Why do religious people beleive the author of the scripts but ?

[TheBrokenSoul]

I actually am not interested to make believers, I would rather like that people understand correctly. In my opinion correct understanding means righteousness and it is much more valuable than beliefs.

But, I think it is interesting if you think speaking is only possible in voice produced the way humans normally speak. For example the God said "let there be light". By what I know, there was no one else, which is why maybe He said it in His mind, not in voice that humans could hear. There can be many ways to speak.

Speaking to you at the moment reminds me of guess who because your avatar is blank .

 

[Valjean]

No I dident Valjean.

Post #79:

But the truth is, that statement was made by an atheist, and has no evidence to it whatsoever. So he was just indoctrinated into believing it. It was his faith. You failed to see it.

Cheers.

 

[Valjean]

Yeah, but still, it was a theist.

So what? That doesn't affect what it is or how it works. It's source is irrelevant.

 

[Lain]

Why aren't your conclusions universally acknowledged, like other conclusions based on this objective, empirical, 'scientific' evidence?

Why does anyone disagree on anything?

 

[CG Didymus]

I believe because I see that Bible God is correct, knows well, is wise, righteous, good and loving. It would be too difficult for me to believe humans could have done Bible without God.

Bible don't teach about Trinity, which is why I think it is not a Christian god.

Every religion that has written Scriptures, I would think, believes them to be from a God or some divine source. Christians believe the Bible and the New Testament, but they make adjustments to just how much of the Bible they take literally and what is no longer required... Like all the animal sacrifices. And some Christians believe there are enough things said in the Bible to justify believe that God is a Trinity.

If one religion takes its Scriptures too literally and absolutely from God and true, then what do they believe about the Scriptures of one of the other religions? I can see why they'd believe all the others would be false. But why would people believe theirs is the only true one? To me, all of them have things in them that some people believe to be false, or what I'd call mythical. With the Bible, it would be things like a world-wide flood or a Tower of Babel. Did these things really happen, or were they just part of a mythical, fictional story about a people and their God? So how literally should a person take their Scriptures?

 

[Sheldon]

Valjean But why do you believe in "Bible God?" ...

For example because I think people are too evil and stupid to make the Bible on their own.

Have you read it, endorsing slavery, ethnic cleansing, sex trafficking virginal female prisoners, stoning children to death etc etc etc? There seems a very simple reason it is filled with errant nonsense, and reflects the ignorance, superstition, prejudice and immorality of the human epochs and cultures from which it is derived.

Occam seemed to get this much right at least, despite being a monk.

 

[Sheldon]

Why does anyone disagree on anything?

There isn't one overarching reason, obviously.

 

[Lain]

There isn't one overarching reason, obviously.

I know.

 

[firedragon]

Post #79:

What I said was that statement does not have evidence. Please read once more. I didnt say "atheists dont have evidence".

 

[firedragon]

So what? That doesn't affect what it is or how it works. It's source is irrelevant.

The relevance is that you stating religious people and the scientific method has conflict etc etc are all just false because the person who propagated the scientific method himself was a theist.

There is no conflict.

 

[74x12]

So, again, why do you believe spirits, and how do you test them? I haven't noticed any consistent results.

Reliable testing, that yields consistent, objective, measurable, testable results, must be based on observable, empirical evidence. I'm not seeing that here.

Because you don't have the holy Spirit.

 

[74x12]

Theists often use the unexplained as proof of God. But what happens when science learns enough to explain?

Then it would know God.

 

[rational experiences]

Because conscious awareness knows it was events after the fact that should not occur again.

Looking back advised.

Not expecting any more acts of God.

So Jesus 0 AD void vacuum moment space void removed radiating UFO mass ark. Ended.

All agreed to the god moment as laws.

Rome however not at all liked in that history continued with elite the temple science. Till burning comets hit burnt Rome time Nero.

Changed their minds altogether about holy space laws and God the rock body.

Too late moment.

1000 year Baha'i event reviewed not welcomed advice. Why it was not listened to.

Proven 1900 Russia hit. Why it was updated holy man's advice.

Times teachings as practiced their own would not update their journals.

Why new orders emerge.

In modern time it is why the church of ufology emerged. New advice.

Warning scientific takeover of human mind and body in science.
I owned a Dream vision versus their belief involving human spirituality.

To only believe in earth and self and not aliens.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No claim of written beleifs by any author could be validated , there would have to be more scientific reasoning involved .

The prophets were validated because God spoke through them, the Word of the Lord came to them and what they said came to pass. It’s the same today.
“I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.”
‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭18:18-22‬ ‭ESV‬‬

 

[Sheldon]

Clara Tea said: ↑
Theists often use the unexplained as proof of God. But what happens when science learns enough to explain?

Then it would know God.

Except nothing in science has evidenced any deity, nor does anything science explains require any deity. So your claim is quite wrong.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why do religious people believe the author of the scripts or books but then instantly disbeleive when somebody of modern times claims to be Gods messenger ?

Born again Christians are admonished to NOT instantly disbelieve any person claiming God's messages, rather, we check against the scriptures. For example if you said, "God told me if I'm relatively a good person I can get to Heaven" rather than "as scripture teaches, no one is perfect so we imperfect people trust Jesus who is perfect for salvation . . . "

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Born again Christians are admonished to NOT instantly disbelieve any person claiming God's messages, rather, we check against the scriptures. For example if you said, "God told me if I'm relatively a good person I can get to Heaven" rather than "as scripture teaches, no one is perfect so we imperfect people trust Jesus who is perfect for salvation . . . "

Thats seems irony to me that you would check a book written by humanity that is a beleif as opposed definite facts . I doubt Jesus was able to prove God was his father and Jesus's death demonstrates he was just a man .

 

[1213]

...Did these things really happen, or were they just part of a mythical, fictional story about a people and their God? So how literally should a person take their Scriptures?

I think any writing should be taken as the writer meant it to be taken. For example, I think you didn't mean this question to be a joke, therefore I took it seriously. Bible doesn't tell the flood was just a exaggeration or fictional. Therefore I think it should be taken literally. And I think world has abundantly evidence for it to be true story.

 

[Sheldon]

Bible doesn't tell the flood was just a exaggeration or fictional. Therefore I think it should be taken literally. And I think world has abundantly evidence for it to be true story.

There is no evidence to support a global flood, none.

 

[rational experiences]

Mountains are the proof itself with shells on its peaks.

A flat O surfaced earth held under natural water pressure. Law as Gods first form O in spatial pressure.

Pressure is upon the face.

Breaking it's plates carpenter tectonic leeching chemicals into water.

Evaporation and underground openings took water by two places. Above and below. Where origin flood went.

The natural law teachings God on earth.

Mountains arose were gods first law.

Mountains were sealed so are holy.

Volcanoes unholy.

The ground of earth was bared naked first. Mountains. Law of God.

So anyone claiming I look back after the fact lies in sacrificed destruction. Proved they displaced gods natural law order.

Discussing naked in the nature garden with human life already existing. Neither body first naked law ground bared.

Is notification science about god is a liar. Just men telling stories.

Who owns any reaction?

Men greedy lying say they do.

God owned any energy form first. Not man.

Greed was humans warning about last days before life destruction as we humans told the relativity of greedy humans ourselves.

Men of science always lied. Planet earth owned everything humans only owned themselves.

Naked in human life is natural and owns no discussion. Natural is non arguable.