America remains a deeply religious nation, but a new survey finds most Americans don't believe their tradition is the only way to eternal life — even if the denomination's teachings say otherwise.
The findings, revealed Monday in a survey of 35,000 adults, can either be taken as a positive sign of growing religious tolerance, or disturbing evidence that Americans dismiss or don't know fundamental teachings of their own faiths.
Among the more startling numbers in the survey, conducted last year by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: 57 percent of evangelical church attenders said they believe many religions can lead to eternal life, in conflict with traditional evangelical teaching.
In all, 70 percent of Americans with a religious affiliation shared that view, and 68 percent said there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their own religion.
"The survey shows religion in America is, indeed, 3,000 miles wide and only three inches deep," said D. Michael Lindsay, a Rice University sociologist of religion.
"There's a growing pluralistic impulse toward tolerance and that is having theological consequences," he said.
Earlier data from the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, released in February, highlighted how often Americans switch religious affiliation. The newly released material looks at religious belief and practice as well as the impact of religion on society, including how faith shapes political views.
The report argues that while relatively few people — 14 percent — cite religious beliefs as the main influence on their political thinking, religion still plays a powerful indirect role.
The study confirmed some well-known political dynamics, including stark divisions over abortion and gay marriage, with the more religiously committed taking conservative views on the issues.
But it also showed support across religious lines for greater governmental aid for the poor, even if it means more debt and stricter environmental laws and regulations.
By many measures, Americans are strongly religious: 92 percent believe in God, 74 percent believe in life after death and 63 percent say their respective scriptures are the word of God.
But deeper investigation found that more than one in four Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants and Orthodox Christians expressed some doubts about God's existence, as did six in ten Jews.
Another finding almost defies explanation: 21 percent of self-identified atheists said they believe in God or a universal spirit, with 8 percent "absolutely certain" of it.
"Look, this shows the limits of a survey approach to religion," said Peter Berger, a theology and sociology professor at Boston University. "What do people really mean when they say that many religions lead to eternal life? It might mean they don't believe their particular truth at all. Others might be saying, 'We believe a truth but respect other people, and they are not necessarily going to hell.'"
Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum, said that more research is planned to answer those kinds of questions, but that earlier, smaller surveys found similar results.
Nearly across the board, the majority of religious Americans believe many religions can lead to eternal life: mainline Protestants (83 percent), members of historic black Protestant churches (59 percent), Roman Catholics (79 percent), Jews (82 percent) and Muslims (56 percent). Continue >>
RSS
And feelfine at least from prophets writtings he is bearing fruit I would dare say that you sir are lacking in that area all togeather with you denying of the truth of scripture and the twisting thereof. Where still praying for you tho. Gods Blessing In Christ Tom
wbmoore,
That is so true...and sad. It's a constant struggle to keep false teachings from entering into the church. Especially when it comes under the guise of "tolerance".
When Satan brings a misguiding doctrine to the church, he whispers in the ears of God's people the same thing that he said to Eve:
You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman, "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Today he says "You won't die. If you learn and teach this doctrine you will be even more like God." And since we are in a state of trying to attain to the image of Christ, this becomes very tempting....
Prophet, I agree. My issue is not with unbliblical traditions. However, I do have problems with that are counter biblical, or those churches that do not teach the bible.
I've seen Sunday school classes teach Native American religion, instead of the Bible. I've seen Wednesday evening children's group being absolutely nothing more than baby sitting, teaching arts and crafts but no Bible. I've seen youth groups be nothing more than party-time. I've seen preaching that teaches the opposite of what the Bible teaches. THESE sorts of things irritate me. It is the parent's responsibility to teach the word to their children, but its the church's job to help grow disciples.
If a practice is scriptural, I have no problem with it. And there are things that Christians do that aren't found in the Scriptures, but they don't build tenets and doctrines on them.
For example...many churches utilize Sunday School. Is it scriptural. No. Is it a doctrine? No. It is merely a tool in attaining knowledge. Same as many churches have mid-week services. Although they are not found in the scriptures, they are not doctrine, but they are simply another chance to grow in Christ.
The Bible doesn't say how often we should get together. In Acts, they church got together everyday. But they didn't make it a doctrine or requirement. Sometimes I wish we'd still do that. By the time Saturday rolls around I am already becoming spritually depleted and exhausted by the onslaught of sin thrown at me all week. Having a church meeting every night would certainly keep me stronger.
This is the point. If it becomes a doctrine, and it's not in the Scriptures then you might want to think about a change of churches. If wearing a particular colored robe is a doctrine or requirement, then it is not the church for me. It is bondage.
Luther had a word for such traditions.(It's a word I have forgotten, in my old age.) Unlike Calvin, who wanted to "purify" every aspect of the church, Luther did not object to leaving some Catholic practices, if they were not expressly forbidden by scripture.
Man-made, I think.
Do the colors in anyway affect the spiritual life of the parishioners? Or are they merely man-made traditions?
Not sure exactly. It has to do with the liturgical church calendar, which is ancient. These colors were decided a thousand years ago, I guess. In the Episcopal Church, it always looks sort of "un-American" to me. The colors (especially the purples and scarlets and deep reds) are a Romish holdover from Catholicism. (But that's just my own prejudice showing.)
Why does the episcopal church use purple or scarlet robes?
I think the Episcopal Church uses scarlet and purple robes sometimes, both of them, but I don't think they are arguing about the color. Lots of my ancestors were Episcopalians. Maybe that is the church for me and my house. From another article:
"A Primates Council which consists only of a self-selected group from among the Primates of the Communion will not pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion, he [the Archbishop of Canterbury] stated. 'And any claim to be free to operate across provincial boundaries is fraught with difficulties, both theological and practical.'
I say, he's right.
"U.S. Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori lamented the GAFCON statement. 'Anglicanism has always been broader than some find comfortable. This statement does not represent the end of Anglicanism, merely another chapter in a centuries-old struggle for dominance by those who consider themselves the only true believers.'"
I say, she's right.
Scarlet or purple? Both.
Take heed, "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2Pe 3:16).
ifeelfine, please note that the word, INTERPRETED, in the definition of inerrancy refers to the correct interpretation from a language point of view as opposed to one's personal interpretation of those autographs.
ifeelfine, please don't ever accuse me of interpreting the Scriptures like you do, because here you are trying to use a totally irrelavant issue with regards to the color of a robe and try to equate that to justfying sexual practices that are clearly condemned in both the Old and New Testaments alike. Let me first off define for you inerrancy. It means that when all the facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs, properly interpreted, will be shown to be wholly true in everything they affirm, whether this has to do with DOCTRINE, or MORALITY, or with the SOCIAL, PHYSICAL, or LIFE SCIENCES. The bottomline is that the Bible has been breathed by God. He used men to write out exactly what He wanted them to write. He kept them free from error but at the same time used their unique personalities and styles to convey exactly what He wanted. There are several reasons why the color of the robe may differ. The robe was old and worn, the robe was blood stained, the dye for the robe was not distinct and scarlet and purple are both similar colors, but the difference of opinion of the writers has no impact on the inerrancy of the Scriptures because the color of the robe has nothing to do with biblical truth.
I believe that the Scriptures are factually inerrant when the Bible said that the walls of Jericho fell.
I believe that the Scriptures are fatually inerrant when it says that Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed by fire.
I believe the Scriptures are inerrant when they say that Jesus healed the leper, raised the dead, cast the demons out.
I believe the Scriptures are inerrant when they say that adultery is a sin. And lying, murder, homosexuality, greed, deceit, etc.
believer: Now we are getting somewhere. You're right, the color of the robe has no bearing on the truths taught in the Bible. But then you cannot claim A) factual inerrency (red or purple - it was one color or the other - the Bible doesn't say both) and B) a literal translation of the Bible (it was literally one or the other). Now, you're right, the truths of the Bible still hold. When you claim factual inerrency (which you are now saying you don't claim), it makes a position of holding literal stronger - but you cannot make that claim anymore. Therefore, you're expert's hermenuetic is no better than my expert's hermenuetic.
Prophet: If you can judge a man by his fruits, yours are starting to smell a little rotten.
The inerrant word is hard to believe
When drunk on venom meant to deceive
They stumble at purple or is it scarlet
Seduced by kisses from a laughing harlot
They entertain whispers filling their head
The mantra of Satan: Yea, hath God said?
They stumble at purple or is it scarlet
Led through the night by a laughing harlot
Whether by purpose, or by ignorance, ifeelfine is straining on a gnat. He's so focused on what color the robe was, that he misses the message.
The Bible is the INSPIRED Word of God. Not the SPOKEN Word of God. God did not write it Himself. He gave the inspiration to His chosen vessels and let them express it with their own personality. I could say that the dog ran faster than a jack rabbit. Another might say that the dog ran faster than a scared fox. A carnal man would nitpick at the wording and miss the message that the dog was running pretty darn fast.
Josh McDowell puts it very succinctly..."The truth of Scripture is found in what the Bible reveals, not in everything it records."
The Gospels were written as historical documents. They record, as best as possible, the events of Jesus' life. The exacts may not be present, but the message doesn't change.
In conclusion, if the color of the robe put on Jesus was of any consequence to anything whatsoever, I would say "yah, argue your heads off!" But since it has no bearing on anything in the Kingdom of God let us take this scripture to heart...
"Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness..."
2 Timothy 2:14-16
As I've said, people who do not want to believe, or who put themselves at the same level as God will look for reasons to not believe the Bible is the word of God. It makes it less convicting when they choose to not follow any given part of it.
ifeelfine has gotten so desperate that he's resorted to arguing over a color of a robe. Talk about grasping at straws....
I also like the suggestion that the robe was covered in blood, and thus appeared scarlet.
ifeelfine, on the color issue, how does the writer of Matthew saying the color of the robe was scarlet, not red, and the writers of Mark and John saying the color of the robe was purple in anyway disprove the inerrancy of the Word of God, since the color of the robe has absolutely no impact on any of the truths taught in God's Word?
ifeelfine, the color of Christ's robe wasn't what you walked away from. Your last post spoke to you not believing in the factual inerrancy of the Scriptures and that your faith was not based on factual inerrancy.
believer: I defended my position very well, it is you who has yet to convince me that red and purple are the same color. I haven't run from any challenge - you're making that up - there hasn't really been a challenge to my position.
Torus,
You said, "That's easy. It would take the exact same thing that it would take me to convince you that the pantheon of Mayan gods is real."
What does that mean? I would readily believe in a myriad of gods given that you had a satisfactory argument. Suppose you give an objective argument for why a myriad of gods best explains the nature of the comsos, a philosophical argument for why a myriad of gods is superior to philosophical positions for monotheism and atheism, a historical argument with a strong proof of a detailed and accurate account of when some of these myriad of gods intervened in the world, and finally an invitation to personally know and have a relationship with this myriad of gods open to all people who seek.
This answer really was dodging the question. The question was, "What will it take for YOU to believe in God" Specifically the Christian God. Your counter question would be like a person asking me, "Chris what would it take for you to believe that George Washington was the first President of the USA" and I answered, "Well what would it take for you to believe that hundreds of other people were the first President of the USA!" The counter question is really not pertinent. The issue at hand is the existence of God and the necessary evidence that it would take for YOU to believe in Him.
ifeelfine, I've read your other response to prophet and I as well as this one and if this were the first time I noticed this it would be no big deal, but I've noticed on several occassions when myself or others begin to really challenge some of your views you tend to leave that thread/site. Needless to say that's your choice, but I guess for me considering the seriousness of some of these discussions I would think a person would want to defend their viewpoint once again considering the seriousness of these issues and it surprises me that you don't.
Believer said: "Is it just me or do I get the sense that when ifeelfine gets in a tight spot he/she hits the ground running or is it just my imagination?"
I said all I wanted to say about the subject, clearly some people here think red and purple are the same color. I don't. And continuing this discussion doesn't help anyone get closer to God, not you, not me, not the unbeliever, so why continue it?
Prophet: Having grown up on a farm in the midwest, the parable about the mustard seed was always special to me. Matthew 13 has always been special to me as well. You can take the boy off the farm but can't take the farm out of the boy! :)
"I'd better stop. I already sound like I know more about all this than I do."
That was my weak "apology." Or, put it this way: When I reread what I had written, I FELT like apologizing. My good intention..... Now I'll say it. I'm sorry to post such an inane comment.
hlerwin,
No you didn't apologize in your post.
wbmoore,
In high school I actually dated a girl for a short time that try to convince me that we each make our own reality, that we are figments of each other's imagination.
To which I asked "So then, who's the real person?"
She said "No one."
That relationship took a quick nose dive after that conversation.
Star,
Amen! I fully and totally agree.
My entry below appears on three articles. Please don't think I am spamming my stuff. I just didn't know where I wanted to put it.
God's Word is truth (John 17:17) and Jesus is the only way to God the Father and eternal life (John 14:6).
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:13)
"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in who they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" (Roman 10:14)
"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:15-16)
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" (Hebrews 9:37)
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him sould not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)
"But God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Romans 3:23)
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23)
"...Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved..." (Acts 16:30-31)
"That if thou shall confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."(Romans 10:9)
"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." (Romans 3:21)
"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And him that is athrist come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." (Rev 22:17)
"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth:....And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Rev 21:1,27)
Rev 20:11-15
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Sorry, wbmoore. I see now that that older post WAS an answer to my question. Thanks. I think I am recovering, slightly, from my psychobabble episode. That post even made ME dizzy.
That 8:31 post WAS psychobabble! Sorry..... I must have been hungry before a late supper. I think I even apologized in the post, didn't I? It was pretty lame.
Is it just me or do I get the sense that when ifeelfine gets in a tight spot he/she hits the ground running or is it just my imagination?
Prophet!!!!
YOU ARE SO FUNNY! You are, my man, true prophet!
I REALLY loved your post! I HAD to read it to my wife. she also laughed!
too funny.
hlerwin,
I like your post at 8:31 pm. It's a textbook example of humanism/postmodernism. A postmodernist can explain away anything...including themselves. It's all relative to each individuals reality.
He talks of being narrowmindedness. Humanists tend to be extremely open minded...taking in everything, yet accomplishing nothing. My truth may intrude on your truth, therefore causing a tremor in one or more dimensions. When this happens, the consequences can be catastrophic. Maybe not in our dimension, but possibly in another. If two realities were to collide and contradict on such a level in our own reality, then the effect is much like having two physical objects occupying the same space. It can't happen. It is impossible, but then again, are the two physical objects really there, or merely part of one of our realities, therefore in someone elses reality it would not exist. If that is the case, then of course two items could not exist in the same space because one may not even truly exist, unless the person who's reality is in question so desires it to exist.
But the question is not whether our own reality exists, but the true question is that can we bend our reality to suit our purposes or are they set, like a default value. If they are set, then are they're truly not our realities since we have no control over them. And if we could bend them, and our realities collide with another person's reality, could we, in theory bend their's too since their reality in a partial sense becomes ours? Or can they bend ours? Then once again, if that is so, then they cannot be our realities since we have limited control over them.
I'd better stop. I already sound like I know more about all this than I do. It's not that profound.
Wow...I can psycho-babble like hlerwin! I better stop, otherwise I just may prove that he doesn't exist. Then I won't have anyone to talk to.
ifeelfine,
You said "if you see one mustard plant in your garden or yard, get rid of it immediately because the stuff spreads like nothing else."
Wow, it makes it clearer why Jesus used the mustard seed as his example. When a person has the faith of a mustard seed, uses it, and God performs...faith grows and grows and infests others and increases their faith until it it almost uncontrollable.
hlerwin,
I did answer you, but it was apparently not direct enough. sorry. My father was a liar - and if someone lies in one area, how do you know if he is not lying in another? I could only trust him so far - sometimes what he said would be true, sometimes not. Sometimes it was a purposeful lie, and sometimes a mistake. But I expect humans to be weak. I expect humans to make mistakes.
As I posted before and was apparently too much shorthand (sorry), I expect people to make mistakes. On the other hand, God is perfect. He either wrote the Bible and it can be trusted, or He did not write it and its a worthless bunch of stories (that has as little value as the any tabloid magazine) and none of it can be trusted, because men make mistakes. If it can't be trusted, then there might be a grain of truth in it, but certainly no more than in any other writing - and certainly not enough to base one's life upon, nor to gamble upon concerning an afterlife.
And yes, I know I am the product of a movement - the movement of God. God knew me before I was created. He called me, and prepared everything so I would be ready to make the commitment to be a believer.
There is only one way to the One Truly Living God - through Christ Jesus. There is no other way and anyone who says otherwise is either deceived, lying or doesn't know the truth.
I have been close to (and loved) some very dogmatic people, a few of whom accomplished great things. It is so interesting to try to get a glimpse of your mindset, wbmoore. (Excuse me if this sounds patronizing. I tried to rephrase the remark but can't come up with another way to say it just now. Your remark that I was "living proof" of a "movement" could be taken as patronizing, but I did not do that.)
Somewhere, wbmoore, I asked if you ever trusted your earthly father after you found out that he had made some mistakes? Would you tell me if you did?
Einstein wrote about this topic, didn't he? That something "is" and then "is not" at the same time. Different dimensions? It's a big universe, wbmoore. (I'm no Einstein authority.) We are all of us products of "movements." Your "movement" is beginning to merge back into movements that already existed before Jesus came. But much of the good that Christianity brought will linger and continue to improve lives. The narrower views may get narrower and narrower until they are almost gone. I do know that I am a product of a "movement." Do you know that you are, too? I'd better stop. I already sound like I know more about all this than I do. It's not that profound.
It seems to me that people who believe the Bible is not written by God must think that God is not very powerful or unloving - otherwise if God loved us, and was powerful enough, He would make it clear what was needed to be with Him.
I expect people to make mistakes. On the other hand, God is perfect. He either wrote the Bible and it can be trusted, or He did not write it and its a worthless bunch of stories (that has as little value as the any tabloid magazine) and none of it can be trusted, because men make mistakes. If it can't be trusted, then there might be a grain of truth in it, but certainly no more than in any other writing - and certainly not enough to base one's life upon, nor to gamble upon concerning an afterlife.
hlerwin, you are living evidence of the damage the post modern movement has done. It seems in your world, something both is and is not simultaneously.
ifeelfine72, let me be more clear,
The entire Bible is written in terms that were specifically used for the intended audiences.
ifeelfine, your faith is not based on factual inerrancy, you've got to be kidding, the fact that Christ died on the cross and the fact that Christ rose from the dead has nothing to do with your faith and if it were proven that Christ got run over by a runaway camel and they found His remains those two facts wouldn't challenge if not destroy your faith? Then what do you put your faith in your opinion as you did with the color of the robe issue? You have in no way successfully refuted the inerrancy of the Word of God you have just shown us how you justify rejecting those truths taught in the Bible that you disagree with.
hlerwin - Believe it or not, I agree whole-heartedly with you. My faith is not dependent upon the color of Jesus' robe. It's not dependent on the factual inerrency or errency of the Bible. It's dependent upon Christ's power to save.
believer: I don't believe I am, some claim factual inerrency of the scriptures, I don't. I've proven my point and have said enough about it. God bless.
ifeelfine, your straining gnats big time to make a feeble attempt at proving your point. The color of the robe is totally irrelavant to the point that is being taught in those passages of Scripture. Is the glass half full or is the glass half empty doesn't change the amount of water in the glass.
If my faith depended on my having to know the exact color of Jesus's robe (scarlet or purple?), a discussion which some of you seemed to take seriously, I would be dispirited indeed! How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
prophet: The parable /analogy Jesus used was an excellent one. A mustard seed is tiny (I've seen one before) and if you see one mustard plant in your garden or yard, get rid of it immediately because the stuff spreads like nothing else.
wbmoore: What does that mean? Either the entire Bible was written in that manner or it wasn't. . . and I'm trying to pin you down to prove a point. If you claim you can have it both ways, then we are in agreement. If you claim one way or the other than you've got some explaining to do! :)
believer: It can't, because those aren't the same color.
wbmoore, did you ever trust your earthly father again after you realized that he made mistakes?
wbmoore, if my last post is in anyway in disagreement with you with regards to the superintending of the Holy Spirit please feel free to correct me, thanks believer
wbmoore, you said "You can't have it both ways."
I think I can. I think you can, too, but if you think you can't, I certainly won't force the issue.
ifeelfine, I'm not sure this phrase is original to Josh McDowell, but he uses this phrase in conjunction with what wbmoore said in his 4:56 post, that God did not write the Bible rather God through the Holy Spirit superintended the writing of the Bible to ensure in its original manuscripts it was written without error. This would allow for the reason why Matthew records scarlet and Mark and John record purple and why both can be right and without error as I explained in my earlier post.
Jesus said "If you would have the faith the size of a mustard seed....etc, etc, etc." How big is a mustard seed? I don't know. I've never seen one. But the people of His time were probably very familiar with mustard seeds. That's why He used it as an analogy. I don't think that people of His time would have understood if He had said "If you would have faith the size of a microchip...." It just wouldn't have the same effect, you think?
The Bible is written in terms that were specifically used for the intended audiences.
wbmoore: Are you suggesting the entire Bible is written in that manner?
In which case both accounts would be true.
ifeelfine72
God wrote the Bible through the use of men. Each man has his own language, vocabulary, writing style. God had them write what happened, and as each man had a different audience, they used terms common to those audiences. I might use the term burgundy when discussing a color with some people, but use the term purple when discussing the same with other people. Same author, different audience, different term, all discussing the same color. Same thing with God the author of the Bible.
Regarding the robe's color, it could have been purple, then stained to scarlet by the profuse bleeding of the man who wore it.
Authority (Cont)
Unity Argument
The Bible: many authors, Written over about a 1500 year period, and in many forms ie law, narrative, poetry etc.
Only if all the authors were writing the same truths could we allow scripture to interpret scripture (Analogy of Faith)
Other Arguments
Superior Manuscript Evidence, Historical Accuracy, Nonbiblical Validation (Josephus, Philo etc.) Archeological Evidence.
I do not doubt the literal inerrancy of the Bible.
ifeelfine, Matthew 27:28, scarlet robe Mark 15:17 and John 19:2, purple suggesting that the robe may have been something between royal purple and scarlet the closest thing they could find to the traditional garb of royalty. No contradiction, no error, simply a different personal interpretation of an undistinct color which has absolutely no spiritual implications whatsoever, you say tamater I say tomatoe. The Bible in it's original text continues to remain the God- breathed, plenary, and inerrant Word of God.
wbmoore: You're proving my point exactly. Purple and red are two different colors - God wouldn't make that mistake but humans would (and clearly did).
BTW: If it was written for a specific audiance at a specific time then what makes you think its to be taken literally?
Authority for Scripture (Holy Bible)
Prophecies Argument (in a nutshell)
Consevative estimate of Bible prophecies historically verifiable as to have come true: 245! Prophecy is much more complex than flipping a coin yet chance of flipping a coin and landing on heads 245 times in a row (mathematically impossible) is more likely to occur.
Conservative estimate of Bible prophecies Christ fulfilled: 30! Chance that any man at any time fulfilling even 8 prohecies is 1 in 10to the 17th or
1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000.
hlerwin, if you don't believe that then what compelled you to become a Christian?
hlerwin,
If it a reflection of writers, and Jesus never claimed to be the Christ, nor God, then it cant be trusted. Then its not the word of God. You can't have it both ways. Its either the word of God and can be trusted, or it is not the word of God, and it cant be trusted.
So if the rabbi did not claim to be the christ or God, then the writers/collectors invented it or he said it. If he did not say it, then the entire Bible can not be trusted. If he DID say it, then he's liar, lunatic, or Lord. If you believe THAT part of it (saying He's Lord), then why not believe the part where He said HE is the only way?
Of course it was written by God. It was written by God using human authors who each had their own vocabulary, style, audience, and purpose. Someone can use the word scarlet, when someone else would use burgundy when someone else would use purple. In fact, it has been shown that where were various colors all defined as red or purple - the words were often used interchangeably. There is no inconsistency.
wbmoore: Its not a logical fallacy at all. After all, we are talking about faith. If its to be taken literally, then how do you rectify the purple / red robe?
hlerwin: Was your post directed at me? I apologize if I spoke out of turn for you.
I realize that there is truth to be found in many places. But few of them are complete truth. On the other hand, you've said the Bible is the word of God. If it is the word of God, then it can be trusted. If it can not be trusted, then it i not the word of God.
You can't have it both ways. If it is just a collection of stories, then it cant be trusted. It is a logical fallacy to say it can not be trusted THERE but I trust it HERE and yet its the word of God. That puts you in the place of God, deciding what HE said what He did not.
No, I do not believe that. If you want no further contact with me, don't respond.
hlerwin, so I can better understand your views, do you believe that Jesus Christ is the only way a perosn can enter into a personal relationship with God and have a home in heaven for eternity? Not one way or another way but the only way?
wbmoore: For one thing, you don't have to choose just one of those three things. Personally, He is Lord and I believe hlerwin probably feels the same way. I will say that you cannot take the Bible literally. There are errors in it. For example, Christ's robe at the crucifixion: was it purple or red? Both are written and it couldn't be both because those are two different colors. You have to use semantic gymnastics to say they are the same or to claim that he was wearing a robe of both colors (which it doesn't say). There are a bunch of those types of factual examples . . . but just because they exist doesn't mean it's not the Word of God - it just wasn't written by God. Peace.
Also, to cut-and-paste steveh, who quoted another comment:
"Jesus is either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord worthy of our reverence and obedience."
There is another option here, and that is that he is none of these but rather a reflection of the gospel writers views on a charasmatic travelling rabbi (of which there were many at that time), using such sources as Q.
I'm not saying this is correct but I am saying that the "he is or isn't" statement is not telling the entire story.
Steve
I can trust the Bible, wbmoore, because I don't share your all-or-nothing approach. To bring in Shakespeare again, I find many "errors" in Shakespeare, but i still recoginize the truth when he hits on it. I feel the same way about the Bible.
hlerwin,
You did not answer:
If you can not trust a particular part of the Bible, what makes you think you can trust it about anything?
If it is only 'inspired' stories, then it is possible to be erroneous. If there is any single error extant in the work, then every word is suspect. If there is a reason to suspect anything in the Bible, then no word can be trusted. Therefore, you can not trust the Bible where Christ said he was God, nor where He said 'it is finished' (talking about His saving work). If You can not trust His saving work, then you can not truly have faith. If you do not have faith in God, and his saving work through Christ, then you are not saved and will not go to heaven.
If you think Jesus was only a good moral man, then you must be mistaken, because then he would have to have been either a liar, a lunatic, or telling the truth when He claimed to be God. If he is a liar, then you have no need to believe anything he taught, because He is not a good moral man. If he is a lunatic, then you have no need to believe anything he taught, because what crazy people say is alway suspect, and he can not be a good moral man. If he was telling the truth, then He is GOD, and not just a good moral man.
You have to choose: is he a liar, a lunatic, or Lord?
I became a Christian after living with my Christian wife for about 10 years. We've now been married 37 years. I made a public confession to follow Christ after I saw such abundant fruits in my wife's life for so many years. I've never regretted my decision.
hlerwin, I you're willing would you share how you became a Christian, because I know once you posted that you were born a Christian and later corrected that to say you were born in a Christian family or home, so I would really be interested to know this if you're okay with this, thanks, believer.
And, by their fruits you shall know them. In general, the Buddhists I have met seem to act like "better" folks than most Christians. Not that I plan to become a Buddhist, either..... I guess, deep down, I put more stock in the "fruits" than in the printed word.
I don't think I said the Bible was "a collection of stories," though I wouldn't argue with that phrase. I think they are God-inspired stories. I think the Buddhist scriptures are God-inspired, too. As are the ones in the Koran. Jesus and Buddha would agree on a lot, I believe. Not so sure about Mohammed, but his Sufi followers get the whole picture, I think. (When asked if Sufism was bigger than Islam, one Sufi master said, "Yes, it's bigger than Islam. It's bigger than all the religions." As for my house, I plan to live and die a Christian.) But about the atonement, that's about as imponderable as the trinity or transubstatiation. Don't ask me!
hlerwin,
So if the Bible is just a collection of stories, written by man, what makes you think that Christ was sent to die for our sins?
hlerwin---you got it! There's a concept in Biblical theology that (tanslated into common English) each person is as equally bad as the next! Each of us has the ability to be just as ignorant as the next guy!
This is why the Bible speaks to the issue of humility so much. There seems to be two camps...those who are so closed minded they can't get out of their own heads and those who are so open minded that their brains leaked out! :-)
We all tend to be closed-minded and so defensive of our precious positions. I don't think either side of this debate is "guiltier" than the other side, do you?
"I have no problem with sharing with torus either the gospel or some form of logical argument for the proof of the existence of God."
Yepper!!! The Bible says to be prepared to give a defense of the hope that is in you. It never says they will believe it or accept it. I have found that those who use 'closed minded' as an argument against Christianity turn out to be even more closed minded than they think we are.
Here's the perspective...how many of us were not just as closed minded towards the Gospel at one time? Except for the Grace of God...it be me!
I'm reminded of the "Wonderful One Hoss Shay," by Holmes(?). It was an attack on 19th-century Biblical literalists. It is astounding to me that in the 21st century(!) we are still hashing over these ideas. There really is nothing new under the sun, is there?
My father, who died at 91, was a very wise man (and a man of faith). My mother, also, at 93 is wise (and a woman of faith). But by the time I was 7 or 8, I guess, I knew that my parents weren't right about everything, all the time. Still, I knew their intentions were correct, and in my own childish way I could easily overlook the places where my parents were wrong. Now that I'm in my 60s, I see lots of times they were wrong or ignorant of the real situation, just as I see those times that I was wrong or ignorant with my own children. I'm actually glad my children did not do EVERYTHING I told them to. And I'm especially glad they did not pick up any of my prejudices or narrowness on certain subjects. I cannot ever remember writing out my view on this topic, wbmoore. Thank you for promting me to consider what I think about this.
hlerwin
But if you find some inaccuracy or something you find you can not trust in the Bible, why do you think any of it is trustworthy?
I believe the Bible, wbmoore, because there is so much truth in it. I believe the truth that I find in Shakespeare, too, and in Goethe. I believe in the truth that I find in Richard Wagner (and in "Carmen," of all places!) and the truth spoken by the Dalai Lama, for instance (in another religious area). I believe Martin Luther King when he quoted Theodore Parker, who said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." My mind is finite. I can be as simple-minded about some topics as the next man. But just because the Bible, like so many ancient texts, claims to be "the complete and final truth," I don't think I have to be so simple-minded that I can't see truth in other places. Didn't God give me my brain? Besides, to paraphrase Ghandi, "I would believe every word of the Christian Bible, but I have met too many of those people who 'believe every dot a tittle.'" By their fruits you will know them. And they are not people, with a very few exceptions, that I would choose for role models.
hlerwin,
If you don't believe all the Bible is the Word of God and intended to be followed, why believe any of it?
Either the Bible is the word of God or it is not. If there are inaccuracies in it in one place, how can you believe any of it? How can you claim to say you believe the Bible, but not where Jesus said he's the only way to heaven. It seems to me that if you can't trust one part of the Bible, you can't trust any of it. What makes you think you can trust any of it? Why follow any of it?
hlerwin,
I see you are discussing the same thing with wbmoore at the other article "Evangelicals Lesser Known..." so I shall look for your reply there.
hlerwin,
I'm still catching up on this thread, since I've been out a few days, but your comment caught my eye:
"These "fruits" only prove that these are good people, not that their god is the correct (or the only) one."
Two questions come to mind:
1. On what basis do you judge the morality of their actions? What is the foundation for that evaluation?
2. I take it you admit there is a Supreme Being. Since almost all the major world religions teach that their way to God is the only way, they cannot ALL be correct. It seems that the only question that remains is which one IS correct, or which God is the One True God? Would you agree?
Chris333
I went back and re-read some of the dialog, and I take the comments from the believers a little differently now. Accusing believers in general of using critisms with the intent of judging or hurting toru is out of place. So, forgive me.
Also, my comments were for believers in general and they were not directed towards you specifically. The only reason why it was addressed to you because you were the only one who addressed or acknowledged my first post on the issue.
Let's consider the fruits of the spirit, wbmoore. In Hawaii many of our neighbors would "spend time in prayer, reading scripture, studying the scripture (alone and with others), teaching, preaching, helping the sick, helping the poor, visiting people in jail, visiting people in the hospital, visiting people in the retirement home, sharing Buddha's love, evangelizing. While God might illumine a fuller understanding of His word, He never contradicts his character or His Word. Everything needs to be tested against the Word of God." Yes, some Christians live this way, as do some Buddhists, some Jews and some Muslims. These "fruits" only prove that these are good people, not that their god is the correct (or the only) one.
Some of us spend time in prayer, reading scripture, studying the Bible (alone and with others), teaching, preaching, helping the sick, helping the poor, visiting people in jail, visiting people in the hospital, visiting people in the retirement home, sharing God's love, evangelizing.
While God might illumine a fuller understanding of His word, He never contradicts his character or His Word. Everything needs to be tested against the Word of God.
Star,
You said, "What I do have a problem with is criticizing him because he can't see it. There is a reason why he can't and I don't believe it is any fault of his own. If it is his fault then let God judge him."
I am not sure what you are referring to here? Also I do not know what you mean by criticizing? Criticism is absolutely necessary for an intelligent discussion, otherwise our conversation will go like this:
(Atheist): "I don't believe in God because it is silly"
(Theist): "Oh, so you don't believe in God because you think it is silly? Well I love you anyways!"
There is nothing wrong with this, but it lacks any substance and comes off as fake. I prefer to speak the truth, in a loving way. If I believe someone is wrong about something, I will tell them straight away and why, this is the definition of criticism. However, you may be referring to rude or snide criticism, which is important to avoid. If you believe I have been rude or snide towards Torus, please explain so that I can apologize and not make the same mistake again.
What does it mean by criticizing him because he cannot see it? I don't think I have criticized him, I have tried only to criticize his arguments (I try to separate arguments from people ;))
Hmmm.... How about:
John Robinson, 17th-century Pilgrim pastor, wrote, "There is more truth and light yet to break forth from God's holy word," and Gracie Allen said, "Never place a period where God has placed a comma." If God reveals any more truth, most of us will never see it because we are so stuck in our old, comfortable ways. And we prefer to work, socialize and go to church with people who already think the same way we do.
John Robinson, 17th-century Pilgrim pastor, wrote, “There is more truth and light yet to break forth from God’s holy word,†and Gracie Allen said, “Never place a period where God has placed a comma.†If God reveals any more truth, most of us will never see it because we are so stuck in our old, comfortable ways -- and we prefer to work, socialize and go to church with people who already think the same way we do.
These "Religious Americans" need The Infinite Savior!
http://polemos.net/The%20Infinite%20Savior.html
Okay, someone apparantley deleted my comment because I called the heretics 'dogs.' I was only following the pattern of Revelation 21, where God Himself calls the idolaters, muderers, false teachers and the like 'dogs'. Don't believe me? Look it up.
As far as I'm concerned, that's all they are (God said so, so what's so wrong with that view). I believe Christian attitude should be of grace and forgiveness, but of vehement hatred of heretics and false teachers: Look at Jesus' treatment of the Pharasees, he basically called the lot a brood of vipers.
Again, I'll make it clear: Any false teacher, false prophet, liberal theologian (one who denies the Trinity, endorses sin such as homosexual behaviour, etc. etc. etc.) should just be thrown out on the street - Where they belong.
hlerwin, I believe it is you who missed the point of this article and not id, what this article is saying is there are using your example rotatarians who are espousing the views of the kiwanians and vice versa. If you claim to be an active member of a group the logical conclusion is that your would adhere to the beliefs/doctrines of that group. One of the tenets of the faith in Southern Baptist churches for example is John 14:6 and for members of Southern Baptists churches to say that they believe there are other ways to eternal life other than Christ goes against that very tenet. But as I said in an earlier post there is reason to question the validity of this report because there is a high probability when people were asked if there were other religions that could lead to eternal life they considered other denominations as other religions that being the case the correct answer would be yes.
For ID4234: To make an almost ridiculous comparison, what if you were a Rotarian and I was a Kiwanian(sp?). Would it make sense for me, a member of Kiwanis, to observe the rules of the Rotary Club book? No, I think you'll agree. You and I think the Bible is God's word. (But I don't think so to the degree you do, I assume.) Other people do NOT have to live by OUR religion's scripture. Why is this point so hard to get across?
Jesus settled the question: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me." John 14:6. That's it.
Chris333
I have no problem with sharing with torus either the gospel or some form of logical argument for the proof of the existence of God.
What I do have a problem with is criticizing him because he can't see it. There is a reason why he can't and I don't believe it is any fault of his own. If it is his fault then let God judge him.
Maybe one day God will use something someone has said to plant a seed in his heart that God can use later to help him come to faith in Jesus.
Let us continue to share if he is willing to be a part of the discussion. But let us show him some agape love by not criticizing him because he just can't see our point about God's existence. Agape love never fails but malicious criticism does.
Thought I'd share for those who may be interested.
"What Hath God Wrought
The Transformation of America, 1815-1848"
by Daniel Walker Howe - Sep 2007
"Historian Daniel Walker Howe illuminates the period from the battle of New Orleans to the end of the Mexican-American War, an era when the United States expanded to the Pacific and won control over the richest part of the North American continent....
(In it) he reveals the power of religion to shape many aspects of American life during this period, including slavery and antislavery, women's rights and other reform movements, politics, education, and literature."
Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for History
Winner of the New-York Historical Society American History Book Prize
Finalist, 2007 National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction
Winner, SHEAR's Best Book Prize
Winner of the Silver Medal for Non-Fiction, California Book Awards
Excerpt from review:
"I was particularly impressed by his close and respectful attention to the history of American religion. Frankly, I expect a professor to be anti-religion and to sneer at the bohunks who believe in such things. Howe does not take that tone at all. Rather, his approach is to view 19th century American religion, like an anthropologist coming to a foreign nation. Which is to say, he does not assume that you know anything about it, and he explains in great detail where the different Protestant movements came from, what issues they disagreed, the contributions they made to different aspects of American life and so forth. Very informative, and not biased one way or the other. "
Schumacr,
Good points on the necessity of an eternal being, whether it be the universe or God.
On that note: modern metaphysics does not propose an eternal universe, but a temporal one that had a clear beginning. The best way to phrase the question is that, "All things which begin to exist have a cause" Then, "The universe began to exist", thus "The universe must have a cause". God never began to exist (according to the Christian perspective) and thus would not need a cause.
Star,
Excellent point, and I assure you I am aware of that. I am also aware that the only reason I am here, and believing in God and Christ is because of the power of God. That being said, He reaches out to us in different ways, some of us will need a strong argument, others a miracle, others something else. Let us pray for each other!
change 'discussion with' to 'criticism of'
You all seem to be missing these points in your discussion with torus:
2 Corinthians 4:3-4
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Jesus speaking:
John 6:44 - "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."
Why not pray for torus that God will remove the blinders off his eyes that he may see and that God will grant him the grace to hear the gospel and receive Jesus as Savior and Lord?
I dare say not one of us who have been born-again by the Spirit of God through the regeneration of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of a changed life became that way without God first revealing Himself to our hearts and granting us the grace to receive Jesus as Savior and Lord. Why expect more of torus?
Torus -
I wish I had more free time to post here as I do enjoy the conversations, but work gets in the way... :-( And I'm glad you think some of my proposals to you are worth considering, but there are many others out here who also have written sound arguments to you.
To answer a few of your questions briefly... Only things that begin need a cause and God doesn't have a beginning so He needs no cause. Yes, I know, at first blush this sounds silly, but as we can't have an infinite regress of causes, you and I have to go back to something that is eternal and unmade (like Aristotle's unmoved mover). I only see two options - either a mindless universe or a Creator - both of which are eternal and unmade (and I do refer to each of them as 'beings' as they have existence). I can't wrap my mind around your theory of a circular existence as I would think that circle must either be eternal or have started somehow and then wrapped back around. The Stoics and Nietzsche proposed just this thing though (they named it eternal recurrence).
I would like to pause and call your attention to Chris333's question to you, which I think is good to address: If we were able to give you logical and reasonable answers to your questions, would you be willing to put your trust in Christ today? Have you read about His life in the Gospels? If so, did you find anything about Him objectionable?
believer:
<<But what I'm sensing is when you get to the end of the road in this discussion each person still needs to by faith make a choice if there is a God and if that God is the God of the Bible.>>
You're right. REAL belief is a matter of the *will* and not mere intellectual assent. This is why Jesus asked some of his opponents, "Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts?" Not mind - hearts - which was/is a symbol of the seat of a person's will. Unfortunately, we humans are notorious for acting and living contrary to evidence. For example, nearly everyone alive wants to be fit and healthy, but the vast majority are not. Is it because they don't know *how* to become fit and healthy? No, there's plenty of information on that. Is it because they don't think it's important? No, there's compelling evidence on how much it matters. It's because the majority don't *will* to be fit and healthy. If they willed it, they'd accept - or *believe* the information - which would result in a change in their lives. Real belief always equates to action, and people miss this fact all the time. One professor wrote, "When we lack the will to see things as they really are, there is nothing so mysterious as the obvious."
It appears torus is not able to conceive of anything other than his own logic.
"I give up. You people can't put together a decent logical argument to save yourselves."
He simply cannot accept the point that we CANNOT save ourselves. This is why we need Jesus. His questions are several decades old at best. Francis Scheafer answered those questions in the 70s!
It is unfortunate but none the less a reality. We have stated things he cannot argue with so he throws the label of ignorant at us. He didn't even respond to what Schaefer wrote.
Maybe he'll come back and give it a shot!
*I said 3 month year old baby, that ought to be 3 month old baby... yeah... ;)
Torus,
One other thing I left out of (2). A blue dragon living in universe 5 is not synonymous with what I gave.
I did not propose that there exist multiple universes, I only proposed that God is outside of our universe. For all intents and purposes let us define it thus, God is separate from time/space/matter. (This is only excluding pantheistic concepts of God and is not proposing anything about the nature or form of God, thus a blue dragon is completely arbitrary, not related to the argument, and in other words a red herring, or blue one if you wish)
Torus,
1. What evidence would be satisfactory for you to change your mind?
2. Enlighten me, what are the ramifications of my belief in God?
3. (Regarding morals) In other words you believe that killing is a natural characteristic of humans. Obviously this means that it is not wrong in any way whatsoever, and may actually be "right" or at least evolutionarily advantageous.
3a. Name one war that was the logical outworking of the teachings of Christianity (as are found in the Bible). Atheistic philosophies have caused far greater death and destruction than any (perhaps all) religions throughout all of history. (Communist Russia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam were all based on strong atheist philosophies, Hitler's world views were based strongly on Social Darwinism)
3b. You said "(morality) means deep-seated in our subconscious or rationally developed."
I am not sure this exists, there is a great deal of corruption and abuse of people and the world, the main times people try to stop it is if it threatens them. Also, this is clearly moral relativism, I might create a rational argument for why I should enslave another person and force them to do hard labor, it may be beneficial for me, and I might not feel like it is wrong at all. You have not proposed a proof of morality, you have provided a proof for survival instincts and then attempted to translate that into morality, sorry but that doesn't work.
Here is a question that will illustrate, "Is it morally wrong (in your view) to kill a 3 month year old baby that has been found to have a hereditery genetic "defect". If you say no, explain using your own system.
shumacr: I also agree with your exposition on faith, which brings us back to the crux of the article: Is there more than one true faith? If there is only one true God, then there can only be one truth(HIS). So there must only be one true faith. Grace and Peace.
believer: Yes, basically we agree. God Bless.
logic, in my language it sounds like you said a person is only going to believe what they choose or want to believe especially if they pretty well have their mind made up already. And even though I didn't quite understand your post if my interpretation of it is correct I agree with you 100%. As a man once said we can lead a horse to water but we can't make them drink, but we can sure do our best to make him thirsty. I hope we may have done that with torus. Thanks logic for helping me out and be blessed as you serve Him, believer
I just read an article off the Baptist Press News website and they are bringing into question how the questions were asked in this survey since 61% of Southern Baptists surveyed said they believe Jesus is not the only way to be saved. What they feel may have happened is the question was not specific enough. When asked do you believe there are other religions that can lead a person to God they believe many of those surveyed confused religions with denominations and the correct answer would be yes in that case. They talked specifically to Southern Baptists and the conservative members of the breakaway Presbyterian churches who were surveyed. Hopefully their right in their interpretation of this survey, but still we in the evangelical community need to take discipleship of our members more seriously as well as teaching them apologetics.
believer: line with text problems should read, a presupposition that denies the possibility of X can not determine the existence of X
Believer: Regarding my post, it is logical to assert that objects do not cause themselves to exist and therefore have causes. However, regardless of the logic, ones presuppositions determine their perspective. I can not present an argument that would change the presuppositions of someone like our friend torus. For instance: A presupposition that denies the possibility of “X†can not determine the existence of “X†regardless of evidence for its existence. If, incontrovertible proof for the existence of God is presented one’s presuppositions force one to interpret the proof consistent with their presuppositions, disabling them from seeing the validity of the proof. Then, it is not within the power of science, logic or debate to change their perspective. Since I believe all men are equal I must accept that man can only be changed by something greater than man. So I believe that faith is not a result of deduction (power of man) but instead a result of change (power of God). This means one who refuses (free will) change can never overcome their presupposition.
I give up. You people can't put together a decent logical argument to save yourselves. Schumacr is the single exception and unfortunately one-per-day posts aren't conducive to productive discussion. Good luck, you'll need it.
(from an earlier post)
"Are you trying to say that something that has a *beginning* doesn't have a cause? Name one."
"No, I'm not, I'm saying that there is no reason to assume that everything has a beginning. Perhaps the universe (and the time dimension within it) are circular. Consequently there could be no beginning or end."
"Perhaps", "perhaps". Hmmm, such an unprecedented display of faith from him. Because he cannot logically discredit either the existence nor nonexistence of God, he resorts to a fanciful and equally unprovable third alternative; that all of reality is a giant doughnut (there's a quip for the front of your t-shirt). How clever that he would posit a theory so in keeping with his cutesy name. Of course, that is, only if he actually views all of existence as a torus as opposed to planar. That being the case, and taking that theory to it's not-so-logical conclusion, he must also believe in reincarnation and that we'll all have this very same conversation again some day.
"Perhaps" you'll stick to your far reaching (and untested) imaginations...the self and eternally existent doughnut.
As for me, I'll link arms with those who see God as the Unmoved Mover as a more logical solution.
The pejorative and purposefully offensive terms that Torus uses in place of the word "God" communicates, not even subtly, his disdain for the very notion of an omnipotent being and his general distaste for anyone who believes in such a thing. Tacit in his snide remarks is a complete and stubborn unwillingness to honestly discuss the matter, instead resorting to circular and pointless arguments.
Truth be told, there is no amount of evidence or logic that could be given by men, that would sway his opinion on the matter.
It would seem that he simply gets his jollies believing that he is leading "simple minded superstitious folks" around by the nose with his with not so clever ruses.
shumacr, thanks for your post and know that I totally know who Paul was referring to in Romans. But what I'm sensing is when you get to the end of the road in this discussion each person still needs to by faith make a choice if there is a God and if that God is the God of the Bible. And as sound as your presentation is there is still some wiggle room with regards to making a decision based on the facts only so that a person like torus can in their own mind decide there is no God or no one can prove the God of the Bible is that God. And this is where Paul concludes that professing themselves to be wise they become fools, but not because of lack of intelligence but I believe because of lack of faith.
"And god is where? And who created god?"
The answer is as simple as the 1st law of thermal dynamics. God describes Himself as all powerful.
Also, what we consider to be dimensions are created things. This would include height, width, depth and time. Since the creator is not bound by the creation, height, width, depth and time have no bearing on His existance.
E=MC2 (as imperfect as it is) does lay the foundation of time 'stopping' as you approach the speed of light. Therefore, time as we no it isn't even a constant within the creation let alone outside of it.
A Creator who created height, width, depth and time has no need of physical boundaries and would simply exist without the need of a beginning or an end.
Torus?
"Are you trying to say that something that has a *beginning* doesn't have a cause? Name one."
No, I'm not, I'm saying that there is no reason to assume that everything has a beginning. Perhaps the universe (and the time dimension within it) are circular. Consequently there could be no beginning or end.
"Don't get tripped up on terms. An eternal being could be the universe."
Which gives you basically a carefree way of arbitrarily interchanging terms. A "being" implies something very specific.
"And the space alien came from...where? And his universe came from...where? When you wrestle with the question of existence, you have to answer these questions and go back to an eternal something."
And god is where? And who created god? When you wrestle with these questions you have to go back to someone who created god. Oh wait, god wasn't created, right? Maybe neither was the space alien. You don't get to conveniently place your arbitrary sky-fairy outside the rules which you are attempting to lay down for me. If you're going to lay down rules like "everything has to come from somewhere" then the same must apply to your fairy.
"The 2nd law of thermodynamics (and no, the first law won't help you...), the expanding universe confirmed via Hubble, the radiation echo discovered from the big bang, and Einstein's theory of relativity all demand a beginning to the universe."
No they don't. All current theories of physics are models of the universe. Do you understand what a model is? It's a mathematical explanation which matches current observation and can help make predictions about the nonobservable (timewise or spacewise) universe. These models do not deal well with the instant after the big bang. There are several theories on the table which postulate a time before the big bang. None of these conflict with current cosmological models.
As regards how "noncognitive matter can create cognitive mind", the answer is that I don't know. But that doesn't mean it's not possible. Through the ages science has explained many things that were once unknown.
believer -
Part 2 of your question: <<Are you saying that there is no 100% sure way to logically deduce there is a God and the God of the Bible is truly that God,>>
I believe you most certainly can logically ascertain that both God exists and what *kind* of God exists. Paul thought so and that is why he says in Romans 1 that God's general revelation is so powerful that anyone who denies God's existence has no defense. Here's what you can logically and reasonably affirm once you understand that a Mind (God) is responsible for all we know.
- This Being must be supernatural in nature (as He created nature).
- This Being must be powerful (incredibly).
- This Being must be eternal (self-existent; no infinite regress of causes).
- This Being must be omnipresent (he created space and is not limited by it).
- This Being must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
- This Being must be immaterial because it transcends space/physical.
- This Being must be personal (impersonal can’t create personality).
- This Being must be necessary as everything else depends on it.
- This Being must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
- This Being must be diverse yet have unity (as we have diversity, yet it must be unified somehow).
- This Being must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
- This Being must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
- This Being must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
- This Being must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).
Does that sound like Anyone you know? :-)
Keep in mind, this is no square-peg-in-round-hold conclusion. This is where you end up just thinking smartly about the matter.
believer -
Let me address your statements in two ways because I think you've got two questions. First, let me give my viewpoint on "faith". When you ask most people what "faith" is, they’ll usually say something to the effect that, "Faith is believing in something that you cannot prove." If that’s true, then strong faith would be when you believe something but you suspect it isn’t true. And the strongest kind of faith, therefore, must be when you evidence and proof contrary to your belief but you embrace it anyway. I obviously disagree with that progression because the Bible says that faith is a gift (2 Cor. 12) and it is not the gift of stupidity.
On the contrary, faith is not what you have in the absence of truth and evidence. "Faith", as used in the New Testament, comes from the Greek word "Pistos", which is derived from the verb "to be persuaded" and means to be persuaded as to something that is true and has authenticity. Some of the definitions you’ll find in Greek Lexicons state: "the state of being someone in whom confidence can be placed"; "reliability"; "that which evokes trust"; "pertaining to being worthy of belief or trust"; "conviction of the truth", and so on. Not surprisingly, this is why Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is the substance [or assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Assurance...evidence... Doesn't sound like what the world thinks of when they think of 'faith' does it?
Lastly on this subject, there is a distinction between faith "that" and faith "in". As a Christian, when I say I have faith in God, I am not primarily saying I believe in a Being called God because, as a Christian, I've already acknowledged that. Instead, I mean I trust God; I believe what God says (just like Abraham did in the Old Testament). That is faith "in", not faith "that". You find both in Hebrews 11:6 "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is [FAITH THAT], and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him [FAITH IN]."
schumacr and logic, needless to say you guys are far more knowledgeable in these areas than I am, but help me clarify something based on logic's last post. Are you saying that there is no 100% sure way to logically deduce there is a God and the God of the Bible is truly that God, that somewhere in the equation faith becomes a factor?
lina, to answer your "question", God created the world in order to have a place for His special creation to live. Then He created mankind in His own image in order to have a people who would freely worship and serve Him and who He could have a close intimate growing relationship with them as they fellowshipped with one another.
One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must have been caused to exist. However, this pushes causation back to an infinite number of causes, which is impossible.
Also, by definition, God is uncaused.
chicago24: Aquinas version of the Cosmological Argument (Argument from Motion) stated that things in motion could not place themselves into motion, but must be caused to move. He stated an infinte regression of movers is not possible. Therefore, there must be an Unmoved Mover. I agree with Aqinas, this Unmoved Mover is God.
Hey believer - why did you start the world in the first place?
Logic: Aristotle was the first philosopher to posit the Uncaused Cause, although he didn't name the Uncuased Cause (Thomas Aquinas later did in his proof for the existence of God).
They also said that motion is caused by something else in motion, so there also has to be an Unmoved Mover.
Aquinas also said that there has to be something that is ultimately good, or pure goodness.
I'm going back to my studies in philosophy, but I believe I've recalled it correctly.
logic -
Exactly..!
The Cosmological Argument
1. Things exist.
2. It is possible for those things to not exist.
3. Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
A. Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence which is illogical.
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
. Because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.
A. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
5. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
6. In my opinion, the uncaused cause must be God.
The Thermodynamics Arguement
1. The universe exists
2. The universe cannot be infinitely old because if it were, it would have entered into a state of entropy long ago.
A. Entropy is the second Law of thermodynamics that states that all things are moving toward chaos and no-usable energy. In other words, everything is running down.
3. The universe is not in a state of entropy, therefore it is not infinitely old.
4. Since the universe is not infinitely old, it had a beginning.
5. The universe could not have brought itself into existence.
6. Something before the universe and greater than the universe had to bring the universe into existence.
7. In my opinion,that something is God.
Torus -
<<Why do you think that everything had to "come from" something? Perhaps it was around forever.>>
Are you trying to say that something that has a *beginning* doesn't have a cause? Name one.
<<This does not follow at all. If your above point is taken as true, all you can conclude is that the universe came from somewhere, not that an "eternal being" created it.>>
Don't get tripped up on terms. An eternal being could be the universe. "Being" simply means "to be". Didn't you just posit above that "Perhaps it was around forever"? Explain to me how forever does not equal being eternal?
<<Not at all. The universe could be created by a space alien in another universe. His universe in turn was created by another. Or I created the universe yesterday.>>
And the space alien came from...where? And his universe came from...where? When you wrestle with the question of existence, you have to answer these questions and go back to an eternal something. Your worldview simply hasn't a good answer for this does it?
<<No it hasn't.>>
Sure it has. The 2nd law of thermodynamics (and no, the first law won't help you...), the expanding universe confirmed via Hubble, the radiation echo discovered from the big bang, and Einstein's theory of relativity all demand a beginning to the universe. You may not *like* this fact, but it's there and plain. You chuckle at Christian's faith, but look at your own explanations for things (aliens, I did it, etc.) Now who has more 'faith' and has abandoned reason?
<<Your proof fails in so many ways it's breathtaking. >>
Catch your breath yet? No offense intended at all, but perhaps before you write, you need to think a little harder about what I wrote to you.
<<There are many other options, you simply choose to avoid them because they get in the way of your "proof".>>
I'm teachable - lay them down. I still maintain it's matter before mind or mind before matter. 2 choices. Expand them, but, only serious responses please. And you never addressed my question of how non-cognitive matter can create cognitive mind. How does that work?
torus, do you live your whole life in such an analytical way, do you ever throw caution to the wind or take a risk? As a husband I have had to learn that when it comes to pleasing my wife practical or logical will not get it when it comes to gift giving. If I want to show her how much I love and care about her I need to use my heart and not my brain. I'm convinced that there is little a person could tell you to convince you that the God of the Bible is truly God. In fact in Jeremiah 29:13 says, "You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart." Until we use our heart instead of our brain we will never discover God. My hope is that one day you will do just that. I have enjoyed our discussion and I hope you have as well. Take care and have a good day, believer
S - Your "proof" suffers from three main errors which theists usually make when they attempt to "prove" the existence of their gods.
1. Shaky understanding of science. For example, your claim (a critical juncture in your "proof") that science has disproven an eternal universe. Clearly you do not keep track of the current state of big-bang cosmology.
2. Wishy-washy use of metaphysics. As soon as you try to discuss things which are "outside" this universe (like your gods) there is no context to put them in since all our experience about what it means to "exist" is inside the universe. It's very easy to simply use phrases like "omnipotent" and "outside of time" and so on because they sound good but they don't really say anything coherent.
3. Narrow view of options. A statement like "the only two choices for this being are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator" is false. There are many other options, you simply choose to avoid them because they get in the way of your "proof".
- something exists
With you so far.
- you don't get something from nothing
Why do you think that everything had to "come from" something? Perhaps it was around forever.
- therefore, an eternal being exists
This does not follow at all. If your above point is taken as true, all you can conclude is that the universe came from somewhere, not that an "eternal being" created it.
- the only two choices for this being are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator
Not at all. The universe could be created by a space alien in another universe. His universe in turn was created by another. Or I created the universe yesterday.
- Science has disproven an eternal universe
No it hasn't.
- Therefore, God exists
Your proof fails in so many ways it's breathtaking.
Torus -
Hello again. Unfortunately I'm not able to post as much out here due to many other demands, but I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak with you again. I apologize if others have already walked down this path with you as I haven't looked through this entire thread, but my belief is God is very much rooted in reason. My proof for God is as follows:
- something exists
- you don't get something from nothing
- therefore, an eternal being exists
- the only two choices for this being are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator
- Science has disproven an eternal universe
- Therefore, God exists
Now I hope you don't try and object to the first four premises above. The only one you can, using reason, object to is the fifth. But you and I both know that all of science points to the universe having a beginning and not being eternal. Any talk or position you take on multi-verses, collapsing universes, etc., is all on 'faith' as they can't be proven.
Further, I've never had anyone explain how cognitive mind can be produced from non-cognitive matter. Can you? Only Mind can produce mind.
The choice is simple: matter before mind or mind before matter. We (Christians) simply choose to use our intelligence to choose the latter over the former. I hope one day you do too.
torus, one of the things that other religions cannot substitute that only Christianity can provide is the Cross of Jesus Christ which can and has been proven to be historically true. That is just one of many things that makes Christianity true and all other religions false and that fact is the cornerstone of the entire Christian faith for without the Cross of Christ we have no hope of ever being one with God through Christ.
torus
I believe that God exists because He has revealed Himself to me in my heart and in my mind.
That is something you will not understand until God does that for you.
Daniel - I'm just waiting for evidence for any gods you choose.
As for my argument, yes, you've got it, especially with the "Duh!" part. The general response to "Why do you believe in god" around here is one of the following:
1. Because god tells me he exists!
2. Because I do!
3. God loves you and wants you to be happy!
4. Why are we arguing about this? Jesus says (blah blah blah.)
All of which miss the point completely because any other god and/or superstition can be substituted in with equal validity. Ergo it is not an argument at all.
1. The existence of gods (the Mayan and Jainist and yours) and other superstitions (voodoo, animal sacrifice, black cats crossing my path, et cetera) is unlikely because I see no evidence that any of them are true. Not in all my years on this earth.
2. The reasons why I don't believe in the existence of your christian god are explained in 1. By the way, I don't think you really have any idea what the true rational ramifications of all your omni- adjectives would be. Also, what would "separate from the universe" mean? In a different universe? In a super-universe? The use of these various words is convenient. I could say a blue superdragon lives in universe Five and created us from his droppings and I could defend my metaphysics as well as you can.
2.5 Yes I am saying that often otherwise enlightened people profess belief without actually thinking. I have met people who will say "I believe in god" and then when I press them on the details they reveal they really don't understand what they're talking about and finally they get agitated and pull out of the conversation.
4a. This is correct. Humans do not necessarily believe that killing is always wrong as is evidenced by all the people who are have been killed in what are considered righteous causes over the years (your religion has done quite a bit of this). Few soldiers in Iraq or in any other war that we were on the "right side" of will be held accountable for their kills. Few people have a problem with this.
"It actually seems to be the natural state of humans to war and attack one another"
Humans both form societies for protection and kill people in other societies who threaten us. This stands firm with evolution. As for killing the weaker, this is something that humans have in fact done over the ages. We don't do it now because we've developed rational thought which has leapt over our evolved morals in terms of large-scale functionality. In other words we have not evolved quickly enough to cope properly with the world we've created without applying rational thought.
If a world-war occurs and we're reduced to animals scavenging for food then I'm going after the weaker guy with a club and I can guarantee that most everyone who lives will be doing the same thing.
4b. Sure, so perhaps you're confused about what "morally wrong" means in my mind. It does not mean "wrong because a sky-fairy told me", it means deep-seated in our subconscious or rationally developed.
Believer - So according to you it seems I should be able to somehow transcend rational thought and, what, believe anything I want? The tooth fairy? The Mayan gods? Ritual sacrifice? Voodoo? No, you mean I should toss out rational thought for your god and your god only. That seems sort of wacky. I'll keep my head screwed on, thanks.
As God I have many attributes to include being eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all present, but my most awesome characteristic of all is not simply that I can love but that I am love. You see if I was a rational and logical God by human standards I would have walked away long ago, I never would have sent My Son especially considering the fact that millions of people would reject Him. I've known every sin that every person would commit and in fact I'm right there when they commit them and I also have the ability to squish them like a grape, but I don't because I love them and I want to have a relationship with any one of them regardless of their sin if they would willingly turn to Me. Think about it I'm the one who created them in the first place and I alone have the right to take them out, but I want to give them every opportunity to turn to Me before it is everlastingly too late. I will force no one to turn to Me and there will come a time when it is too late and as a result of their unwillingness to turn to Me being the just God I am I will seperate them from Myself and all of My godly attributes for the rest of eternity.
torus, much of what I shared was from what God has shown me and taught me both through His Word and from other Christian leaders, but tonight God by His Holy Spirit put this scenario on my heart to share with you to let me let you know that maybe some other Christians can logically and rationally show you that the God of the Bible is truly God, but I can't because the God I love, serve, and worship by all human standards is neither rational or logical and I don't know if it is possible to logically or rationally explain something that is neither rational or logical by human standards, but I know at this point and time in my journey with God I don't believe I can do it. But I know that the God of the Bible is real and I know I am His child and will be with Him for all eternity.
torus, I do not claim to be a theologian, philosopher, intellectual, or scholar let alone a Bible scholar and frankly for me none of those are probably in my DNA. That being said I am embarking down a road I do not believe I've ever gone before and with God's help I'll get from point A to point B in this discussion. You want me to both rationally and logically prove to you that the God of the Bible exists. On my way to visit one of our Vacation Bible Schools in our Association I sensed God telling me it can't be done because by human standards I am neither rational or logical in fact by human standards I may very well appear to be just the opposite. For all eternity I had a plan in place to create a class of beings that I could have close intimate fellowship with who would both freely love and worship Me as their God. To do this I would have to create them with the ability to love and worship, but with the freedom to choose not to as well. I've known for all eternity that given this option and when tempted by Satan to do otherwise they would buy the lie and that's why for all eternity I had a plan in place that would require Me to allow My only Son, Jesus Christ to voluntarily come to this earth and pay a price that only He could pay, but that would be required if I was to once again have this fellowship with My special creation. And because He did there is now once again a way for anyone who freely chooses to have a close, intimate, and growing relationship with Me through My Son, Jesus Christ. All they will need to do is to repent(turn) from their sin and sinful lifestyle and turn to Me by putting their complete and total faith/trust in the person and finished work of My Son, Jesus Christ. (cont.)
Torus,
Thank you for the responses!
1. "I'm not sure how I dodged the argument. What argument? Even you appreciate that proving nonexistence is impossible. If you're going to actively believe something, proof is necessary."
Then you are saying here that you are an agnostic? But certainly you also believe that god/s is highly unlikely, due to the fact that you attribute all of human belief in the divine to blunt ignorance or wishful thinking? You do not have to prove the non-existence of God, which is near impossible, only explain why you find it so unlikely.
2. You are partially right in that if you discredit the reasons for belief (of all people through all time) then you will have shown how all people did not have a valid reason for belief in god/s, but the far easier way is to give a positive argument for why you feel that god/s do not exist. (Not a proof, only a rational explanation) Let us make it easier on you and say that God should be like the Christian idea of God, namely all-powerful, omniscient, omnipresent, all-loving, eternal (or outside of time), and separate from the universe. This should make my request easier.
Also, it is not right that you say that all (or most) scientists have some weak notion of God, I believe 40% believe in a personal God (according to Nature). And it still does not explain why they actually do believe in God. Are you saying that they are ignorant? (Perhaps you are and other like minded people are the only intelligent people?)
3. I must have missed that, then the burden of proof is on John. :)
4. This certainly does not show objective morality, and I doubt it even shows any morality.
4a. If our morals are evolved then there is no reason to believe that killing is necessarily wrong, if it is to obtain greater prosperity and promulagate the stronger genes within the human race (ethnic cleansing fits well into this). It actually seems to be the natural state of humans to war and attack one another and discriminate against the weaker, if this is true, then we must have evolved to this point, thus it is either a neutral action, or a good action.
4b. Even if you could show how some action was not advantageous to promulagating the strongest genes within the human race, you would not show in any way that it is morally wrong, only that it is possibly societally disadvantageous. Thus killing a baby who is deemed inferior is not wrong, it is only possibly disadvantageous.
(I have noticed that the higher one goes in academia, the more often that persons of an atheist persuasion are more likely to discredit morality altogether, or simply say that it is relative to the person. Just my observation. And thank you for giving your defense of morality.)
Torus---your position violates "I think therefore I am". Although I will not debate if I am dense or not (I've had 4 teenagers who debated that on an on-going basis) I have noticed that you cannot seem to think outside your own box.
Here's your point...our belief in God starts with us believing in the existance of God...well duh!
My point is it doesn't matter what proof you are given...you have already made up your mind there is no God and therefore any data to the contray would simply not compute in your brain.
Still...I think you would find "Evidence Which Demands a Verdict" parts I & II by Josh McDowell an interesting read. It has quite a bit of data for you to mull over concerning the question of the existance of God.
torus, I say this with both concern and compassion. I believe it is you who are afraid to go one level deeper, as long as you continue to live and view life from the intellectual level only you will never be able to see or experience the love of Christ in your life the final confirmation every human being needs in order to put their complete faith/trust in Christ and know with all certainty there is a God and He is the God of the Bible and that He loved me enough to send His only Son to die on my behalf in order to pay a price I could not pay. My prayer is that one day and perhaps one day soon you will give yourself permission to go deeper in your own life by not only using your brain but your heart as well, I pray that God by His Holy Spirit will soften your heart so that you will have a personal encounter with His Son, Jesus Christ and indeed see that He is the real deal, take care and thanks for allowing me to have this discussion with you, believer
Believer - I throw my hands up in hopeless disbelief at your inability to understand one level deeper than you do. I give in. If you are representative of the world as a whole then the situation may be hopeless.
Daniel - You too. You're too dense to get it too.
"My Faith" isn't a way at all...It's Jesus that is the ONLY way. He said so....
torus-"What do you think should convince me?"
Jesus told a parable about a poor man and a rich man. In it both died. The poor man went to heaven and the rich man went to hell. The rich man asked that he could go back to warn his brothers. He was told that they wouldn't believe even if someone was raised from the dead.
The question isn't what do we think you should be convinced by. The question is what does God think you should be convinced by. This isn't an issue between you and us. It's an issue between you and God.
For quite some time people (science and religion) thought the world was flat. What they believed didn't make it so. I like to watch "Americas Got Talent". You know...just because some of those people believe they have talent...doesn't make it so.
Here's the foundational question...what would it take for you to believe? Why should God even reveil Himself to you? If he did would you give your life to Him?
Would you serve Him? Would you do what He says? Just why should He 'prove' to you that He is exactly what He said in the Bible?
torus, but the good news is in spite of you not believing in God, He still loves and believes in you. For you to believe in the God of the Bible will require you to use both your head and your heart. Right now I believe you're only choosing to use your head and not your heart. I say that because God's Word says that by faith/trust alone is a person saved. By using your head alone you take faith/trust out of the equation. And even if you were to come to believe in God and it is only a head knowledge then you will be no better off than Satan and his devils because they believe only with their heads that Jesus is who He says He is. It's like a blind child going to a swimming pool for the first time and their Dad is out in the pool encouraging them to jump in and he will catch them and even though they believe in their head that he will until they take that leap of faith they can't say they really trust their Dad to catch them, but if they take that leap of faith then indeed they have put their complete trust in the hands of their father. And that's what God wants every one of us to do if were to truly become a child of the God of the Bible.
torus - No one can give you that proof except God Himself. All a believer can do is share the gospel with you. It is up to God to convict your heart of the truth and give you an opportunity to receive Jesus as Lord and Savior.
No one who is truly born again of the Spirit of God ever became that way without God first revealing Himself to them.
Believer - Your entire essay hinges on believing on god to begin with. This was my point from the beginning. I do not believe in this god of yours and I want you to convince me. Making statements about him doesn't work because those statements assume he exists.
If Jesus isn't the only way then He was a liar. Why even be a Christian? A "Christian" is a disciple of Christ - Jesus - Who said, "I am THE way, THE truth, THE life, no one goes to the Father except through Me."
There is NO OTHER REASON to be a Christian if you don't follow what its FOUNDER established.
I keep saying it over and over when one of these articles comes out - There are TWO "Christianitys" being represented here: Satan's counterfeit, and the one the Bible espouses. You can Satan's dead religion, or God's Son.
Just don;t equate the two, because they're not even remotely related.
This is what happens when heathens, knowing that Christianity offers "hope" and "love" and "peace" eject the parts of scripture they DON'T like and instead build a false religion out of the parts of scripture they DO like.
torus, I posted without proofing so I would not get cutoff, if there is anything I said that is unclear please let me know, believer
torus, now we can talk, but before we do as I left for a meeting I quickly posted and I realize I may have sounded overly abrupt in my post, if I did my apology because my true intention was to be both sincere and concerned in my desire to have have fruitful and meaningful discussion.
What should convince you? What I would like you to see is the God of the Bible loves you enough that He was willing to send His only Son, Jesus Christ to come to this and to die a horrible death on a cross so that God could have a personal relationship with you through His Son, Jesus Christ. The fact that the penalty for our sins could only be paid with a perfect sacrifice and only Jesus could and did qualify as that sacrifice. That even though we deserve to be eternally seperated from God, God says that is we will repent(turn)from our sin and sinful lifestyle and turn to God by putting our complete faith/trust in the person and finished work of His Son, Jesus Christ we can enter into a personal, intimate, eternal, and growing relationship with Him. And that for all eternity that has been God's desire for you and that God has created you for a purpose. One person has said that God not only created on purpose but He also created us for a purpose. That as a child of God you have direct access to God 24/7 and if you sin and you will all we need to do is acknowledge that sin and repent of that sin and as k God's forgiveness of that sin and not only will He forgive us but He'll cleanse us of any unrighteousness associated with that sin. I know you are very intelligent and to be honest one of the reasons I for lack of a better term have not taken you on is because mama didn't raise no fool and chances are if we kept this discussion on an intellectual you'd probably kick the snot out of me. But that is what's so awesome about the God of the Bible, His own Son said we simply need the faith of a child to believe/trust in the truthes I have just shared with you. The night I got saved in 1971, I told God I did not totally understand everything the two men shared with me, but if He wanted to have a personal relationship with me then I sure wanted to have one with Him and I do and I always will and you can have one too. So what do I think will convince you, that the Holy Spirit will speak to your heart and affirm that everything I just shared with you is true not only in the life of believer but it can be true in your life as well.
The jaw-dropper in this whole poll was the paragraph that related that 21% of atheists believe in some God or universal spirit. What were they thinking? Better yet, what were the questons they were answering that led to such polling percentages?
It seems to be so much PC thinking that ultimately immerses the truth into so much pancake syrup. Sweet, yes. But in the end sticky and messy.
Just let Scripture speak. Jesus was not afraid to be offensive; check out Matt. 23(which probably explains Matt 26 and 27). If truth can be spoken in love, that is the secret. Jesus declares Himself to be the way. If a person can get beyond the "offense" and believe it as the truth, then I would say the Spirit had done something remarkable.
Believer - That's easy. It would take the exact same thing that it would take me to convince you that the pantheon of Mayan gods is real.
If this comes across as me avoiding the question, you're partly right. My answer is intended to provoke you to think about how difficult a question it is. In truth I have no answer to your question. I suppose if your god (or the Mayan gods) do in fact exist then they would know how to convince me.
What do you think should convince me?
torus, let's get to the point, so rather than wasting each other's time let me ask you a simple question, what would I need to present to you to convince you that the God of the Bible is real and that Jesus Christ is truly the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no one can come unto the Father but through Him? What would it take to convince you that without Christ not only can a person not have a personal relationship with God, but they are destined to an eternity separated from God and all His godly attributes in hell for all eternity? That unless a person repents of their sin and sinful lifestyle and turns to God by putting their complete faith/trust in the person of and finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross that can't have this relationship? What could I tell you or show you to convince you that not only is that true, it is the only truth that really matters when it comes to you as a person? Tell me what that is and then we can have a fruitful and meaningful discussion and not waste either God's time or our time. I look forward to hearing your response, have a good day, believer
If I may be so bold, why is everyone arguing? Is there a point to it all?
We need to be humble and show our faith in God, through peace, not by arguing and wasting time showing everyone how we don't know how to curb our flesh and attitudes.
We wont hope to help a lost and dying world by arguing and fussing over who is right, who is wrong, and who believes what. Jesus came and died for us ALL. Unity, and Harmony needs to happen so that we show the lost and the dying world love. Because LOVE covers a multitude of sins and we cannot hope to help a lost and dying world with attitude.
Just some thoughts.
Rev. Sheila
Believer - I'm not interested in Strobel's views, I'm interested in your views. If you agree with Strobel then pick one central argument of Strobel and present it briefly. Just a couple of sentences will do.
Chris333 -
1. I'm not sure how I dodged the argument. What argument? Even you appreciate that proving nonexistence is impossible. If you're going to actively believe something, proof is necessary.
2. Simply because the "established position" is that gods exist (of many flavors) simply puts the burden of proof on me to give some reasons why the belief exists, not why the god doesn't. There are many historical reasons for belief in gods, generally based in ignorance. Most current belief, especially among scientists, is based basically on having a vague enough notion of god to never be put into a position of having to defend it.
3. You're still missing the point about John. He himself claimed that Dawkins' arguments were weak. He was the one who brought it up in the first place. I didn't bring up the issue. My understanding then is that he is aware of Dawkins' central arguments and if he finds them weak he can refute them. All I asked him to do was present an example of what he stated to be the case.
4. Strongest argument (among many) is that it's evolutionarily beneficial to work in groups for survival. Consequently it's beneficial to take care of your fellow man. Morals (at a root level: don't kill, don't steal) can easily seen to be derived from this level of protection of the group.
cccccc,
zzz...zzz...zzz...
Torus,
1. You dodged the argument. I said that I only need to give a positive argument for my beliefs, and if it is true that the Christian perspective of God is correct (or has a strong argument) then it will logically follow that other god/s do not exist. But before we get to this, we must establish whether god/s of any form do exist.
You are right that logically proving the non-existence of something is darn near impossible, but logically proving the unlikeliness of something's existence is not difficult at all. (For example, I could do a pretty good job of showing that it was highly unlikely that an underwater civilization called Atlantis exised off the coast of Florida, but I could not unequivocally prove it)
2. You are assuming that people who lived 1000s of years ago were intellectually inferior than people of today. There are some problems with this, but even if we assume that people 1000 years ago were unable to comprehend the difference between fact and fiction, you still have the problem that nearly half of all scientists believe in a personal God, and alot more believe in some form of god/s. And even today with all our advances the vast majority of people do believe in some form of god/s. True this is not decided by popular vote, but my point was only that the established position is that god/s exist and thus the burden of proof is on you to negate that.
3. Sure, he has to refute some argument, but it is simply ridiculous for you to expect him to research and refute some argument from someone else, how about this I will refute some arbitrary argument of Dawkins against the necessity of God for objective morals, if you refute William Lain Craig's arguments for the necessity of God for objective morality.
Here is a better idea, since you are the one who is asserting the possibility for objective morality without God, why don't you pick the argument you find strongest, and let us know?
4. Where? On this thread?
I see that cccccc's argument is well thought out.
"America remains a deeply religious nation."
Translation: America remains a deeply stupid nation.
"but a new survey finds most Americans don't believe their tradition is the only way to eternal life â۠even if the denomination's teachings say otherwise."
This eternal life thing is the most idiotic and most childish invention in human history.
It's amazing to me that in the 21st century there are still people gullible enough and stupid enough to believe they have a magical soul that magically flies up to some magical heaven.
The world needs to grow up and throw out these insane ideas that can only be explained by the wishful thinking of cowards.
torus, So I think your question is to prove that the God of the Bible exists and is who He says He is, is that your question? And if it is and if you are really serious and not playing games then I would highly encourage you to get a copy of Lee Strobel's book, "The Case For Christ" because like you he initially set out to prove there was no God and even more specifically that Jesus Christ was not Him. Now before you accuse me of weasling out as you did before I am simply sending you to not only a much more knowledgeable person than myself but I also believe I'll be saving you a lot of time and effort. Plus it will show me you are genuinely interested in getting an answer to your question as opposed to just showing off your vast amount of wisdom in a demeaning way which several at this site believe you are doing, so why don't you prove us all wrong and read the book I suggested or I might come away thinking you are the fulfillment of what Paul talked about in the 1st chapter of Romans when he declared; "professing themselves to be wise they became fools". So why don't you make the logical choice and read the book.
Chris -
3. You should follow the thread with John. I challenged him to refute any central argument of Dawkins, his choice. In light of this it was not up to me to bring up a quote or explanation, it was up to him to present arms.
4. I've posted my individual understanding of how morality can develop outside of a religious framework no fewer than three times. With respect I'm not going to post it again because I'm already replying to too many threads.
Chris333 -
1. It's pretty obvious to me (and probably to you) that invisible unicorns do not exist either (nor does the tooth fairy nor Quatzequatel) but I would challenge you to prove these facts. The point being that proving the nonexistence of something is darn near impossible. This fact however is hardly proof positive of the existence of something, unless you do in fact believe in everything you can't disprove. Pretty weak try there.
2. The witness of most everyone throughout time has been tainted by superstition and the ignorance of rational thought. People throughout the ages have believed in all sorts of things. People all over the world still do believe in all sorts of things. Unfortunately though for you (and fortunately for me) belief is not decided by vote.
Torus,
A final point,
You cannot just say, "Oh Dawkins talks about this" You have to at least give us some explanation or a quote from Dawkins. I would love to see someone in debate say, "Well in so-and-so's book in such-and-such chapter they made a good argument, go read the book and find every point that you disagree with and then tell me.
The debate would be over, and that person would not have won.
Let us hear what you have to say about how objective morality can exist without God (I have never heard a sustainable argument for this).
Torus,
Also, for Believer and others, it is not necessarily important for them to give a logical and pointed debate as to why they believe in God. Believer has said that he/she has a personal relationship with God. Thus this is all the proof he/she needs. The same as, if you told me, "Chris333 I do not believe that you have a wife" then I have absolutely no reason to doubt my relationship with my wife, even if I cannot prove it to you. The relationship authenticates her being.
Granted without any proof there is no reason for you to believe in God or my wife, but that does not mean they do not exist or that I and Believer do not have all the proof in the world for our belief in their existence.
John 14-6,
It may be that Habermas was also in a debate with Flew, I am not sure, but I have the book of Craig and Flew's debate. Maybe they both debated him? (And Craig also handed it to Flew).
Torus,
"Chris333 - I'll allow you to start the ball rolling by presenting a proof of the nonexistence of any gods you personally do not believe in."
Already abusing logic? The question I presented you was to only show an argument against the existence of "god/s" or the divine, an established position based upon the witness of nearly every person throughout time. If you are atheist (assuming here), and you feel it is so obvious that god/s do not exist, then this should be a very easy task for you. Secondly, I do not need to disprove every other god that I do not believe in. I can simply give a positive argument for the belief in God that I have, and if it holds then all other gods will be discredited. (Just like a historian does not have to prove that all other people throughout all time were not the first President of the USA, in order to know that George Washington was the first, he only has to give a positive argument for G.W.)
Good try though, the ball is in your court.
torus -
the way the article paints it, the church can sure use some new blood. We need to rid the chaff and bring in new crop. What do you say?
torus -
You don't stand a chance with [believer]. We love you (in an agape way of course), so just come to the cross and believe Christ as your Saviour and Lord.
Which by the way is a good news thing. In the 60s when sex was free and all that stuff, the Jesus movement came along. I think we're due. Torus, be a part of the true Love and Truth and the peace that passes all understanding.
believer -
Ah, you and torus are going at it, uh? Torus, give it up and just come to the Cross.
Believer - If you work on the assumption that the christian god exists and the bible is (within certain parameters) his word then your argument is logical. However this assumption is itself illogical. The very existence of your god is the key fact which you refuse to question and it is the key fact which I was trying to bring to your attention. In fact looking back at your posts I'm almost convinced that you never even understood that I was questioning his existence.
torus, I have not been a Christian all of my life I came to be a Christian as a result of someone showing me from the Word of God that God through the person of and the finished work of His Son, Jesus Christ desired to have a personal relationship with me if I would be willing to repent of my sin and turn to Him by putting my faith/trust in the person and finished work of His Son, Jesus Christ. On May 31st, 1971 I made the most logical decision of my life and did just that. So please tell me what was not logical about the decision I made or in believing that Christ told the complete truth when He declared Himself to be the Truth, the Life, and the Way and that no one could come unto the Father but through Him? So because I believe God when He says there are no other options I am illogical? If I believe that without oxygen I'll eventually die, does that make me illogical? No, I don't think so because it's true, but if believing and trusting God and His Word does indeed make me illogical, than color me illogical.
Believer - Sure. Anytime anyone attempts to enter a discussion with a predetermined position about where he stands, the discussion is DOA. For example, you take the existence of a god as an unquestionable given. It follows that attempting to discuss the existence of god or the ramifications thereof is hopeless. You did not get to your position by logical means and it follows that logical means will not pry you from it.
Note here that if you had got to your position by logical means you would be open to the various rational approaches I have brought up because you would be convinced that your logical steps were valid and that mine must be flawed. But you are unwilling to engage and this is evidence that you have no such logical steps.
torus, I'm confused as to what it is you said I'm not willing to discuss with you, help me here?
Believer - I flagged my own mistake. In answer to your question, I never indicated that there was anything in this article up for debate. If you look back at my first comment it was merely applause at America for casting off (to some degree) the ignorance of religion, as illustrated by the openness of Americans.
John - Let me follow with a comment. First, our discussion was about god's existence, your issue about morals doesn't address that. But I'll overlook that and point out two things.
One, there definitely can be morals without religion. See my cite in Dawkins for that.
Two, your comment about Naziism and Socialism and so on are misplaced for many reasons. For example, the theism (or a- thereof) of Hitler is up for much debate. Socialism is a political theory, nothing to do with religion. Ditto that for Maoism and Stalinism, barring the connection to totalitarianism.
But even if I indulge you further and accept your point (which I'm not saying I do), all you've illustrated is that these particular other methods failed, you have no evidence that they failed due to lack of religion. In fact the problems caused by societies with religion are equal if not greater than the ones you cite.
Lastly, even if I indulge you to the extreme and accept your premise (which I most certainly don't), it does not for one minute supply a proof of the existence of any god, yours or others.
torus, did you flag yourself or did somebody else?
John - Dawkins addresses your points in The God Delusion, chapter 6. What do you find lacking in his fundamental explanations?
There can be morality and goodness without religion! What there can not be is salvation, sanctification and holiness. All atheists are not bad people. Lost but no more or less than some so called christians I personally know. My research has shown me that alot of atheist use "christianity" as one of there reasons of non belief. How can we argue wih that?
One "ideology" you forgot to mention John 14-6 is Capitolism! I believe it is just as evil as any. "The love of money is the root of all evil, right? I do not bellieve you have rested your case very well. Are you aware of the deaths our country has caused?
In the 20th century, man tried to implement societies in which religion (and Christianity specifically) was outlawed and suppressed. The atheism behind all of the totalitarian sundry ideologies of Nazism, Socialism, Communism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism implemented in societies that were birthed in the 20th century (Nazi Germany, the USSR, Red China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc) resulted in over 100 million human beings being murdered by the state, forced abortions, deprivation, starvation, gulags, death camps, euthanasia, etc, and more pure evil and human misery and suffering than all of the wars supposedly caused by "religion" in history.
Wherever man replaces God as the center of existence, the value of human life is always and ultimately demeaned and debased...expendable. Man becomes a brute and a beast. Everything good in this world today, everything we call "the modern", everything we call "civilization" is the result, ultimately of *one thing*, the Christian Faith. I rest my case. Next...
Dawkins argues that there can be morality and good without religion. You want to start there, friend?
torus, give me something with regards to this article that needs to be discussed, it simply shows that many evangelical churches have dropped the ball in both the area of discipleship and apologetics and as a result have raised a generation of "believers" who because they don't stand for something will fall for anything. And in this case the something is the God-breathed, plenary, inerrant Word of God, because if they were grounded in God's Word all these issues with regards to Jesus alone being the only means of salvation would be a done deal.
John - Quit yapping and pick a central argument by Dawkins (or any of them) and refute it. Just do it. You've been talking the good talk about how weak their arguments are but I've yet to see anything to back it up. Instead you resort to unfounded comments about their personal lives. That's pretty pathetic of you.
So the challenge stands. Pick an argument. Refute. Should be simple. Any central argument you like.
Believer - You've already proven your inability to even understand your inability to have a rational discussion. Parse that if you can.
The problem is that people read the Bible looking for justification of their selfish desires rather than what God says about anything.
People do not read their Bible in the context it was meant to. If we all opened it with prayer and seaking of Gods will, not ours, we would all be of one faith. Too many divisions due to misinterpretations of the scripture. One God, One Baptism, One God!
torus, there is nothing to defend since it is a done deal, Jesus Christ said the He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes unto the Father but through Him. The bottomline is there is one God, the God of the Bible and the only way a person can come into a relationship with Him is by repenting of their sin and sinful lifestyle and putting their total faith/trust in the person and finished work of His Son, Jesus Christ. There is nothing to defend because these are the truths taught by God in His Word. In other words God said it and that settles it, it's not up for debate, however if a person has a lick of sense they will not only accept it as a fact they'll put their faith and trust in it before it's too late and they wind up eternally seperated from God in hell for the rest of eternity. But whether you or I or anyone chooses to accept it or reject it does not change the fact that it is still not only true but the truth.
There goes torus again with his "straw man" comment.
Believer, I've learned sometimes its better to not cast your wisdom to the pigs. They like their feces. No use in trying to clean them up, they'll just roll around in it again.
And there's a hush in the crowd.....
Oh, and torus, one more point that I failed to address based on your earlier quip--
My statements about Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (and atheists in general, especially ones I have known, but probably a condition among all of them, I suspect), was not an ad hominem attack. It was, in fact, direct and honest opinion. The one overarching thing that comes through from all of them, in their writings, their interviews, etc (and especially Dawkins and Hitchens) is that they appear to be deeply wounded, sad, bitter men who cannot stand the idea of anyone (especially a universal intelligence) standing in authority or judgment over them. They seem to be men with deep seated "Daddy issues", as I put it, and it results in an adolescent anti-authoritarian attitude. That's my assessment and opinion and I stand by it.
torus--
Dawkins, et al, have a slew of claims and beliefs. Where would you like to start? History? Archeology? Science? Narrower?...Theology, Cosmology, Evolution? Narrower still?...Textual Criticism, Christology, Dead Sea Scrolls, Ebla libraries? Me? I always start with Jesus, and expand out from there. So, it's a pretty wide playing field.
And you keep lobbing out the "rational" verbal-grenade. In the words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word...but I do not think that word means what you think it means." Rational by whose standard? If you presume an anti-supernatural worldview, and I presume the possibility of a supernatural worldview, then what I deem rational will not be what you deem rational. Besides, I suspect based on your constant claim to the word, that you are using the word more in the sense of trying to presume a superior position (as if you were a completely objective, hardcore, realist) on the playing field than I am willing to grant you. I do not concede that position to you, not in the slightest, so please stop using the word in that manner.
However, I doubt you are to here to listen, or to accept anything anyone tells you, nor am I prepared to accept anything you have to proffer. Therefore I suspect this will go round and round on the same points, over and over. But I'm game for one go around, as are, I suspect, most of the other believers here.
hlerwin, I answered your question in the other article's comments.
Believer - I don't recall saying anywhere that "everything is relative". Now you're taking the straw man approach, making up an opponent who is easier to argue against than the person you're actually arguing against.
My point was that you're unable to defend your view in a rational manner. I haven't figured out conclusively whether you fully understand this fact; I have figured out that either you don't understand or you do but are afraid to admit it because of the logical ramifications.
I find it intriguing that people want to automatically postulate there there is nothing outside the physical, therefore, there is nothing outside the physical. That's a circular argument and does not h0ld water.
Science is always expanding our knowledge of what can be measured. There are many examples of people recognizing/reporting similar 'weird' phenomena with no way to explain it. Because it does not occur on a regular basis in a known location, it can not be repeated, and thus science has no way to ascertain the veracity of such claims. The same is true for those few things that DO occur on a regular basis but have no known means of measuring them and they often seem to only occur when the scientists aren't there - science can not ascertain the veracity of the claims. Either they are fake claims, we have no way of measuring them, the people are being influenced via some means (perhaps mass hysteria), or the things occur at the direction of some intelligent being who does not want ot be measured.
No one can honestly say that a spiritual world does NOT exist, only that we have found no way to measure it or duplicate it.
torus, since with you everything is relative then there is no point to argue, because in your world nothing has a point, because to have a point there must be a truth but since everything is relative in your world there is no truth so there is no point and without a point there is nothing to prove. You see we Christians can hyperbabble too!
I am a Christian who believes the Bible to be the Word of God, inspired by God, written as directed by God, using the vocabulary, style, language of the human authors, for a specific audience, time, place, and purpose.
I am not trying to be provocative, but really am seeking information.
I have a question for people who call themselves Christians:
Leaving aside issues of interpretation, if you don't believe all the Bible is the Word of God and intended to be followed, why believe any of it?
I turly can not understand how anyone can say they believe the Bible in one area to be the Word of God, but not all areas. It either is, or it is not. How can someone claim to say they believe the Bible, but not where Jesus said he's the only way to heaven. It seems to me that if you can't trust one part of the Bible, you can't trust any of it. What makes you think you can trust any of it? Why follow any of it?
John - So just to clarify, you're unable to refute a single central argument in the current catalog of rationalist thoughts about religion as presented by Dawkins et al, yes? Even though you disdain those arguments as "weak" you can't actually argue against them?
Chris333 - I'll allow you to start the ball rolling by presenting a proof of the nonexistence of any gods you personally do not believe in.
Believer - If you can't argue the point just say so; don't try to weasel out of it by getting all uppity. I insult your intelligence because it is lacking. You cannot argue your point; nay, you can't even seem to understand the question.
phat, please insert the word "not" between will and hear. Psalm 66:18 David says: "If I had cherished sin in my heart, the Lord would not have listened;" (NIV)
Phat, to keep it to ourselves would then truly make us hypocrites, because we as "True Belivers" are commanded by God to go into all the world and share the Good News of God's Plan of Salvation, to let the world know that only through Jesus Christ can one enter into a personal relationship with God and that God's desire is that none should perish but that as many would should be saved. Plus God's Word clearly teaches that the only prayer He will hear from a lost person is the prayer of salvation because He will hear the prayers of anyone to include believers who have unconfessed sin on their heart until they repent of and confess that sin.
Jesus came and made the ultimate sacrifice so that we can know that there are many ways to the almighty "IT".
It's time to purify the Church again.
America: The New Mission Field
Those so called Religious Americans are a part of the problem. Only Jesus takes the sin out. They have crafted gods in there own image, while distaining the One and only image of the One and only God who is HOLY - The Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The false gods of the past are still false gods in the present. The gospel is the POWER OF GOD unto Salvation to those who believe - NOT personal power from Anthony Robbins and Oprah Winfrey. Both the Atheist and the Pagan serve the very same "god of self". But Jesus calls everyone to deny themselves and to take up their cross and follow Him. He is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE. It doesn't matter if the entire rebellious, social-engineered secular public rejects God and His word, God himself will hold them individually accountable for their crimes against Him. Repent before it is too late.
Many roads lead to hell...But only one way leads to God's heaven - that is Jesus Christ the Lord.
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com/#the_message_that_we_were_born_to_hear
Prophet,
Amen, brother (or sister). Amen and Amen.
chris333--
Are you sure about that? I do believe it was Habermas who was in the debate, and he won handily. As for "torus", the ten minutes is simply allowing him enough time to present his memorized Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens talking points, and then, of course, anyone like Lacona, Habermas, Craig, Zacharias to smile, chuckle, and systematically dismantle and discredit every single one of those talking points.
Zacharias is incredible, if you've ever heard him speak. His podcasts are outstanding. He is one of the few apologists I've heard who can both defend the faith easily, articulate his points clearly, and do it with seemingly so little effort all the while maintaining such a sense of humor and Christian love. He never gets offended or angered (or if he does, he sure keeps it under wraps).
Oy!
Thus begins the great falling away. People's ears are turned from the truth by seducing spirits, turing the truth of God into a lie. There is only one way to heaven. There is only one way to eternal life.
Brothers and sisters, let us be busy in going about doing the will of God. Spread the Truth of His Gospel. Do not compromise the message, but speak it in boldness and love. Stand, even in the midst of persecution, and be faithful to the end, that you would recieve your reward for your good works. Be ready in season and out of season to given account fot the hope that is in you. And do not be timid in giving your testimony.
Glory to God alone. And to Him be all honor and power.
Be careful dear ones. There are a lot of "spiritual gurus" out there, but they do not speak for Christ.
I heard a person speaking the other day that was suppose to be a spiritual guru, but all he did was mix truth with lies. Sound familiar? He was saying that there are many ways to heaven, and that we are all a way ourselves. He even said that Jesus said this very thing, and he quoted Jesus when He said "I am the way, the truth and the life".
But, he didn't finish it. He was mixing truth with lies and deceiving those who bought into his garbage.
Jesus actually said: "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.".
The speaker conveniently left out the last part, in that no one comes to the Father but through Jesus.
Did God really say? The same old lie from the serpent.
"Another finding almost defies explanation: 21 percent of self-identified atheists said they believe in God or a universal spirit, with 8 percent "absolutely certain" of it."
Hahaha, what is this!? Have they honestly thought about what it means to be an atheist, or do they just call themselves atheist because they think it is cool and rebellious?
Torus,
Perhaps you could give some argument against the existence of God, since you seem to believe so strongly that god/s do not exist? Afterall, belief in God has been almost universal throughout almost all of the history of humanity, and even today the vast majority of people believe in some god. We must after all, establish whether God exists before we move on to whether we can know Him or which if any religion is correct.
john 14-6,
It was William Lain Craig who debated with Anthony Flew. And it is hard to tell if Torus would last five minutes against them, as far as I can see he hasn't really presented an argument of his own.
Remember when Bob Jones Jr. (of Bob Jones University) declared that Catholic theology leads to "spiritual ruin" (i.e. Hell)? Remember when Bailey Smith (of the Southern Baptist Convention) declared, "God does not hear the prayer of a Jew"? Remember the Crusades, the Inquisition, and various iterations of Jihad?
For as long as human beings have clung to religious and political movements, there have been those that Eric Hoffer called "The True Believers" ... those that are absolutely convinced of their own self-righteousness to the detriment of everyone else.
Bailey Smith was a "True Believer." Jerry Falwell was a "True Believer." Bob Jones is a "True Believer." And all the men responsible for 9/11 were "True Believers" also. They all threaten our ability to just get along with one another. And I think more and more people are realizing that the survival of our civilization depends on "just getting along."
If you think your faith is the one and only true faith, and those people are all going to Hell, it's probably best if you just keep it to yourself.
Strobel just did a DVD version of "The Case for Christ" and it is outstanding. The production values are superior to any typical "Christians Video" productions (usually very poorly done). Strobel interviews many of the scholars I mentioned. The DVD presents an excellent version of the book's material, and it's much more interesting to actually hear these scholars speak, than to simply read what they say. I highly recommend this DVD to anyone who wants to share it with an unbelieving family member or friend, or who wants to show it to a church group or something.
Some of the best Christian apologists are Dr. Ravi Zacharias (only Craig and Habermas are on his level, in my view), Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. J.P. Moreland, Michael Lacona (who just did a debate with Bart Ehrman and cleaned up), and Dr. Gary Habermas.
Craig's book, "Reasonable Faith", and Moreland's "Scaling the Secular City" are two of the best academic works on apologetics. There are a myriad of excellent books for the lay person, as well. Strobel's books are all good, and so are "Who Moved The Stone?" by Frank Morrison (a little old, from the 1930's, but still spot on), "Fabricating Jesus" by Craig Evans, "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels" by Craig Blomberg, "Jesus According to Scripture" by Darrel L. Bock, and "Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Jesus", by Bowman, and Komoszewski. There's others, but each of those books is worth owning by all Christians.
The Case for Christ is excellent. It contains interviews with some of today's leading, conservative, Christian scholars. Guys like William Lane Craig, Ben Witherington III, Craig Blomberg, or especially Craig Evans provide some of the best scholarly credentials (and evidence) that one can find.
Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig regularly dismantle atheists in debates, piece by piece. I believe it was Habermas who went up against Anthony Flew (once the worlds leading atheist - the "Godfather" of atheism - who recently renounced atheism to accept the premise of God) in a famous debate about the Resurrection of Christ. Habermas cleaned his clock. The judges (none of whom were believers, as I recall, and all of them academics, as well), all but one, came down on the side of Habermas having won, with one voting for a draw.
Atheists like "torus" wouldn't last ten minutes against guys like Craig, Habermas or Evans.
beliver, SLopez, etc. At some point you have to come to the "do not cast your pearls before swine" assessment of the situation.
Torus isn't here to listen, he's here with a presumed worldview and he's gaming Christians. To what end? You can give him a "ready answer for the hope that we have", but if he's not inclined to listen, and wants to keep regurgitating atheist talking points, then it's best to just let it go.
Only the Holy Spirit, working through the word of God, can change his heart. He appears to be more of the "hardened heart", though. The message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, as Paul said. He's as far from the truth as a bird is from the moon. He's not about to change the beliefs of anyone here, and he's probably not about to accept the truth about Jesus Christ, either. So why waste your breath? Shake the dust off your feet at him, so to speak.
If I thought he was here to engage in debate with an open mind, I'd be happy to take it up with him. He's not. He's here to bait. Don't take it.
seeker, in relation to what cyhi shared there are a lot of great books that share the story of people who were out to prove the was no God and as a result came to not only believe in God, but even better to put their faith/trust in the person and finished work of His Son, Jesus Christ. One of the best in my opinion is "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel.
Seeker: If it is proof of God's existance you want, I suggest praying to God and asking Him to open your eyes and your heart first and then read the book of John. If you don't understand it ask someone who can help you. If you think you understand it and what the Gospel of John says and means then you have to decide for your self if it true or not. More than one atheist has come to the conclusion that that book is true and consider this: when Jesus was crucified the apostles were scattered as Isiah prophesied long ago, "I will strike the shepard and the sheep will scatter". Now when Jesus died on the cross the apostles hid in fear, save John, after the resurection and pentecost, power came from on High to the same apostles who were hiding in fear and preached Jesus. All of them except John were told to renounce Christ or die. What did these formerly scared unlearned men do? They died for Jesus knowing what they were teaching sas the truth. How could someone die for a lie if only a short time before they were hiding in fear? You can't prove something does not exist or can't happen but you can offer up evidence for something. If it is evidence you seek follow my suggestion and you will find it. You could go to any church and ask why these people believe what they do. God bless.
torus, after reading your response the theme to the "Twilight Zone" and "The Outer Limits" formed a duet in my head and then I thought I get it I'm on Candid Camera. Why do you insult your own intelligence by asking such an ignorant question. Out of respect for you I'm not going to answer your question because I know you truly no better, but I would appreciate it if you would not insult my intelligence either by asking questions you already know my answer for.
torus: Here's my question to you. What exactly do you want to know? What are you asking? Are you asking for an explanation as to God's existence? If you are, here's the deal. If anyone's eyes are "firmly shut", it would at this time be yours, because I can sit here and write out an explanation as to why God exists, however, your response will be one that will try to contradict what I say. The reason? Because you don't beieve in Him. My other question to you is why are you here talking to a bunch if Christians on a Christian Post? If your attempting to try to make us think differenty or question God, it won't happen. I however have a different thought as to why your here on this post. I think your wanting truth about God and His existence but your pride and your "intellect" doesn't allow you to comprehend. As a matter of fact the Bible says, that the "fool says in his heart there is no God." Your no fool are you torus?
SLopez - You really are missing the entire point, aren't you? Tell me, do your everyday interactions operate with the same complete lack of rationality and understanding? Your argument about your preferred god is equally valid to any other argument about any other god. I believe you know that though you may be keeping your eyes firmly shut to the fact. Consequently your argument is invalid. My prodding is an attempt to get you to think outside your tiny little box. Clearly this is not happening but the failure is surely not mine.
Believer - Which god or gods? Your argument doesn't specify. Your argument is equally valid with any god or gods you like inserted into it. Consequently it's not valid at all.
torus, what is there to question, God said it that settles it, whether you or I choose to believe it or not believe it does not change a thing. Truth will always be truth and God's truth as found in the Word of God is the standard for all truth and will always be true.
dongard: I want you to notice your statements, "if, I see Him and "when" you see Him. What's funny is that if you don't believe in God or beleive He exists, than the statements "if" and "when" are statements that make it a "possibility" that He's real. Think about it: if He wasn't real, than I would think He would merit know response and/or debate. But you see, the Bible tells us that the "law of God is written on the hearts of men." Therefore, even if you have in your life closed out the possibility and rationalization that He is alive and real, it's impossible to do so since the very essence of His existence is written on your heart whether you like it or not. Torus: The funny thing about your statement as to what I will say when I meet all the "other" gods I did't believe in, is that I won't meet any other god, for there is only One God and One mediator between God and man which is Jesus Christ. The fact that you as one who does not beleieve in God are on a "Christian" blog/comment space, shows me that no matter how much you say you don't believe, your still here and I believe your still seeking God's existence. dongard and torus, there is still time to truly seek who He (God) really is. I promise, if you seek Him you will find Him, "if" you seek Him with all your heart.
believer - A good test for a good explanation is whether or not it holds the same validity (or not) if you replace parts of it. Your unwillingness to even discuss your gods can be extended with the same validity (in this case none) to any other gods and/or religion you choose. Consequently it's a meaningless explanation. Oh sure, it may do for you, but that's simply a statement about how much of an unquestioning (you said it) sheep you are.
There is but One God, One Faith, One Way, And His Name is Jesus. There is no other way to Heaven or Salvation but by and through Faith in Jesus Christ, And what he did on the Cross.
There is no Religion on Earth that can do that.
Call it what you will, But one day as the Scripture declare, " We shall all stand before Christ."
The Other thing, is that the title says a lot. Mainstream Church has left its First Love, and gotten off track, by suggesting there is another way to Heaven, or way to get there. There IS only one way. Through Jesus!
God Bless
Rev. Sheila
Thank you for this story. It reflects what I already know about the sad state of Gods Church, His Bride.
Before Revival can come, His Bride must be pure and spotless. There has to be complete unity, and harmony amongst Its people and without that we are not showing anything new to the unbelieving world. Thank you for this article.
God Bless
Rev. Sheila
dongard and torus, Paul must have been speaking of you guys when he said in Romans "professing themselves to be wise they have become fools." You can sit here and cut down the Word of God all you want, but the reality is a day will come when every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. The only issue that needs to be decided in the life of an individual is when will they do that, on this side of glory so they will have the assurance of knowing they are a child of God and have a home in heaven with God for all of eternity or will they make it after they die when it will be everlastingly too late, but the bottom line is every human being will come to the same truth Jesus Christ was telling the truth when He declared of Himself, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no one can come unto the Father but through Me." This is not up for discussion or a vote, it is a fact, God said it and that settles it.
SLopez - And what will you do when you meet all the gods you don't believe in?
John - I suspected you couldn't. All hat and no cowboy as they say.
Did God really say...?
slopez
actually what he is going to tell you is that a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
dongard: The sad thing is, is that when you do meet Him, He won't have to ask you why you didn't believe. When you do see Him, you'll have no other choice but to believe for you will see Him in all His glory. If anything, you WILL regret for not believeing while you were on earth. And thus, the "court" that cried "no evidence" will not only see evidence, but will feel evidence, touch evidence and procalim that the "evidence" you claimed was not there, is Lord!
i stand confident that if i do meet your god, when he/she/it asks why i did not believe
no evidence your lordship quite simply no evidence that this court would admit on its own terms
SLopez
Because GOD SAID SO.
there, without bias.
dongard: It's called a miracle. His name is God. I ask you to give me an analysis of how this world came into being without bias, with true reason and meaning as to how this world and human nature have life.
slopez
i would like to see a chemical analysis of wine and bread that would document the effects if any before and after the blessing.
to whit any change in the structure, composition, atomic weight, mass, specific gravity, please document a single instance of change as required by the record of the last supper.
igh
um... try the thirty years war in present day germany. 30 million dead. villages and even towns destroyed and abandoned for decades and centuries. the effects of that war are still apparent to anyone living or visiting the country.
and here is the reason. everyone had to decide if they were followers of Luther or the Pope. and death to those who made the wrong choice.
that is just one war, there are many many others, and as a historian i can and will drag them out and display the sorry record of death if you want to go there.
Torus: In retrospect, Pick a central argument from Matthew, Mark, Luke or John and refute it. Go on. Any central argument you like. Indulge me.
As far as this article is concerned, I guess I find myself in that 70% who think there are many ways to God -- not that I plan to try one of the other ways.
wbmoore, I left a loooong post for you re: "presbuteros" over at "The Anglicans won't throw the rascals out" article. It's a little out of place there, and I won't post it here, but if you have any comment, I'd like to read it.
i dont know what misery and deaths Christians have caused, and yes Jesus is a Christ-ian :D
God told Abraham he'd be a father to a host of nations. I don't see there being one kingdom here. In fact, I'd argue that it would be rather selfish of me to suggest that my way was the only way. Maybe if we spent more time discussing God. You know faith, love and charity instead of trumping up and defining self (as in my way - whether Christian or not - is the only way) we'd find some way to get along.
Love ya all, Pete
John - If your best argument is an ad hominem attack against myself and the popular atheists of the day then I can see why you turned to religion. Lack of application of critical thought is one our biggest complaints. Pick a central argument by Dawkins (or Harris or Hitchens or...) and refute it. Go on. Any central argument you like. Indulge me.
dongard--
I used to be an agnostic and skeptic. I researched the truth claims of the Christian Faith for myself. The arrogance of the atheists point of view, given their appallingly weak arguments, are surpassed only by their obnoxious presentation and demeanor.
The one supreme thing that comes through loud and clear with the garden variety atheist, more than anything, and especially from the likes of the Dawkins and Harris crew, is that they are little more than anti-authoritarian adolescents with Daddy issues.
torus--
You come to a Christian message forum and regurgitate warmed over Dawkins and Harris that you've rehearsed, and you call us weak?
I've been nominal christian. I've been agnostic. I've been pagan. I've been a true Christian. Life is much better as a follower of Christ.
As Online4Him wrote, Jesus is the ONLY WAY. You are free to believe or not. But if Scripture is right, you will suffer for it. On the other hand, if I am wrong, I have lost nothing.
dongard, "go beyond our pagan roots" for those of us who are truly a child of God we took that step the moment we repented of our sins and sinful lifestyles and turn to God by putting our faith and trust in the person and finished work of His Son, Jesus Christ.
It takes more faith for a man to believe himself capable of being God, than to believe in the Creator God of the Bible. No offence, dongard, but it sounds like you are taking one step closer to your pagan roots than one step away from them.
its not that i don't respect the contributions of christians over the last 2000 years. even if some of those contributions came at a very high price in the misery and deaths christians have caused.
but now in light of all we have learned and stand prepared to learn, it is time to go one god more beyond our pagan roots and stand on our own feet. to feel what it means to be ourselves without myths. it is our time stand up and take the universe as it is. not as we dream it should be.
JM9 - If God does save them, it can only be through the door that He provided: Jesus Christ. If it can be done any other way, then the death of Jesus was meaningless.
Being a Christian is a life time of revelation and it ends in bodily death. So why should polls be alarmist, that those who believe in Jesus as the living son of God, like me, many have thoughts that being a Christian which is good in itself, that God can't save others who may lack faith or knowledge.
Dongard and torus -
I love you - in an agape way, of course.
"What most people are saying is, 'Hey, we don't have a hammer-lock on God or salvation, and God's bigger than us and we should respect that and respect other peopleâ€ÂÂ
All if not most will agree that God is absolutely bigger than us and that we should continuously respect other people but why (if believers) not also take God at his WORD?
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me – John 14:6.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved – Acts 4:12.
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ – 1Corinthians 3:11.
Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords – 1Timothy 6:15.
100percent of Christians believe Jesus is the ONLY way
I bet many of those people who think there are "other" ways to heaven, at one time or another, signed a form in church or "prayed a little prayer" to become a "christian". Churhes don't teach the true way to heaven. Repentance and confession are left out. You come to the Lord with nothing. Most people are incorrectly taught that they can have their "sin" and Jesus too!! It has led to many people sitting in what once was a Bible teaching church, believing everything BUT the Bible. It's all or nothing. Jesus or not. Truth or a lie.
A link to this article has been posted on the website GoodNewsNow.com.
john - I'm just doing my small part to help the people here with their weaknesses.
dongard--
Yeah, I too have faith that one man, standing alone, armed with the truth, can change the hearts and minds of those around him. You want to hear the truth?
torus--
And you felt the need to come to a "superstitious" message board and post that little witicism, did you?
"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through me." - John 14:6
Yeah, Jesus sure left it open for other ways to eternal life than through believing in him, didn't he? Christianity is an exclusive faith, offering exclusive truth, just as all faiths are. It is only postmodernism that has allowed this PC-mulitcultural rubbish to infect the populace with the idea that truth is not exclusive. "Your truth isn't my truth, man!"
The Christian faith has always been based on the exclusive truth of faith in Christ for eternal life. If there are other ways to Heaven, other ways to attain eternal life, then there was no need for Christ to come and die for our sins, and his atoning sacrifice on the Cross was pointless and a waste of time.
Jesus is the one and only way to Heaven and to eternal life with the Father. Yes, this offends the current, PC, postmodern culture and I say GOOD. Paul said that the message of the Gospelwas foolishness to those who were perishing, that it was meant to confound the wisdom of the wise and that the Cross was an *offense*.
Yes! America is slowly but surely turning its back on superstition!
One of the papal documents (after Vatican II) even said that God's grace was sufficient enough for those who have not heard of Christ to enter heaven.
Since Jesus said, "No one can come to me except through the Father" would this include those who have never had the opportunity to hear of Christ?
For me, personally, I don't believe that someone was there with a steno pad recording everything, word for word, that Jesus said.
As far as what he did or did not say, when I get to heaven, I'll ask him.
Let me clarify the "..any and all could get into heaven." I mean to say that any and all, regardless if they have accepted Jesus as their savior, could get into heavn.
Sorry 'bout that!
This article proves that American needs a major revival and each denomination needs to do a much better job in teaching the Christian faith to their respective members.
One major teaching that all denominations must reject is that there is any other way, but Christ to salvation and eternal life. Every Christian denomination must agree that Jesus is the only way to heaven!
Unfortunately, this is where I was 2 years ago. Praise God that he opened my eyes and pulled me closer to Him because the devil had taken hold of my logical ways and tried to convince me that any and all people could get into heaven.
I will be praying that God will shed some light on all those thousands of people that are as confused as I was.
Tolerance is a virtue, as a Catholic Christian, and having gone to a evangelical school with Catholic professors and students amoung them, it was not hard to learn from others, however we must be respectful of others.
Quecat, at that sham of a conference they called the New Baptist Covenant Celebration hosted by Jimmy, Bill, and Al they actually had workshops that were propagating this kind of heretical garbage. A lot of Southern Baptists don't care for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship,(CBF), and for the most part I don't either, but the one good thing they did was take a good majority of those in the SBC who believed this nonsense with them to play church as opposed to be the church.
dongard, we do too His name is Jesus Christ and He said of Himself, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no one can come unto the Father but through Me" and He also said that He cam to give sight to the blind, so you are in very good company!
70% of 35,000 = religious tolerance = C-L-U-E-L-E-S-S
Christ did NOT say that "I am ONE of the ways" or "I am the BEST way" or "I am the NEWEST way".
Cultural christianity ~ a useless and deadly delusion that far too many are suffering from.
funny.
I was just thinking the exact same thing in regards to you.
Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6
Christ IS the truth.
i have faith that one man, standing alone, armed with the truth can truly make a difference and change the hearts of the those who are blind.
dongard, if Christians are such a bad lot of people as you say we are why do you hang out with us so much?
i remain amazed, and yes that is naive, that we are still asking this question. no your faith is not the only way. it has never been. your way is the road to murder and torture and the never ending suffering of all those who have to live around you. so many millions have died in the cause of your way.
if a god does exist
if jesus does exist
then please is it not time enough
how many more must die
before we can all sleep in the sand?
John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
Acts 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
http://itsallaboutjesusnotme.blogspot.com
And then their are some who question why the Church in America desperately needs God's Revival. As I have said in other posts we are now beginning to pay the price for the Cheap Grace Salvation message which has loaded many of our evangelical churches with members who have never made genuine professions of faith in Christ. May God forgive us and send us His Revival.
"The statistics show, more than anything else, that many who describe themselves as Catholics do not know or understand the teachings of their church," said Denver Roman Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput. "Being Catholic means believing what the Catholic church teaches. It is a communion of faith, not simply of ancestry and family tradition. It also means that the church ought to work harder at evangelizing its own members."
THANK YOU AND WELL SAID ARCHBISHOP!