the right religion

[1robin]

stop assuming...your .1% comment down plays the point...
knowing that pauls letters (another piece of the puzzle) were written before the gospels and during the time marks oral tradition was floating around, also supports the notion that jesus was coming back in 1 cor 7 where tells married couples to live as they were not...because why? the time was short...oops.

I will not address something I do not understand. Is this single issue what your entire case rests on? I have other far more in depth discussions going on that require much research. I do not have the time to follow this one. Since even commentators are divided on the subject I doubt I can understand it in an hour on the net. Is this all you got?

 

[Straw Dog]

I don't know about all these complicated scholarly disputes and different interpretations of scripture. My confusion is much more basic. I already addressed the following to Robin before, but I'm not sure you had a chance to adequately answer it.

If there is a personal deity such as the one described in mainstream Christian theology, then why does it have such poor communication skills? It could openly reveal itself to the entire world and simultaneously speak in a very clear, concise manner the manner in which it wishes to engage in a relationship with us all. Instead I'm being told that this entity prefers to go through third parties and copies of copies of copies of ancient manuscripts while remaining hidden or only acting through coincidences interpreted as ambiguous signs. I would need to properly address this cognitive dissonance before I could proceed with further investigation into Christian dogma. Can you help me out?

 

[waitasec]

I will not address something I do not understand. Is this single issue what your entire case rests on? I have other far more in depth discussions going on that require much research. I do not have the time to follow this one. Since even commentators are divided on the subject I doubt I can understand it in an hour on the net. Is this all you got?

certainly not here....

i just clicked on the link that says all posts made by robin1...

although straw dog posted something that seems to be another point you down played in the past along with another post of mine in another thread

hmmmm.

 

[1robin]

certainly not here....

i just clicked on the link that says all posts made by robin1...

although straw dog posted something that seems to be another point you down played in the past along with another post of mine in another thread

hmmmm.

I do not think your evaluation of my religous debates has any relevance to what is meaningfull. Since many are concerned with specifically the Greek and it's definitions or involve very complecated issues in Islam that compare Gabriel revelations and calls to prophethood in both religions I doubt you are competent to evaluate them. Being that Christian's are so terrible and no different I am also e-mailing back and forth this morning with another Christian who I am helping build a free house for two mentally challenged people. So I not care nor have time to answer inaccurate evaluations from a Forum stalker. What a strange thing to do and say, you are really starting to worry me.

 

[waitasec]

I do not think your evaluation of my religous debates has any relevance to what is meaningfull.

:spit:

and yours of mine is?


get over yourself mr high and mighty...
you are now declared a waste of time.


hasta la pasta and talk to the hand....see how that works?

 

[1robin]

I don't know about all these complicated scholarly disputes and different interpretations of scripture. My confusion is much more basic. I already addressed the following to Robin before, but I'm not sure you had a chance to adequately answer it.

If there is a personal deity such as the one described in mainstream Christian theology, then why does it have such poor communication skills?

Sorry strawdog I forgot the other half of your post. His communication skills have satasfied over one third of people on the earth. They meet the requirement of what is evidence according to the greates legal scholars in histoey. They are far greater than what we have for countless people that are universally believed in. I would suggest that the problem isn't with the information but what we do with it. I have read long documents that many respected layers have written where they say that the evidence is such that the fact is as sure as any fact of ancient history. IMO opinion God is limited to a level of revelation that does not force conversion. He wants it to be a matter of choice. He has provided more than enough to make faith an easy conclusion.

Clifford Herschel Moore, professor at Harvard University, well said, "Christianity knew its Saviour and REdeemer not as some god whose history was contained in a mythical faith, with rude, primitive, and even offensive elements...Jesus was a historical not a mythical being. No remote or foul myth obtruded itself of the Christian believer; his faith was founded on positive, historical, and acceptable facts."
OR
Armand Nicholi, of Harvard Medical School, speaks of J. N. D. Anderson as "...a scholar of international repute and one eminently qualified to deal with the subject of evidence. He is one of the world's leading authorities on Islamic law...He is dean of the faculty of law in the University of London, chairman of the department of Oriental law at the School of Oriental and African Studies, and director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in the University of London."
This outstanding British scholar who is today influential in the field of international jurisprudence says: "The evidence for the historical basis of the Christian faith, for the essential validity of the New Testament witness to the person and teaching of Christ Himself, for the fact and significance of His atoning death, and for the historicity of the empty tomb and the apostolic testimony to the resurrection, is such as to provide an adequate foundation for the venture of faith
OR
This was the conclusion to which a former Chief Justice of England, Lord Darling, came. At a private dinner party the talk turned to the truth of Christianity, and particularly to a certain book dealing with the resurrection. Placing his fingertips together, assuming a judicial attitude, and speaking with a quiet emphasis that was extraordinarily impressive, he said, 'We, sa Christians, are asked to take a very great deal on trust; the teachings, for example, and the miracles of Jesus. If we had to take all on trust, I, for one, should be sceptical. The crux of the problem of whether Jesus was, or was not, what He proclaimed Himself to be, just surely depend upon the truth or otherwise of the resurrection. On that greatest point we are not merely asked to have faith. In its favour as living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.' "
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2
This site has the professional opinions of some of the greates minds in history.
Bolding mine.

It could openly reveal itself to the entire world and simultaneously speak in a very clear, concise manner the manner in which it wishes to engage in a relationship with us all. Instead I'm being told that this entity prefers to go through third parties and copies of copies of copies of ancient manuscripts while remaining hidden or only acting through coincidences interpreted as ambiguous signs. I would need to properly address this cognitive dissonance before I could proceed with further investigation into Christian dogma. Can you help me out?

I believe your estemation is far to critical. I also believ to do these things we have no right to demand would contradict his purpose. However God thought enough of us to come here in person and die for us. He then put that record as well as countless others in the most studied and revered book in human history (and the NT in the most descriptive language in human history) and it is available to virtually every human in existance in their own language. The book in question is many times over the most reliable account of history that exists in ancient texts and he even has billions of contemporary witnesses in this generation alone. Not bad at all. You have believed far more based on far less.

 

[Astravalon]

His communication skills have satasfied over one third of people on the earth. They meet the requirement of what is evidence according to the greates legal scholars in histoey.

But in whom is one placing their faith upon hearing such things -- in God or in scholars?

"Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" (1 Cor 1:20)
​

I thought Romans 1:20 had already provided the criteria needed for being convinced of God:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
​

Apparently it's the things which God has made, rather than textbooks and term papers, that more effectively point to His existence, according to the bible. It's a more direct revelation than scholarly ramblings, imo.

They are far greater than what we have for countless people that are universally believed in. I would suggest that the problem isn't with the information but what we do with it. I have read long documents that many respected layers have written where they say that the evidence is such that the fact is as sure as any fact of ancient history.

But anything considered a fact of ancient history is still only accepted on faith. In other words, I wasn't there when many things are said to have happened, so I cannot say with the same certainty as an actual eyewitness that anything that was said to have happened actually did happen.

IMO opinion God is limited to a level of revelation that does not force conversion.

What about in cases such as Paul's, on the road to Damascus?

He wants it to be a matter of choice.

I'll ask you what I had asked earlier in this thread (in post 2198): Why would God not permit us to be able to choose something as trivial as eye-color, and yet permit us to choose something as critical as our conversion, which, according to Christianity, has serious implications for our eternal destiny?

He has provided more than enough to make faith an easy conclusion.

Your bible says that faith is a gift, of God, not a conclusion reached by human effort.

Clifford Herschel Moore , professor at Harvard University, well said, "Christianity knew its Saviour and REdeemer not as some god whose history was contained in a mythical faith, with rude, primitive, and even offensive elements...Jesus was a historical not a mythical being. No remote or foul myth obtruded itself of the Christian believer; his faith was founded on positive, historical, and acceptable facts."
OR
Armand Nicholi , of Harvard Medical School, speaks of J. N. D. Anderson as "...a scholar of international repute and one eminently qualified to deal with the subject of evidence. He is one of the world's leading authorities on Islamic law...He is dean of the faculty of law in the University of London, chairman of the department of Oriental law at the School of Oriental and African Studies, and director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in the University of London."
This outstanding British scholar who is today influential in the field of international jurisprudence says: "The evidence for the historical basis of the Christian faith, for the essential validity of the New Testament witness to the person and teaching of Christ Himself, for the fact and significance of His atoning death, and for the historicity of the empty tomb and the apostolic testimony to the resurrection, is such as to provide an adequate foundation for the venture of faith
OR
This was the conclusion to which a former Chief Justice of England, Lord Darling, came. At a private dinner party the talk turned to the truth of Christianity, and particularly to a certain book dealing with the resurrection. Placing his fingertips together, assuming a judicial attitude, and speaking with a quiet emphasis that was extraordinarily impressive, he said, 'We, sa Christians, are asked to take a very great deal on trust; the teachings, for example, and the miracles of Jesus. If we had to take all on trust, I, for one, should be sceptical. The crux of the problem of whether Jesus was, or was not, what He proclaimed Himself to be, just surely depend upon the truth or otherwise of the resurrection. On that greatest point we are not merely asked to have faith. In its favour as living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.' "
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2
This site has the professional opinions of some of the greates minds in history.
Bolding mine.

All I'm really seeing here is a demonstration of faith in others' credentials rather than faith in God within.

If it were a case that all doctors, lawyers, professors and scholars agreed with the tenets of Christianity, then such name-dropping might have value, but aren't there also equally-credentialed folks who don't see Christianity as the right religion, and who themselves have produced long-winded documents rationalizing why they think the way they do?

 

[1robin]

But in whom is one placing their faith upon hearing such things -- in God or in scholars?

The authors of the bible said God wrote it and it contains factual history. Scholars are useful to say whether what is recorded meets the criteria for reliability in a general sence. I try to reference commonly known concepts like modern Jurice Prudence to establish common ground to discuss things. If the bible says it is enough that means nothing to a person who doesn't believe the bible. If a legal scholar says the information in the bible meets the secular requirements as evidence then they have an accepted standard which can't be dismissed. You are technically correct but that is not enough practically.

"Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" (1 Cor 1:20)
​

I thought Romans 1:20 had already provided the criteria needed for being convinced of God:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
​

Apparently it's the things which God has made, rather than textbooks and term papers, that more effectively point to His existence, according to the bible. It's a more direct revelation than scholarly ramblings, imo.

They don't mean more to someone who doesn't believe the bible. Common ground must be found.
​

But anything considered a fact of ancient history is still only accepted on faith. In other words, I wasn't there when many things are said to have happened, so I cannot say with the same certainty as an actual eyewitness that anything that was said to have happened actually did happen.

Faith is all that is necessary for a Christian however I agree. I always say that most of science is based in faith to the emipricle only crowd but they don't usually get it.

What about in cases such as Paul's, on the road to Damascus?

Paul's case is indeed strange. IMO God operates generally in a consistant manner like in allowing our free will. I do think there are times where he violates this. Paul is one. Pharo's freewill is another. That is only my opinion.

I'll ask you what I had asked earlier in this thread (in post 2198): Why would God not permit us to be able to choose something as trivial as eye-color, and yet permit us to choose something as critical as our conversion, which, according to Christianity, has serious implications for our eternal destiny?

This is a complecated issue. You started the answer. Our eye color is a trivial matter. Our choice is not so much about destiny as it is loyalty. That loyalty determines destiny. God wished us to freely follow or love him. This requires choice. We must be free to not choose. Eye color is not central to God's plan or our role. Don't look at it through our eyes. Try and look through God's. I admit I can only touch on this here. Did this help at all?

Your bible says that faith is a gift, of God, not a conclusion reached by human effort.

Here is the verse:
New International Version(©1984)
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--.
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
It says God is the gift not faith. Faith is the means by which the gift comes. God in the form of the Holy Spirit comes to live in the heart of the believer that chooses Christ.
Even in the Greek that is what is meant. The word is theos
and means in this case.
of the Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
Believing allows God to live within us. We have without force chosen our loyalty.
You ask hard questions. This is another deep subject and some types of faith are a gift but this is not what you are talking about.

All I'm really seeing here is a demonstration of faith in others' credentials rather than faith in God within.

Not quite. Along with acknowledging who God (Christ) is we also must acknowledge who we are. Sinful, astray, corrupt, and wayward. I can't describe what the experience is like but you are drastically over simplifying the event.

If it were a case that all doctors, lawyers, professors and scholars agreed with the tenets of Christianity, then such name-dropping might have value, but aren't there also equally-credentialed folks who don't see Christianity as the right religion, and who themselves have produced long-winded documents rationalizing why they think the way they do?

This is the very same type of expert witness testimony that decides life and death every single day in a thousand court rooms around the world. There is no reason to consider it of no value for religion. I am aware there are others who disagree, howver the names I gave are some of the greatest minds in history. The Greenleaf's, and Newtons of the world are hard to argue with. I am simply pointing out that by any historical standard by which reliabilty is assertained the bible is as good as any and better than any other ancient historical events and many modern ones.. I never argue that it or any event in history is provable but that it meets any standard that is used for establishing historical likely hood. Most people only hear the negative side and think that is all there is. I simply am attempting to show that is far from the case.

By the way can you give a quick summary of your religous philosophy or chosen faith. I have wondered what inspires so much blue.

 

[Astravalon]

The authors of the bible said God wrote it and it contains factual history. Scholars are useful to say whether what is recorded meets the criteria for reliability in a general sence. I try to reference commonly known concepts like modern Jurice Prudence to establish common ground to discuss things. If the bible says it is enough that means nothing to a person who doesn't believe the bible. If a legal scholar says the information in the bible meets the secular requirements as evidence then they have an accepted standard which can't be dismissed.

I see what you're saying. That makes sense.

This is a complecated issue. You started the answer. Our eye color is a trivial matter. Our choice is not so much about destiny as it is loyalty. That loyalty determines destiny. God wished us to freely follow or love him. This requires choice. We must be free to not choose. Eye color is not central to God's plan or our role. Don't look at it through our eyes. Try and look through God's. I admit I can only touch on this here. Did this help at all?

I understand, though I think the reverse would make more sense. Since anything is better off in God's hands (imo), I would think that, between such cosmetic things like eye color and such critical things as salvation, the cosmetic would be left up to us since choice in that area doesn't potentially result in landing ourselves in that everlasting BBQ pit some say awaits us. Generally speaking, things of higher value are usually handled by those who are more competent (in this case salvation handled by an infallible God), and things of less value by those who are less competent (in this case, cosmetic issues by fallible humans).

Here is the verse:
New International Version(©1984)
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--.
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
It says God is the gift not faith. Faith is the means by which the gift comes. God in the form of the Holy Spirit comes to live in the heart of the believer that chooses Christ.
Even in the Greek that is what is meant. The word is theos
and means in this case.
of the Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity

I agree that theos means God, but I've never heard it explained that God is the gift being spoken of in that verse. In fact, the commentary tied with it can be found here , and seems to indicate that the gift is either faith and/or grace.

Other verses which suggest that faith is a God-given thing are the following:

Hebrews 12:2 … looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Romans 12:3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you.
​

Believing allows God to live within us. We have without force chosen our loyalty.

I believe God is already within everyone, especially given that He's omnipresent.

But as long as the threat of annihilation or endless torment is part of the equation, we're not really choosing "without force" any more than a hostage being told "Do this or else". A choice that's free in any meaningful sense of the word would involve no threats that potentially influence that choice.

Not quite. Along with acknowledging who God (Christ) is we also must acknowledge who we are. Sinful, astray, corrupt, and wayward. I can't describe what the experience is like but you are drastically over simplifying the event.

Well, whatever we are, we are because of the way He designed us. If it were anything that truly offended Him, it was well within His power to prevent it at the creation stage of things. With power comes responsibility, so if one is All Powerful, then one is All Responsible, imo.

By the way can you give a quick summary of your religous philosophy or chosen faith. I have wondered what inspires so much blue.

You can click on the image in my signature to get all the info you need, this way I don't risk derailing the thread.

 

[jasonwill2]

I'm still not convinced that anything other than Satanism is the right religion for mankind., but considering most can't handle that or be responsible with that realization...

 

[camanintx]

When you have multiple witnesses that agree and are as consistent (despite false accusations of contradiction) as in the Gospels then the narrative is quite reliable.

This is conjecture rooted in Bias, but I aim to please. If you will give the verses that you say are contradictory I will clear them up.

So you don't see any contradictions between the following gospels accounts?

Matthew 28 - dawn, earthquake, one angel moves stone, guards stunned, women instructed to tell disciples, women meet Jesus, Jesus appears to the disciples in Galilee
Mark 16 - after sunrise, no earthquake, stone already moved, no guards, one angel, women instructed to tell disciples to go to Galilee, [Jesus appears to Mary, Jesus appears to disciples while they are eating (Jerusalem?)]
Luke 24 - early morning, no earthquake, stone already moved, no guards, two angels, women tell disciples, only Peter visits tomb, Jesus appears to disciples in the city (Jerusalem?)
John 20 - dark, no earthquake, stone already moved, no angels, Mary tells disciples, disciples visit tomb, two angels and Jesus appear to Mary, Jesus appears to disciples (Jerusalem?)

By the way, Mark 16:9-20 don't appear in the earliest manuscripts contradicting your previous claim that the Bible is unchanged from the beginning.

The vast majority of contemporary New Testament textual critics (see also Textual criticism) have concluded that neither the longer nor shorter endings were originally part of Mark's Gospel.

 

[allright]

Why is it when Muslims try to prove their religion is the true one they never speak of the great things Allah has done in their own life?
Its always wars theyve won or the Koran has no contradiction or contains scientic facts.

 

[1robin]

So you don't see any contradictions between the following gospels accounts?

Matthew 28 - dawn, earthquake, one angel moves stone, guards stunned, women instructed to tell disciples, women meet Jesus, Jesus appears to the disciples in Galilee
Mark 16 - after sunrise, no earthquake, stone already moved, no guards, one angel, women instructed to tell disciples to go to Galilee, [Jesus appears to Mary, Jesus appears to disciples while they are eating (Jerusalem?)]
Luke 24 - early morning, no earthquake, stone already moved, no guards, two angels, women tell disciples, only Peter visits tomb, Jesus appears to disciples in the city (Jerusalem?)
John 20 - dark, no earthquake, stone already moved, no angels, Mary tells disciples, disciples visit tomb, two angels and Jesus appear to Mary, Jesus appears to disciples (Jerusalem?)

By the way, Mark 16:9-20 don't appear in the earliest manuscripts contradicting your previous claim that the Bible is unchanged from the beginning.

For some reason I have missed this. I apologise and will try to respond tomorrow.

 

[teeta01]

Well , all religions are different paths to same source..if you wanna believe that..

 

[kjw47]

Well , all religions are different paths to same source..if you wanna believe that..

Actually there are two roads in reality--enter the narrow gate because cramped is the road leading off into life( eternal) , FEW are the ones finding it-- broad and spacious the path leading off into destruction many are finding it. Thus- there is one path leading to God not many.

 

[1robin]

Well , all religions are different paths to same source..if you wanna believe that..

Two paths with contradictory road signs can't possibly both be true. This is new age spiritism and has no basis in reality.

 

[Muffled]

I agree that He allows people to make choices, within Divinely-set parameters of course. I also think that many judgements are built right into the wrongdoings themselves. We are punished by our sins rather than for them, in other words.

Once God allowed King David to choose one of three punishments. There are deferred punishments and deferred rewards. Life gives us examples. There has been at least one soldier who should have recevied a medal but didn't get it until much later in life. Criminals sometimes go a long time before being caught.

 

[Muffled]

Historians Scholars and legal professionals can be wrong,after all there are Scholars of Hinduism,Islam,Christianity and so on,which of these are right?.

There are no double standards here,i very much doubt the existence of the popularised Arthur,still at least Humans are good at writing good stories.

There are fictional stories written based on the life of Jesus, "The Greatest Story Ever Told" is one. However the fictional story does not and can't replace or detract from the historical account in the Bible.

Arthur does show up in Welsh legend. Strangely enough he shows up as one of my ancesters also but genealogists have been known to fudge the connections at times. Before Arthur the genaolgy becomes very speculative. Some have him as a descendant of a Roman centurion; some have him as a member of a northwest English tribe; some have him descended from a Cornwall family and others see him as a remnant of the British groups that were driven west by the Saxons. That is like St Patrick another ancester. It seems unlikely to me that he could have had so many wives and children. He seems to be a popular figure to have as an ancester.

 

[Astravalon]

Once God allowed King David to choose one of three punishments. There are deferred punishments and deferred rewards. Life gives us examples. There has been at least one soldier who should have recevied a medal but didn't get it until much later in life. Criminals sometimes go a long time before being caught.

This is true too.:yes:

 

[Muffled]

and what of those that did put their faith in jesus only to see that it was unfulfilling...did they get it all wrong...?
what am i saying, of course they did...
:sarcastic

That reminds me of the person who thought the verse promising abundant life meant that she would get rich. When I explained that it meant spiritual wealth the person was bummed because it wasn't what she was looking for.