Are you a Christian?

[Cornish Steve]

Q. If in the nearish future we got a signal from space from intelligent aliens.

And contained within that signal came a description of their religion, and that religion was a perfect fit to one of the following:
A) Christian
B) Islamic
C) Something totally unlike any religion on earth.

How would it affect your faith?

For myself, as an atheist I would expect (C)
But if it was A or B. I would definately have to reexamine my beliefs

Phil, I love your examples, but this scenario just ain't gonna happen.

 

[Jeff Knows]

Why? God made us special order? I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that of the 1 trillion observable suns, somewhere there exists life floating around it aimlessly like we are.

 

[cjd]

That's utter nonsense. The modern era of science was started in Christendom, funded by the church. Many of its most successful proponents were, and continue to be, Christians.

And that would explain why Galileo was condemned for heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture," I suppose. (Copernicus being the founder of modern astronomy.)

Not to mention the fight they put up - and still do - against evolution and anything surrounding their weird views on sex and birth - including stem cell research.

It would be a brave and stupid person that claimed that the church was a prime mover in science....but don't let that stop you. They're all for it until it rubs up against one of their pet beliefs, then they get all upset.

 

[Parthelan]

You say you have given me some of the early church fathers writings.

What I say and preach is NOT what they taught and preached.

They were not telling people the truth, which Jesus taught, that's why.

Priceless. Absolutely priceless. This is what is so sad about the state of the church in the world today.
These fathers and doctors of the church were there from the very beginning, from the very foundation of christian history.
They walked with Jesus' disciples, learned from them, studied and taught with them... and yet, YOU can say THEY were not telling people the truth.

I could laugh out loud it's so hysterically funny - if at the same time it wasnt so sad.

These people know EXACTLY what Jesus taught and meant, they are the bearers of the sacred traditions, the teachings we know they were given but NOT in the Bible, as you already know we're told that not everything Jesus taught is recorded, the Bible tells us this. But THEY knew, because they were there.

It's exactly this mentality that has led to the church being so fractured and wounded - where every man and his dog can set up their own church and claim THEY have the truth... sad sad sad.....

... for you to claim that these Church Fathers were lying is hysterically funny ....

- where in the Bible, does it say in the Bible, what books should be in the Bible?

- Guess who decided this - yes... the very Church Fathers you say were liars.

The books in your Bible are there because in council, the Church Fathers led by the Holy Spirit decided so.

You have them to thank for your bible, and yet you publically claim they did not teach the truth???????
Throw your bible away now then! Why hold dear a book claiming to be the inspired word of God, put together by those who didnt know Christ or teach his word and traditions faithfully.

 

[DCE]

Priceless. Absolutely priceless. This is what is so sad about the state of the church in the world today.
These fathers and doctors of the church were there from the very beginning, from the very foundation of christian history.
They walked with Jesus' disciples, learned from them, studied and taught with them... and yet, YOU can say THEY were not telling people the truth.

I could laugh out loud it's so hysterically funny - if at the same time it wasnt so sad.

These people know EXACTLY what Jesus taught and meant, they are the bearers of the sacred traditions, the teachings we know they were given but NOT in the Bible, as you already know we're told that not everything Jesus taught is recorded, the Bible tells us this. But THEY knew, because they were there.

It's exactly this mentality that has led to the church being so fractured and wounded - where every man and his dog can set up their own church and claim THEY have the truth... sad sad sad.....

... for you to claim that these Church Fathers were lying is hysterically funny ....

- where in the Bible, does it say in the Bible, what books should be in the Bible?

- Guess who decided this - yes... the very Church Fathers you say were liars.

The books in your Bible are there because in council, the Church Fathers led by the Holy Spirit decided so.

You have them to thank for your bible, and yet you publically claim they did not teach the truth???????
Throw your bible away now then! Why hold dear a book claiming to be the inspired word of God, put together by those who didnt know Christ or teach his word and traditions faithfully.

Explain this teaching away then.

Because he obeyed Jesus’ command: “Do not call anyone your father on earth, for One is your Father, the heavenly One. Neither be called ‘leaders’, for your Leader is one, the Christ.”—Matt. 23:9, 10, NW.

What do they call a priest?

 

[Jeff Knows]

An Advisor.

 

[Parthelan]

Explain this teaching away then.

Because he obeyed Jesus’ command: “Do not call anyone your father on earth, for One is your Father, the heavenly One. Neither be called ‘leaders’, for your Leader is one, the Christ.”—Matt. 23:9, 10, NW.

What do they call a priest?

Classic pick and mix of scripture to suit your purposes. What do the next 4 verses say? Huh?
From them we should never call anyone Rabbi, or leader, or teacher either!!
Does Paul ever refer to himself as father? How about: 1 Corinthians 4;14-15, “I am not writing this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

Can you find any other references to humans being called Father or would you like me to point them out?

You see, you've picked one line to make the Scripture fit your arguement, rather than reading even the rest of the verse to try and understand what was meant.

It was a lesson to the pharisees in humilty.

Now, can you answer the question I asked you - If the Bible is it's own Authority, and self- sufficient, tell me where in the Bible does Jesus say what books to put into the Bible.

 

[DCE]

An Advisor.

Father you mean, in contradiction to what Jesus taught.

A Complicated Approach to God

"I AM the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me," said Jesus Christ.

He added: "Most truly I say to you, If you ask the Father for anything he will give it to you in my name."-John 14:6; 16:23.

For centuries, however, religions of Christendom, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, with its hellfire, purgatory, and Trinity doctrines, have confounded "the way." Jesus was portrayed, not as the willing intercessor for sinful men, but as a babe in arms or as a fearsome judge, more given to condemning and punishing sinners than to saving them.

How, then, could a sinner approach God?

The book The Glories of Mary (1750) explains. Comparing Jesus to the blazing sun of justice, the 13th-century pope Innocent*III declared: "Whoever is in the night of sin, let him cast his eyes on the moon, let him implore Mary." In Mary, the mother of Jesus, another intercessor was invented.

Perhaps through her supposed motherly influence, a favor might be gained from Jesus and from God. Thus, in the words of Laurence Justinian, a 15th-century cleric, Mary became "the ladder to paradise, the gate of heaven, the most true mediatress between God and man."

With all the adulation given her, in time she was no longer viewed as just the "Virgin Mary" but became the "Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy," styled as so immaculate and exalted that she also was too sacred for direct approach.

Could yet another intercessor be found?

What about her mother?

Since the Bible is silent on the subject, the answer was sought elsewhere.

The Apocryphal book Protevangelium of James tells the story of Anne (or Anna), the wife of Joachim, who was childless after many years of marriage. Finally, an angel appeared to her and announced that she would bear a child.

In due time, she became the mother of the "Virgin Mary," it was claimed.

Thus there arose a cult of "Saint" Anne.

Shrines and churches were built in her honor. Veneration of "Saint" Anne became widespread in Europe in the 14th*century.

"How complicated religion had become!" observes the book The Story of the Reformation. "People prayed to Anna who interceded with Mary who interceded with her Son who interceded with God for sinful men.

It was fantastic, but that was the kind of superstitious belief on which the souls of men were nourished." Here, then, is another case to which Jesus' words aptly apply: "You make the word of God invalid by your tradition."-Mark 7:13.

 

[Parthelan]

“You make the word of God invalid by your tradition.”—Mark 7:13.

Once again pick and mixing and not understanding - and taking out of context to suit your purpose.

Tell us what the traditions were that are referred to here and to whom were the remarks addressed.

And answer my question, if the Bible alone is self sufficient, tell me where in the Bible does Jesus, or ANY writer tell us what books should be contained in the Bible.

 

[DCE]

Classic pick and mix of scripture to suit your purposes. What do the next 4 verses say? Huh?
From them we should never call anyone Rabbi, or leader, or teacher either!!
Does Paul ever refer to himself as father? How about: 1 Corinthians 4;14-15, “I am not writing this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

Can you find any other references to humans being called Father or would you like me to point them out?

You see, you've picked one line to make the Scripture fit your arguement, rather than reading even the rest of the verse to try and understand what was meant.

It was a lesson to the pharisees in humilty.

To show that none of his followers should elevate themselves above fellow believers, Jesus said: “You, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your teacher, whereas all you are brothers. Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One.

Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for your Leader is one, the Christ. But the greatest one among you must be your minister.

Whoever exalts himself will be humbled.” (Matthew 23:8-12)

In God’s eyes, all of Jesus’ true disciples are equal in the faith.

Did the early Christians view themselves as equal?

Those who got the sense of Jesus’ teaching did.

They viewed one another as equal in the faith and showed this by addressing one another as “brother.” (Philemon 1, 7, 20)

Nobody was encouraged to view himself as being better than others.

Consider, for example, the humble way in which Peter described himself in his second letter: “Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a faith, held in equal privilege with ours.” (2*Peter 1:1)

Peter had personally been instructed by Jesus, and as an apostle, he held an important position of responsibility.

Yet, he considered himself to be a slave and recognized that other Christians held the faith in equal privilege with him.

 

[Parthelan]

Did the early Christians view themselves as equal?

Did you read the writings and teachings of the Church Fathers. It is clear they are all equal before God, yet primacy is given to Peter, whom Jesus gave the keys of Heaven.
Despite our Schism, Orthodox to this day hold to the Primacy of Peter and his successor.

But you know better

Now, Im still waiting for you to answer the question you keep avoiding

 

[Cornish Steve]

And that would explain why Galileo was condemned for heresy for "following the position of Copernicus

And who funded both of them?

 

[DCE]

Did you read the writings and teachings of the Church Fathers. It is clear they are all equal before God, yet primacy is given to Peter, whom Jesus gave the keys of Heaven.
Despite our Schism, Orthodox to this day hold to the Primacy of Peter and his successor.

But you know better

Now, Im still waiting for you to answer the question you keep avoiding

Did you ever read in the Bible of one Christian’s calling another “Father” as an honorary title?

Search as diligently as you can, and you will find that not even the apostles bore the title “Father.” No authority for using the title “Father” for Christians is given in the Scriptures.

Indeed, the title is expressly condemned!

By whom?

By Christ himself! Speaking of the title-loving clergy of his day, Jesus said: “They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues, and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ [“My great one; My excellent one,” footnote] by men.

But you, do not you be called ‘Rabbi’, for one is your teacher, whereas all you are brothers. Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for One is your Father, the heavenly One.”—Matt. 23:6-9, NW.

Did Jesus mean what he said?

Certainly! He was not uttering idle words.

Does it take a mental giant to understand his command?

No, his words need no special interpretation, for Jesus was speaking no parable.

He was giving clear-cut instructions about creature-exalting titles: “Do not call anyone your father on earth.”

The Roman Catholic clergy water down the force of Jesus’ command by saying that his words cannot be taken literally, otherwise we could not call our male parent “father.”

Is that reasoning sound?

Hardly!

Read the context.

From the setting it is unmistakably clear that Jesus was not condemning the use of “father” for the male parent, for he himself repeatedly referred to the male parent as “father.” (Matt. 15:4-6; 19:5; 21:31)

His condemnation was of the honorary title.

 

[Parthelan]

.........

Classic diversionary techniques to avoid answering the question. Now, I'll more than happily come back to address everything you wrote but for the final time, it's very simple:

Tell me where in the Bible, chapter and verse please, does it say what books are to be contained in the Bible.

Now, not another word about anything else. Just answer that question.

Then we will move on...

Remember, no blathering.... just answer the question above please.

 

[cjd]

And who funded both of them?

The Catholic church funded everything, including art, architecture and armies. it was/is staggeringly wealthy and controlled everything including kings and kingdoms. You were fine so long as you did what you were told and didn't do any science that contradicted belief.

The pope still has an astronomer, he's rather cool actually and once said that he'd baptise an alien if asked - no matter how many tentacles it has.

 

[DCE]

Classic diversionary techniques to avoid answering the question. Now, I'll more than happily come back to address everything you wrote but for the final time, it's very simple:

Tell me where in the Bible, chapter and verse please, does it say what books are to be contained in the Bible.

Now, not another word about anything else. Just answer that question.

Then we will move on...

Remember, no blathering.... just answer the question above please.

I don't understand the question, it what is contained and written in the 66 books that is important.

You also have to remember the Catholic Church had the Bible translated into Latin, so no-one could understand it, and if you tried to understand what was written, you were killed as a heretic, I wonder why?

 

[DCE]

Tell us what the traditions were that are referred to here and to whom were the remarks addressed.

The Catholic Church takes the position that church tradition has the same authority as the Scriptures.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says that the church “holds no truth on the basis of Scripture alone, independently of tradition, nor on the basis of tradition alone, independently of Scripture.”

 

[Parthelan]

I don't understand the question, ?

You understamd the question perfectly.

But you REFUSE to answer it because you would have to say NOWHERE in the BIBLE, NOWHERE IN SCRIPTURE does it say what books are to be contained in the Bible.

So, if scripture is self -sufficent, but does not tell us what books are to make up the canon, answer this question:

Who decided what books are inspired and what books are not?

Same rules, no blathering, no diversions, no waffle, just a straight answer to the question.

Who were the men who decided out of all the gospels written at the time, out of all the letters written at the time, which ones were inspired and should go into the Bible, and which ones werent.

And here's a suplimentry question for you - how did they decide. And for a bonus, if we know for a fact the books contained in the Bible are not named in the Bible, what else do you think is not contained in the Bible, but we know from the Church Fathers is true, and what do we call that?

Over to you.....

 

[Parthelan]

Search as diligently as you can, and you will find that not even the apostles bore the title "Father." No authority for using the title "Father" for Christians is given in the Scriptures.

Indeed, the title is expressly condemned!
.

Lol... you interpret scripture to your own purposes, and you dont even know the scriptures:

Luke 16:
24 And he cried out, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.' 25 Abraham replied, 'My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented.

Or, how about Romans 4

Now we assert that "faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness."
10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was he circumcised or not? He was not circumcised, but uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal on the righteousness received through faith while he was uncircumcised. Thus he was to be the father of all the uncircumcised who believe, so that to them (also) righteousness might be credited

Not one example you say

Want some more - how about Acts 7 and Acts 22 - Stephen and Paul refer to the jewish elders and priests and fathers !!

See, your personal interpretation on the bend again - and wrong.

This is what happens when the Magisterium is ignored.

 

[paultnl]

Just imagine what could be achieved if all the time, effort and thought that believers put into defending their religions was put to some useful purpose.

 

[Parthelan]

The Catholic Church takes the position that church tradition has the same authority as the Scriptures.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says that the church “holds no truth on the basis of Scripture alone, independently of tradition, nor on the basis of tradition alone, independently of Scripture.”

You are a master at avoiding the question. I asked you what traditions were being refered to in the scriptures you quoted and to whom was it directed. You selectively pick lines of scripture to suit your arguement when in fact you hide the context, or maybe you genuinely dont understand it.

Please stop avoiding answering direct questions and please stop meandering off on tangents. Im well aware of the techniques youre employing to avoid answering questions and theyre tiresome and predictable.

 

[DCE]

Lol... you interpret scripture to your own purposes, and you dont even know the scriptures:

Luke 16:
24 And he cried out, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.' 25 Abraham replied, 'My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented.

Or, how about Romans 4

Now we assert that "faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness."
10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was he circumcised or not? He was not circumcised, but uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal on the righteousness received through faith while he was uncircumcised. Thus he was to be the father of all the uncircumcised who believe, so that to them (also) righteousness might be credited

Not one example you say

Want some more - how about Acts 7 and Acts 22 - Stephen and Paul refer to the jewish elders and priests and fathers !!

See, your personal interpretation on the bend again - and wrong.

This is what happens when the Magisterium is ignored.

You need to read your Bible in context to get the correct understanding with all due respect Tom.

 

[Parthelan]

Friday night, debating religion on a business forum

It's almost 9pm.

That's guinness O'Clock

Time I wasnt here

 

[Parthelan]

You need to read your Bible in context to get the correct understanding with all due respect Tom.

I have the correct context.

I have 2000 years of teaching tradition behind me.

You accept the same tradition by the way because you use the Bible these men gave you, but you reject the teachings that dont suit you.

The arrogance to believe your personal interpretation flies in the face of 2000 years of teaching is simply staggering.

But thats what happens when everyone believes THEY know the truth, simply by scriptures alone.

Remember the men you reject picked the books you read in the bible.

THEY decided what books to read.

THEY decided what was God inspired and what wasnt.

Yet YOU know better.

I'm off out for a pint before fasting tomorrow

I'll leave you with one of my favourite Orthodox prayers:

Lord Jesus Christ, Who didst command us to love our enemies, and those who defame and injure us, and to pray for them and forgive them; Who Thyself didst pray for Thine enemies, who crucified thee: grant us, we pray, the spirit of Christian reconciliation and meekness, that we may heartily forgive every injury and be reconciled with our enemies. Grant us to overcome the malevolence and offences of people with Christian meekness and true love of our neighbor. We further beseech Thee, O Lord, to grant to our enemies true peace and forgiveness of sins; and do not allow them to leave this life without true faith and sincere conversion. And help us repay evil with goodness, and to remain safe from the temptations of the devil and from all the perils which threaten us, in the form of visible and invisible enemies. Amen.

God Bless.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Just imagine what could be achieved if all the time, effort and thought that believers put into defending their religions was put to some useful purpose.

You can say that about anything. I remember raging and rather unpleasant arguments between physicists when attending and speaking at a couple of international conferences. It's how we learn - and sometimes it leads us to greater insight.

he's rather cool actually and once said that he'd baptise an alien if asked - no matter how many tentacles it has.

I wonder whether I was the only one to misread 'tentacles'.

 

[cjd]

Fabulous, two christians, one book, no agreement.

And you lot wonder why we atheists scratch our heads in amazement. Word of god my arse.

 

[Parthelan]

Fabulous, two christians, one book, no agreement.

And you lot wonder why we atheists scratch our heads in amazement. Word of god my arse.

Could be worse. You know what they say, if you want 3 opinions, ask 2 Jews.

 

[DCE]

Fabulous, two christians, one book, no agreement.

No you could say instead, one has the truth revealed to him, the other one may arrive at the same conclusion, God willing.

This is what Daniel wrote:- (Daniel 12:8-10) 8*Now as for me, I heard, but I could not understand; so that I said: "O my lord, what will be the final part of these things?" 9*And he went on to say: "Go, Daniel, because the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of [the] end. 10*Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will certainly act wickedly, and no wicked ones at all will understand; but the ones having insight will understand.

 

[cjd]

My question remains, why would a god that wants to get his message across so badly that he first kills everything on the planet, then sends his 'son' to earth to be killed, do such a shocking job of it? So much so that even a couple of extremists who have obviously spent years studying his 'word' not be able to agree on what they're supposed to believe?

 

[paultnl]

You can say that about anything. I remember raging and rather unpleasant arguments between physicists when attending and speaking at a couple of international conferences. It's how we learn - and sometimes it leads us to greater insight.

But that will lead to something in the end, physics has its uses. Endlessly debating non existant deities is a waste.

 

[DCE]

My question remains, why would a god that wants to get his message across so badly that he first kills everything on the planet, then sends his 'son' to earth to be killed, do such a shocking job of it? So much so that even a couple of extremists who have obviously spent years studying his 'word' not be able to agree on what they're supposed to believe?

This what Jesus said : (Matthew 7:13-14) 13*"Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; 14*whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it.

Then he went on to say: (Matthew 7:21-23) 21*"Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22*Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?' 23*And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness.

(Matthew 7:15-20) 15*"Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to YOU in sheep's covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. 16*By their fruits YOU will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? 17*Likewise every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit; 18*a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. 19*Every tree not producing fine fruit gets cut down and thrown into the fire. 20*Really, then, by their fruits YOU will recognize those [men].

(Psalm 37:10-11) .*.*.And just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more; And you will certainly give attention to his place, and he will not be. 11*But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.

 

[cjd]

Get it into your head - I really don't give a stuff what you think is written in your book - if you can't even convince another Christian, you stand bog all chance with me. Argue your case from fact and logic or don't bother arguing at all.

 

[Cornish Steve]

But that will lead to something in the end, physics has its uses. Endlessly debating non existant deities is a waste.

Yes, physics has its uses - but it can't provide any insights to the meaning of life and what happens when we die. This is why faith is so important: If a deity exists, life on earth would suddenly become some type of rite of passage. And if that deity provided advanced information that you chose to ignore, you'd really be up a creek without a paddle. You can bet your life on me being wrong, but you'll never know the truth of the matter until your moment comes - and bravado will count for zip at that point.

How could a being who exists beyond just the natural world communicate his existence and the authenticity of his message? I can think of two ways: prove that you exist outside of time by ensuring hundreds of detailed predictions are documented well ahead of time (because we can't do that), and cause someone in human form to die and then rise from the dead in a very public way (because we can't do that either). These would be the two most powerful proofs available - which is why I take the person of Christ very seriously.

 

[paultnl]

Yes, physics has its uses - but it can't provide any insights to the meaning of life and what happens when we die. This is why faith is so important: If a deity exists, life on earth would suddenly become some type of rite of passage. And if that deity provided advanced information that you chose to ignore, you'd really be up a creek without a paddle. You can bet your life on me being wrong, but you'll never know the truth of the matter until your moment comes - and bravado will count for zip at that point.

I am happy to take my chances.

How could a being who exists beyond just the natural world communicate his existence and the authenticity of his message? I can think of two ways: prove that you exist outside of time by ensuring hundreds of detailed predictions are documented well ahead of time (because we can't do that), and cause someone in human form to die and then rise from the dead in a very public way (because we can't do that either). These would be the two most powerful proofs available - which is why I take the person of Christ very seriously.

You may take anything you like seriously. I only object when your beliefs impinge on my life. Why can't I go to a shop on Easter Sunday? most people in this country are not practicing Christians.

 

[cjd]

Yes, physics has its uses - but it can't provide any insights to the meaning of life and what happens when we die.

Well actually it can. What it tells us is that we rot to our molecules which are recycled as coke cans, sea urchins, kings, priests, newts and daffodils.

This is why faith is so important: If a deity exists, life on earth would suddenly become some type of rite of passage. And if that deity provided advanced information that you chose to ignore, you'd really be up a creek without a paddle. You can bet your life on me being wrong, but you'll never know the truth of the matter until your moment comes - and bravado will count for zip at that point.

If a deity exists it will expect us to use the brains it gave us to do the right thing now for no other reason than it's the right thing - not just in case a deity exists so we'll look better. No amount of grovelling and worship will make any difference and if it does, it's pure luck you chose the right god to grovel to. At least when my molecules make their way to the coke can, i won't be trying to explain to Ra the Sun God, why I thought Abraham was the right choice.

How could a being who exists beyond just the natural world communicate his existence and the authenticity of his message? I can think of two ways: prove that you exist outside of time by ensuring hundreds of detailed predictions are documented well ahead of time (because we can't do that), and cause someone in human form to die and then rise from the dead in a very public way (because we can't do that either). These would be the two most powerful proofs available - which is why I take the person of Christ very seriously.

You have a very poor imagination. There is absolutely NOTHING in the bible that is outside its time. NOTHING. It's 'predictions' are within its time - why not not predict a laser? or the transistor? maybe just steam power or bacteria - or even germ theory and facebook?

Why not be specific? Why not say in terms that would be incomprehensible to those around at the time that the nucleus of an atom could be split. Why not put e=mc2 into a psalm? I can think of a thousand ways that would convince even me - but no; your bible can't even convince those that already believe in it.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Why not predict that Jewish people will be scattered the world over but that they will eventually become their own nation (which happened in 1948)?

Why not predict the very calendar day on which Israel's Messiah would enter the rebuilt city of Jerusalem (which happened in 32AD)?

Why not predict the complete tearing down of the temple in Jerusalem, stone by stone (which happened in 70AD when soldiers prized rocks apart in order to access gold)?

There are very many such past predictions, and scholars agree that they were documented well in advance of their fulfillment. And before you suggest that they were sufficiently vague to be interpreted any which way we like, what about other very specific predictions that have yet to come about?

1) A country in the far north of Europe will ally with the nation we now call Iran in order to attack Israel (two countries which, incidentally, have never been allied).

2) An earthquake will cause a split from east to west below the city of Jerusalem (and modern science has found a fault running through that exact spot).

3) The Israelis will rebuild their temple in Jerusalem.

Maybe this forum message will still be around when these things happen - predicted over 2,000 years ago. Once again, we don't have the ability to know the future. The implications of predictions of such specificity coming about ought to shake naturalistic thinking to the very core.

 

[Parthelan]

So much so that even a couple of extremists who have obviously spent years studying his 'word' not be able to agree on what they're supposed to believe?

You may well have studied European and/or Church history, so forgive me for the simplified example Im about to give - I do so because it's very difficult to explain in a few sentences if you have no background in the topic.

What's going on here can be likened in a way to:

Imagine your great great grandfather was a carpenter. His son wrote down what his father said and did, but also commented in the writing that not everything his father said and did was recorded, but the son, your great grandfather, was fully aware of all these things, both written and unwritten but practiced.

Now, time marches on and your great grandfather builds his trade based entirely on what his father did and said, and everyone knows its both thats involved in the business, because they have the authentic word of the son.

Now, he has a son, your grandfather, and the business carries on booming, everyone adhering to what the founder, your great great grandfather, said and did, because they have both the written word, and the tradition handed down.

Your father carries on in exactly the same manner, and now, so do you.

BUT, another business sets up across the road, doing what you do, and cashing in on your great great grandfathers fame, only now, they are telling everyone certain things have to change, because even though your great great grandfathers instruction manual says to do x, they say he actually meant do xy.

Not only that, but they are also telling your workers that your great great grandfather never said abc, because its not written down!!!

So they grow their business and attract a lot of custom because its much easier to do xy than x, and they can skip abc completely because if your great great grandfather never wrote it down, then he never meant for abc to happen.

Even though you have 5 continuous generations of information, practice, tradition and the manual.

Who do you think would be more faithful to your great great grandfathers way of working - you and your workers, with your 5 generations of unbroken succession, or the bodget and leggitt cowboys who set up across the road, proclaim to know what your great great grandfather really meant, and offer their customers a completely adulterated version of your great great grandfathers manual.

That's what's going on with DCE. He's professing he knows more than the martyrs, doctors, fathers and saints of the church with 2000 years of unbroken theology doctrine faith and practice.
Because he reads the Bible and takes what he wants from it according to his own personal interpretation.

 

[paultnl]

Why not predict that Jewish people will be scattered the world over but that they will eventually become their own nation (which happened in 1948)?

Why not predict the very calendar day on which Israel's Messiah would enter the rebuilt city of Jerusalem (which happened in 32AD)?

Why not predict the complete tearing down of the temple in Jerusalem, stone by stone (which happened in 70AD when soldiers prized rocks apart in order to access gold)?

There are very many such past predictions, and scholars agree that they were documented well in advance of their fulfillment. And before you suggest that they were sufficiently vague to be interpreted any which way we like, what about other very specific predictions that have yet to come about?

1) A country in the far north of Europe will ally with the nation we now call Iran in order to attack Israel (two countries which, incidentally, have never been allied).

2) An earthquake will cause a split from east to west below the city of Jerusalem (and modern science has found a fault running through that exact spot).

3) The Israelis will rebuild their temple in Jerusalem.

Maybe this forum message will still be around when these things happen - predicted over 2,000 years ago. Once again, we don't have the ability to know the future. The implications of predictions of such specificity coming about ought to shake naturalistic thinking to the very core.

I think you will find Jules Verne had a better hit rate.

 

[Cornish Steve]

I think you will find Jules Verne had a better hit rate.

A writer I admire because he had a terrific imagination, but his hit rate was, unfortunately, a big duck egg. Then again, he wasn't even pretending to predict the future.

 

[cjd]

That's what's going on with DCE. He's professing he knows more than the martyrs, doctors, fathers and saints of the church with 2000 years of unbroken theology doctrine faith and practice.
Because he reads the Bible and takes what he wants from it according to his own personal interpretation.

Well really why should I care? I mean, I have some sympathy for you because you don't immediately strike me a someone as deluded as DCE (who believes that Noah really did have an ark, that the end of the world is imminent and that blood transfusion is somehow sinful) but I'm worried that anytime now you'll tell me you're a Catholic - which means that you have to believe equally ridiculous things like the transubstantiation, virgin birth and papal infallibility.

Steve isn't stupid either but until very recently he thought evolution was wrong and still thinks that hitting children with a leather strap is 'beautiful' and that Jesus Christ would approve of capital punishment.

You see, it's all very problematic for a liberal rationalist like me to think that these explanations of yours add up and make any kind of sense - no matter what is says in any bloody book; particularly of such dubious origin. (As you infer, it was written and edited by man for political reasons several hundred years after the 'fact'.)