in reality can prove our concepts to be true and the others false. One can say "90%" of this, and "10%" of that, but that is just another area related to belief, not empirical evidence.

I personally think you are wrong but I personally cannot prove your wrong and don't try to or claim to be able to. History, theology, etc...... are not concluded to certainties but to probabilities. I think it improbable contradictory faiths are from the same God. You do not have to agree. This has been well established between us why are you mentioning it here?

 

[catch22]

I get sick and tired of people coming here and judging others, which I do believe is both arrogance and also is in opposition to what Jesus and many other sages in other religions have taught. I get damned sick and tired of some people coming here and playing "God". And If you find me irritable, then that can be easily solved by putting me on "ignore".

As far as the "sermon" comment I made to you, I am sorry for stating that because you don't have cause to know my background, so please accept my apology.

Thank you, but don't worry about it. I don't want to put anyone on ignore. I'm not easily offended or anything, feel free to express yourself however you want toward me; I'm just not always sure how to respond, which is the main reason I pointed it out. You've been here much longer than I, I'm sure you have good cause to feel the way you do. I apologize as well. I'm not trying to judge anyone or be self-righteous, I'm only here trying to serve and learn.

 

[1robin]

You are a highly emotional, and irritable poster, Metis. I wonder why you are here, at times.

If I thought you understood, I wouldn't take the time to be thorough.

Let me wade in here. Me and Metis go back a ways. He/she is actually a civil person but they have one hot button. If anyone ever judges another faith Metis bristles with a blistering emotional defense. Once you get used to it, it can be managed but until you do it is a little frustrating.

 

[metis]

I see the old Metis has resurfaced. I did not establish what the criteria are to be a Christian. I stated what Christ said the criteria are. I was even happy to go through how we can have confidence that what the bible said are Christ's words. You can deny it is true but you cannot say I invented it or that it is not mainstream Christian doctrine. Christ was narrow minded and exclusive. Truth is as well in most cases. Truth is an exclusive concept.

[ The Christian faith has been well established, well scrutinized, and well confirmed for almost 2000 years and being born again has been among it's core doctrines. It does not matter what I think but I cannot help coming to conclusions as it helps with debate. I am not the judge, the judge is who said we MUST be born again. Lets say you believed the myriad of verses that claim or infer this central fact of Christian doctrine. It would be so important it would justify all kinds of judgments, even running afoul of forum rules, even pressing people on the subject. If it resulted in just one person in the process being saved would it not be worth it. However I don't do any of that. I have tried to get off that particular subject with that person many times. I have told them it is between them and God. However once I mentioned what my conclusion was I can't stop them from bringing it up. Actually I am going to have to reverse the direction I just mentioned because I wanted to know something but up until now I have been trying to get off the topic.

So nothing you said here actually applies to anything I actually did.

Yes, the "old metis" bristles when I see you judging others, while taking the "my way or the highway approach", both condemning others and other religious approaches. How you can sit there and judge someone (not me, btw), and then complain about my getting irritated is completely disingenuous. I'm not the one playing "God", but you sure are.

 

[1robin]

Yes, the "old metis" bristles when I see you judging others, while taking the "my way or the highway approach", both condemning others and other religious approaches. How you can sit there and judge someone (not me, btw), and then complain about my getting irritated is completely disingenuous. I'm not the one playing "God", but you sure are.

I did not complain about you getting frustrated. I said your getting frustrated is frustrating. For about the hundredth and I hope last time Mr. Metis I gave no 1Robin criteria what so ever, I gave mainstream core doctrine, which is the result of Christ's claims himself. In fact I gave the one criteria that both Catholicism and Protestantism agree to. You can say the bible is wrong, you cannot or should not say I invented any criteria myself. That would simply be dishonest. I am not playing God either, I am the one who said a half dozen times that it is between them and God but that I cannot help but draw a personal conclusion based on the rejection of the criteria CHRIST claimed was true to be a Christian. So calm down a few more minutes, please take in these facts, recalibrate, then get back to me.

 

[leibowde84]

I asked you to pick one so I can start showing why what I said is true, are you not going to do so? BTW Another poster concurred with my statements about being born again. I asked them if they would give you the benefit of their experience in a post. I said you were an intelligent and civil debater and that I liked you, so thought maybe their opinion would help. I do not know if they will do so or not but am letting you know I asked them if they would.

Anyway do not suggest I can't prove or demonstrate a thing until you pick a thing for me to try to prove or show. You going to pick one or not?

Objectively prove (no "believe me" or subjective approval) to me why you think your opinion of other's beliefs, completely created out of nothing more than comments from this website, should be considered as reliable.

 

[metis]

I did not complain about you getting frustrated. I said your getting frustrated is frustrating. For about the hundredth and I hope last time Mr. Metis I gave no 1Robin criteria what so ever, I gave mainstream core doctrine, which is the result of Christ's claims himself. In fact I gave the one criteria that both Catholicism and Protestantism agree to. You can say the bible is wrong, you cannot or should not say I invented any criteria myself. That would simply be dishonest. I am not playing God either, I am the one who said a half dozen times that it is between them and God but that I cannot help but draw a personal conclusion based on the rejection of the criteria CHRIST claimed was true to be a Christian. So calm down a few more minutes, please take in these facts, recalibrate, then get back to me.

What I have objected to, and continue to object to, is how you treat others here. About two weeks ago, you labeled Hinduism as being a "stupid religion". Yesterday, you questioned here whether leibowde84 was a true Christian. And then you have the gal to get upset if I point out point out just how judgmental and insulting you are being here.

If I attack your Baptist faith and called it "stupid", how would you react? If I questioned whether you're going to be "saved" because maybe you're not being Christian enough because you violate a politically-correct belief that I have, how would you react?

My aim is not to attack you but to try and get you to understand that your attacks on someone else's religion and on whether they're "saved" is taken very personally by many here, as we've seen. It violates the "Golden Rule" by insulting both one's religion by calling it "stupid", and then judging whether a specific person is Christian enough.

Just because we may think of such things, do we really have to say them in a manner as to insult them? If I see a person whom is mentally challenged, is it OK for me to say "Too bad you're an idiot."? Some things are best unsaid, and insulting people and their religion is both judgmental, mean-spirited, and insulting.

OK, I made my point, so this is the end of my "rant".

 

[viole]

I would, can, and have argued they are impossible in this one universe we know exists, and I believe they would be impossible in any possible world. I don't believe there is a possible world that can contain a natural infinite. However when the theoretical boys are playing around in fantasy land it is hard to get them to use inconvenient things like facts. I did not mean that anything natural being infinite was possible. Just that other universes and something existing prior to the BB was not proven impossible. Neither of those have inherent infinites unless they are tacked on by someone in which case I would say that scenario was impossible.

I have never said they could not. I have said if they did produce something with actual intent (intent having assumed free will), that at that point determinism alone does not explain reality. I am not saying that determinism can create a brain with intent but if it did then at that point free will entered the picture.

This is so easy we do not need logical equations. If you having a different causal chain than I can answer my questions in a timely manner then determinism does not explain it. Determinism has no desire to answer my questions in a timely manner and so if you can do so you are freely intending to. No logical equations, no mathematics, no statistics, only common sense is required for this cake walk.

Agreed
It does have the capacity to assemble things with electrical charge. Besides electrical charges existed in the singularity. They do not even need causal chains, they are brute facts.
Agreed
I disagree.
Almost no one would agree.
Inaccurate premise = false conclusion.

The singularity contained electrically charged particles. The singularity is a complete mystery but it is not a mystery that is not in need of a cause and no significant evidence posits that anything natural predates it.

2 and 4. Electrically charged particles go back as far as the universe does. There is no known pre-electrically charged particle period in natural history. At least if there is I have never heard anyone mention it.

Well, let's see whether we can reach a compromise here, by laying down my position more accurately. Maybe I am a compatibilist without knowing it, lol.

Carroll says that free will is as real as baseball. I think it is as real as the probability applied to a game of roulette. What do I mean?

When I play a round of roulette, I make the rational assumption (if it is not rigged) that I can apply the laws of probability in order to calculate my expected return. Each slot has the same probability to get the little ball.

Of course, I know that if I had perfect knowledge of the microphysics of the ball, its initial momentum, the roulette, its initial spin, air conditions, pressure, etc. etc....i could determine the outcome with perfect precision.

But this information is not accessible to me. Detailed information about a physical system like that might require a lot of energy, and it is possible that I cannot access this information, not even in principe.

So, if I win, i won because of luck not because of my knowledge of dynamics.

In the same way, I cannot possibly access the microstate information relevant for an intentional agent. The perfect state of his brain and the perfect state of the physics around him, even if I think that they would make me anticipate her actions. So, I settle for agency and, at the same time, can make sense of moral responsability in the same way I could make sense of probability for the roulette case.

Does that make me a compatibilist?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I would, can, and have argued they are impossible in this one universe we know exists, and I believe they would be impossible in any possible world. I don't believe there is a possible world that can contain a natural infinite. However when the theoretical boys are playing around in fantasy land it is hard to get them to use inconvenient things like facts. I did not mean that anything natural being infinite was possible. Just that other universes and something existing prior to the BB was not proven impossible. Neither of those have inherent infinites unless they are tacked on by someone in which case I would say that scenario was impossible.

I am afraid that is not sufficient. Nobody knows whether our universe is infinite or not. It is entirely possible that it is, with or without its time past finiteness or it beng the only one or not.

What we know with a certain degree of certainty is that it is flat. So, it could look like a dounut (finite) or a cilinder (infinite) or any other surface that is flat. All those solutions are compatible with what we observe and the physics that underly relativity and inflation (the assumptions used by Vilenkin).

If you really had strong arguments against its infinity, you would be very famous. You would have considerably reduced the number of solutions that are compatible with evidence, and you would win a free ticket to Stockholm to have a beer with viole, and a meeting with her king, lol.

But I accept your declaration of belief, vs. being certain, that no natural infinities can exist in any possible world. Nothing to object here. Almost nothing...

Ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

...and you would win a free ticket to Stockholm to have a beer with viole, and a meeting with her king, lol.

Beer, who said "beer"?!

Can I come-- please??? I need to say hi to my cousins there, but I'll gladly stop by and have a pint with ya.

 

[viole]

Beer, who said "beer"?!

Can I come-- please??? I need to say hi to my cousins there, but I'll gladly stop by and have a pint with ya.

Little warning though. They cost 15 dollars upwards

Ciao

- viole